Re: [asa] ID: Neither Science nor Religion

From: Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com>
Date: Tue Jul 01 2008 - 15:45:03 EDT

Hi PvM,

To be fair to the list here, we should let people know that you and I have
argued about these matters hundreds of times. And I literally mean hundreds
of times. Since I am a guest on this list, I don't feel comfortable
subjecting people's email boxes to another series of endless point-by-point
disputes where you are not impressed by my arguments and I am not impressed
by your arguments. We've been down that road many times before. Thus,
unless many other express interest in such a show, I'll refrain from the
temptation.

Let me simply point out the following. The original essay to this list
clarifies where *I* am coming from. I summarize *my* theological leanings
and *my* reasons for contemplating things from the ID perspective. I am
describing one way in which someone can accept both TE and ID.

Your reply fails to address the substance of my essay, but instead tries to
immediately steer things back to the views and beliefs of leaders in the ID
movement (which, I assume, is very old news around here). This is why my
discussion of stereotypes is entirely appropriate and accurate. I don't
think you have the epistemic right to drown out my voice with the
rabble-rousing of others.

You wrote, "We all suffer from biases, the question is thus not the
existence of bias but rather the validity of the arguments."

Indeed, but who gets to decide the validity of the arguments? After
re-reading your replies, I am struck by the fact that the validity of my
arguments in the OP remain intact. While you may be under the faulty
impression that I was trying to extrapolate my views as some type of cover
for the ID movement, thus explaining your immediate topic change to the ID
movement, the message is less ambitious - I am pointing out the fact that
not all ID proponents are accurately described by the common anti-ID
stereotypes. Would you have me remain silent about this fact?

Finally, I cannot resist comment on your last point:

"Such is life I guess and such is why most critics of ID have come to ignore
this minor subculture which seems to ride the coat tails of its parent
without doing any hard work to differentiate itself, other than by claiming
that they are being stereotyped. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck
and quacks like a duck, what am I but to conclude? Surely your response has
only served to strengthen my arguments that ID is not defined by its small
subculture but rather by its mainstream. Thus when claiming that ID is not
religious, ignores the simple facts of reason."

Note carefully how you define "ID." It's not a logical, philosophical,
scientific, scholarly, or investigative definition. It is a *social*
definition - "ID is not defined by its small subculture but rather by its
mainstream." You define a concept by the behavior and beliefs of the
"mainstream" who advocate one version of ID and this "mainstream" is defined
by those who most successfully get media attention. I view this definition
as an expression of anti-intellectualism, as a truly academic attempt to
define would be more nuanced and view the ID movement as but one expression
of an argument that is thousands of years old and deeply intertwined with
Western civilization.

- Mike Gene

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 15:45:44 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 01 2008 - 15:45:44 EDT