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

From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Date: Thu Jul 03 2008 - 10:14:50 EDT

Yes, "God did it, but how?" is an appropriate attitude for a scientists who is a Christian. But ID encourages & even demands the belief that at some point for some systems or processes the scientist has to stop asking the "But how?" question. Rich B's post yesterday, with his summary of Behe's response at Dover to the "how" work that's been done on the immune system is a devastating demonstration of that. Note that that response was not that the cited work was wrong but that it was "not enough." That shows pretty clearly that he thinks that there must be some point, no matter whether we know what it is or not, where the "How?" question shouldn't be asked.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald F Calbreath" <dcalbreath@whitworth.edu>
To: "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 10:04 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] Four myths about I.D.; four myths about T.E.

>
> Gregory wrote"
> "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 simply 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 It is outdated, obsolete...a trickle down effect of recognition to those who persist in this is apparently the only solution."
>
> All I can say is "Amen". Christians (liberal, conservative, evangelical, Pentecostal/charismatic, and anyone else) should strongly protest the thinking that only "natural" causes are allowed as explanations. Accepting the supernatural as a reality should be fundamental to believers. We don't need to just say "God did it" and stop there. My biochemistry research in the past was driven in part by "God did it, but how?" I've never seen ID as a "science stopper". There is more discussion about modern science (papers, reports, meetings) in ID circles that I have seen on this listserv. Folks here seem to spend a lot of time debating obscure ANE histories and texts in attempts to understand Scripture. I don't think God meant for it to be that hard for us to hear what He is saying. The "science stopper" in my opinion is not the ID research, but the response of the larger scientific community when somebody submits a paper for publication that even faintly smells like ID. In!
>
> stant rejection, no matter how well the research was carried out.
>
> Don
> ________________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Gregory Arago [gregoryarago@yahoo.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:06 PM
> To: George Murphy
> Cc: Collin Brendemuehl; ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] Four myths about I.D.; four myths about T.E.
>
> 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 <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
> From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Four myths about I.D.; four myths about T.E.
> To: "Rich Blinne" <rich.blinne@gmail.com>, "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Collin Brendemuehl" <collinb@brendemuehl.net>, "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> 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!<http://www.flickr.com/gift/>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 3 10:18:02 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 03 2008 - 10:18:02 EDT