Re: [asa] Four myths about I.D.; four myths about T.E.

From: PvM <>
Date: Thu Jul 03 2008 - 03:28:02 EDT

I agree with George that ID is a science stopper and Gregory seems to
admit as much when he attempts to defend ID. While Gregory may
complain about science only being able to deal with the natural
however there is no evidence that Gregory has something better to
offer. Hence his somewhat foolish 'challenge' to George.
Given the lack of much more than wishful thinking, I understand Gregory's anger.

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Gregory Arago <> wrote:
> Did you 'design' your message George, or is there another term you would
> rather choose to express how it 'emerged' into existence (from nothing into
> something)?
> Taking sciences other than 'natural sciences' into consideration is a long
> overdue chore for ASA to take on. Will it require some effort to achieve
> this? Yes! Unfortunately, such a task seems doubtful given the configuration
> of members up to this point (a feature that Randy has already acknowledged,
> speaking for the support of more social-humanitarian thinkers). The IDM has
> done a seemingly better job at diversifying than the ASA has, given their
> member proportions.
> Until the illusion that 'science' deals ONLY with the 'natural' is exposed
> and overcome, much of the communication here will continue to run into
> barriers. The near-emptiness of natural vs. supernatural-and-nothing-ELSE in
> the contemporary academy simpy can no longer be maintained with integrity.
> It is outdated, obsolete...a trickle down effect of recognition to those
> who persist in this is apparently the only solution.
> Is ID a science stopper? Of course not! Think of the many young Americans
> who have been spurred on to study 'science' more in-depth because 'the
> controversy' over ID vs. Darwinian evolution has inspired them. Perhaps a
> problem is that you are thinking, George, of material and efficient
> causality, rather than about formal and final causality. It seems the
> definition of 'doing science' has been held captive by a certain type of
> philosophical approach, which may indeed one day be liberated from the
> sociologically-controlled meaning of 'science'. Once one hegemony falls,
> perhaps another will take its place...but it seems to me there are many
> scholars ready to acknowledge that the spiritual and the material, the
> social-humanitarian and the natural science may not be as far apart as the
> late-modern ideology of what 'science' is and isn't (can and can't
> be) commonly dictated.
> It is a wonder if ASA is willing to 'fight/contend' for freedom too!
> Oh, yeah, and just for the record, I'm ready and willing to challenge George
> Murphy that TE is a far, far greater 'science stopper' than ID is. TE is
> complacency personified (trust P.T.d.Ch. and T.D., but just DON'T mention
> them)! But of course, as we all now know, George isn't interested to defend
> theistic evolution (or any of its derivatives), so that's probably another
> challenge to his position that will not be willingly engaged. ;-)
> Arago
> p.s. saw Ken Miller et al. today at Darwin: The Evolution Revolution
> exhibition in Toronto (ROM); only so far and no further can one believe the
> ideology tucked safely inside his very-near-scientism - a real philosophical
> upgrade is needed, one that perhaps Miller's non-naturalistic advisors have
> not yet prepared him for
> --- On Wed, 7/2/08, George Murphy <> wrote:
> From: George Murphy <>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Four myths about I.D.; four myths about T.E.
> To: "Rich Blinne" <>, "PvM" <>
> Cc: "Collin Brendemuehl" <>, "ASA" <>
> Received: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 6:58 PM
> Is ID a science stopper? Of course it's quite possible for a person who
> believes in ID (in the technical sense of thinking that intelligent design &
> a designer can & indeed should be parts of a scientific explanation) to do
> scientific research in other areas. & she can do the negative scientific
> work of trying to find things that non-ID (e.g., "Darwinian") theories
> haven't explained. & if that person takes seriously the idea that the
> designer could have been ETs or some other created agent then she could
> search for evidence of directed panspermia or something of the sort. There
> Gregory's arguments about needing to take sciences other than the "natural"
> ones into account would be relevant. So in any of those ways ID isn't
> necessarily a science stopper.
> But the real idea held by the great majority of ID proponents is that the
> Designer is God. So once the ID researcher has come to the conclusion
> (correctly or not) that a particular system or process cannot be (not just
> "has not been") explained without explicit introduction of design by God
> (whether or not that qualification is stated explicitly), what can she do?
> The person who believes that God works within the capacities of
> creatures can agree that the system or process in question was in some sense
> designed by God, & then go on to search for natural processes which God may
> have used, thus staying within the boundaries of accepted scientific
> procedure. A fortiori, an atheist will search for a "natural explanation."
> But this possibility has ruled out by the IDer. So what is she to do?
> Start investigating God scientifically with controlled experiments &c? If
> she recognizes that this is inappropriate on theological grounds ("You shall
> not put the LORD your God to the test") then her scientific investigation
> has indeed been stopped.
> So in the most important sense yes, ID is a science stopper.
> Shalom
> George
> ________________________________
> Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 3 03:28:28 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 03 2008 - 03:28:28 EDT