Re: [asa] The "new" Uncommon Descent

From: Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
Date: Thu Dec 04 2008 - 04:34:29 EST

I was banned (or vaporised, if one prefers this term) from UD more than a year ago, so I have no bone to pick with promoting it. I also didn't find it a welcome venue for constructive dialogue, at least in its 'old' version.
 
That said, any person who accepts 'evolutionary theory' simply *must* accept that 'things can change.' The 'old' may be entirely different (e.g. categorically) from the 'new.' Thus, the possibility that UD could change-over-time into a venue that supports constructive dialogue is necessarily affirmed. Any person who accepts evolutionary theory, as does Michael Roberts, is obliged to recognize this, otherwise they are being dishonest to the theory.
 
In regard to 'guts' I'd simply welcome Michael to have a race with me someday on his bicycle, which I know he loves to ride. He may not understand why anyone would choose to discuss such controversial topics as creation, evolution and intelligent design under pseudonym. To Michael, as a geologist, there may even appear to be 'no controversy'! Yet this flies in the face of what is actually happening in the academy today (i.e. not for retired academics, but for active ones, which Timaeus is, according to Ted Davis' introduction of him) - there is a legitimate difference of opinions about the application of 'evolution' in various settings. Geology-centrism is an obvious case of hubris!
 
The real issue is not about a 'cross-fertilisation' of TE (not to forget EC) and ID, but rather about finding a new pathway forward that can go beyond the limitations of both ID and TE/EC pov's. Let's move beyond 19th and 20th century language (cf. T.S. Eliot - "last year's words"). 
 
Obviously the weaknesses of TE and EC are in some ways similar to the weaknesses in ID. One is conforming science to theology, the other is conforming theology to science. Let us hope that a third way might emerge that supports a theologically responsible position that defends its sovereignty against the power of natural science and naturalism, so that a view of 21st century religious philosophy can be integrated and that Ascent, rather than merely Descent, and human selection rather than natural selection (or otherwise a karmic view from the east will prosper) can be entertained.
 
After all, the topics of 'pattern recognition' and 'specification' placed within the context of information theory in an 'information age' (Daniel Bell), are significant contributions to knowledge today, even if they are considered entirely separate from the IDM. 
 
Gregory

--- On Thu, 12/4/08, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [asa] The "new" Uncommon Descent
To: "Stephen Matheson" <smatheso@calvin.edu>, "ASA List" <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Received: Thursday, December 4, 2008, 12:09 PM

#yiv2073083139 {
MARGIN:4px 4px 1px;LINE-HEIGHT:normal;FONT-VARIANT:normal;}
#yiv2073083139 P {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;MARGIN-BOTTOM:0px;}

Whenever I look at Uncommon descent I come away in blank amazement, whether the comments or the attitudes.I have just looked at it and find it equally bad.  It seems that any poster who dares to say anything intelligent is "vaporized" as happened to David. This means that Timaeus (why doesn't he have the guts to say who he is?) is wishing for the impossible for cross-fertilisation of TE and ID.
 
Perhaps the only sensible thing to do is to withdraw and plug away elsewhere.
 
Michael __________________________________________________________________ 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.
Received on Thu Dec 4 04:35:00 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 04 2008 - 04:35:00 EST