Re: [asa] New AAAS Statement Decries "Profound Dishonesty" of Intelligent Design Movie

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Apr 28 2008 - 20:16:39 EDT

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 4:40 PM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ok, but the AAAS Statement also includes this:
>
> "We hope lawmakers will follow the course of Judge John Jones III, who
> ruled in the Dover, Pa. case that intelligent
> design meets none of the tests of a scientific theory and is simply an
> updated version of century-old creationist arguments."
>
> Does the AAAS really want Judge Jones' constipated demarcation of
> "science" to govern all future discussion of such questions? Is the AAAS
> even qualified to opine about this?

Of course not. It seems everybody wants to opine outside their area of
expertise. Speaking of Dover, I was re-reading John Haught's testimony. In
that testimony he "played a lawyer on TV" and thought that an atheist
imposing his materialism on the science would also be unconstitutional. What
think you of this laymen's attempt at lawyering? It seems to me that
demarcating out ID also demarcates out all the Richard Dawkinses of the
World.

>
> And this:
>
> "At a time when the United States faces serious economic challenges, we
> cannot risk derailing efforts to provide the best possible science education
> for the next generation of problem solvers."
>
> Which is not quite as silly and offensive as equating everyone who accepts
> evolution with Nazi stormtroopers, but is definitely a response in kind.
> I.e.: anyone who takes any design idea seriously is a backwards fundie
> hick.
>
>
*Sigh* This is what the warfare model gets you. Could we puh-leeze have some
adults in the room?

And I'd also note this from the AAAS statement: "Proponents of the
> intelligent design
> movement believe that an intelligent designer, rather than evolution, is
> responsible for key developments in the emergence of life."
>
> So an "intelligent designer" can't have used "evolution" to accomplish
> his/her/its design? Isn't this "evolution *or* God" at the end of the
> day?

IMHO this is a factual statement. When I tried to both/and the two positions
I got "expelled" from Uncommon Descent. So, people like myself are --
according to the Bill Dembskis of the World -- not an intelligent design
proponent.

And it's not just them. My oldest daughter was discussing Expelled with some
of her friends in her High School youth group. They told her that if you
believed in evolution you cannot be a Christian. I guess it escaped them
that two of the "good guy" interviewees, John Polkinghorne and Alister
McGrath, are TEs. In fact, Polkinghorne says the following about ID:

  The basic problem with ID is that God is never spoken of as a "designer"
> in the Bible: He is Creator and Father and a Father does not "design" his
> children.
> It seems that Evolution is one of the principles, like Gravity, which God
> has used to create the Universe: there is no more a conflict between
> Evolution and Creation than between Gravity and Creation. ID also makes a
> scientific claim of identifying molecular biological systems of irreducable
> complexity, but I do not believe it has made its case. It is not enough to
> consider a single system in isolation, since evolution works in an
> improvisatory way, coopting what has been useful for one purpose to help
> acheive another. ID also seems tacitly to make the theological mistake that
> God, who is the creator and sustainer of nature, would not be conetent to
> work through natural processes, which are as much expressions of the divine
> will as anything else.

Speaking of Alister McGrath. He will one of the key speakers at an upcoming
conference on Natural Theology. http://www.naturaltheology.org/ Another one
the speakers, John Haught!

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 28 20:17:36 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 28 2008 - 20:17:36 EDT