Re: [asa] ID: Neither Science nor Religion

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Jul 01 2008 - 02:30:20 EDT

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
> Hi PvM,

> Commonly applied is just that - commonly applied. In other words, more
> popular. In other words, easier to run across due to media attention and
> socio-political rabble-rousing. But as someone who has extensively used the
> internet to interact with numerous ID proponents over the last eight years,
> I can inform folks that "commonly applied" also means stereotype. I have
> met many people over the years who consider themselves supportive of ID, yet
> who would not conform to the common, pop media stereotypes of ID. After
> all, ID itself means different things to different people.

And thus the concept of ID becomes nebulous almost to a level of being useless.

Hey Greg, good to hear from you again

>Do you see, ASA, the problem of what happens when a person opposes 'natural' to 'supernatural' and to nothing else? It is used as a >weapon by some as much as others would use it to teach and enlighten. Pim uses it to ridicule 'intelligent design,' not as a way of uplifting >the divine!

Indeed, ID should be ridiculed for is vacuous positions on science and
its shaky and dangerous theology, and not to mention its attempts to
introduce religious concepts back into science and science education.
The founders of ID have been quite clear and while we have witnessed a
recent whitewashing of history under the concept of 'teach the
controversy', it is clear that there is no real controversy in science
as to evolutionary theory.

>As it turns out, PvM speaks merely as an 'outsider' - who is he to tell intelligent design advocates who they are and who they are not, >what they believe and what they don't? It would be like telling someone they are not a Boston Celtics fan, they are even not a Boston >Celtics fan, when really, they do cheer for B.C.! Pim is not an 'insider' to ID, and hasn't show the courage to publicly declare himself >(cheering for Darwinian evolution) as Mike Gene has just done in this thread speaking for both TE and ID.

What some may see as courage other may see as simple unfamiliarity
with the historical facts of the ID movement. Now I understand that
some may wish that the founders of ID had been more careful in hiding
not just its religious motivations but also had refrained from
defining design the way they did and yet, this is what happened. I
have no reason to express my explicit support for evolutionary theory,
as a scientist I have to accept the solid foundation of the science
involved. I am not sure what you mean by Darwinian evolution, as this
is a somewhat dated concept which fails to recognize the decades of
exciting research, hypotheses and theories that form the foundations
for evolutionary theory.
I need not be an ID advocate to be able to understand their
motivations, their scientifically vacuous concepts and what I have
come to see as theologically risky position. ID proponents have
defined themselves and their positions quite well and if others want
to reuse the same name for a different concept then they are inviting
confusion.

I understand Gregory's obsession with ID and the human social sciences
and yet ID has made claims that it does belong to the scientific realm
and I intend to treat it as such while the so called social sciences
seem to be struggling with the concept. Mike is free to explain his
definitions of ID and I am surely free to explain to Mike why I
disagree with his statements.

Now I am thrilled that Mike (and Greg) have come to agree that ID is
not scientific, a minority position amongst ID proponents, although we
have to be careful with the term ID and not confusingly apply it to
two very different concepts. However, I disagree with Mike's
suggestion that ID is not religious but rather more like a police
investigation, when in fact ID has no similarities to such an analogy.
Let's see where the 'path of the future' may lead rather than proclaim
victory against reality. As ID proponents have clearly stated, "Design
theorists are no friends of theistic evolution. "

>
>
> As for me? I'm simply offering people a chance to move beyond the
> superficial analysis and uncover an intellectual world that goes a little
> deeper than something you would read in a newspaper.

Is that all? How do you intend to achieve such a nobel goal? After
all, what may seem to some, less informed, as superficial analysis
actually goes to the heart of the argument regarding ID namely that ID
as formulated by the mainstream proponents, in fact, those who started
the movement and defined the concept, is a scientifically vacuous
concept which is founded in religious motivations and concepts. I have
no problem with the latter, after all different people find
'salvation' in different manners however I do object to the scientific
lack of relevance of ID and its attempts to undermine science
education in this country and beyond for theological reasons.

Perhaps you should chose a less confusing name for what you propose
since 'design' is taken as representing our level of ignorance.
So what do you have to offer that you believe will achieve your promises?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 1 02:30:58 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 01 2008 - 02:30:58 EDT