Re: [asa] Results of Cameron's Survey

From: Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
Date: Mon Jun 29 2009 - 13:28:50 EDT

Just a quick follow-up to request that further discussions and responses continue in Cameron's thread "Observational vs. Theoretical Differences in Scenarios" instead of here. I didn't mean to open up a branch that takes away from the survey question there. It would be great to know what people think on this topic. I've been fascinated by Cameron's contributions at the ASA list and the ground for rapprochement between ID and TE doesn't seem quite as far away when he presents his positions. In the "Observational vs. Theoretical Differences in Scenarios" thread, such topics as "in a way that is indistinguishable" and thus Terry's option #4 can be discussed and the results, in summary, can be added to this thread. Personally, I won't contribute, but will compile the results of the survey. Cheers, Gregory ________________________________ From: Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> To: asa@calvin.edu Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:27:21 PM Subject: [asa] Results of Cameron's Survey Since I am the lone sociologist here, let me take the opportunity to provide service that may be of interest to the list. I'll compile a list from the responses that are given to Cameron's survey, as a way of summarizing the results. Here is the survey from the thread "Observation vs. Theoretical Differences in Scenarios": Let us take a look at three broad speculative explanations (note that I deliberately avoid the word "scientific") for the reptile-mammal transition:   1.  Reptiles became mammals by purely stochastic processes; there was no design in the appearance of any mutation, and God did not lift a pinky (other than to sustain the laws of nature) during the whole process. 2.  Reptiles became mammals by a deterministic, front-loaded process; there was inbuilt design regarding at least the main thrust of the process, but beyond inserting that inbuilt design (at the beginning of life, or perhaps even at the beginning of the universe), God did not lift a pinky (other than to sustain the laws of nature) during the whole process. 3.  God (or space aliens, if you prefer) steered the alterations of the genomes of reptiles until they became mammals, actually causing nature to produce *what it otherwise would never have produced*.  (Note that this answer does not entirely exclude elements of stochastic and deterministic processes, but subordinates them to, or coordinates them with, a guiding hand, and is not in the slightest degree embarrassed to use the word "guidance".)    Cameron's survey question to ASA: "Which of the three scenarios above is the one that -- in your own personal view -- *actually happened*?" So far in response: Terry Gray wrote: "#3 is the only view I would even come close to accepting...However, I don't like #3...Hence, I would like to offer a #4 that I  think many on the list here will endorse." Terry's #4 is as follows: "4. God steered the alterations of the genomes of reptiles until they became mammals in a way that is indistinguishable from it occurring via purely stochastic processes." Schwarzwald wrote: "I'd have to answer #2 or #3" Dave Wallace wrote: "place me in category 3." Cameron also answered his own question, writing: "I opt for #2 or #3." Gregory Arago adds his answer: #2 or #3. As more answers come in the list will be compiled... ________________________________ The new Internet Explorer® 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 29 13:29:43 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 29 2009 - 13:29:43 EDT