Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

American Scientific Affiliation — Whatever happened to its mission?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The ASA (American Scientific Affiliation) is an organization of scientists who are Christians. It has traditionally been strongly pro theistic evolution. Its most prominent member is Francis Collins. I’m also a member.

About three years ago I received the following mass mailing from the ASA’s Jack Haas (I’ve known Jack since 1990 and our exchanges have always been cordial). In this letter he describes how the ASA had, in times past, been concerned to address “the sweeping tide of scientific materialism,” but had recently decided to change its emphasis to combat young-earth creationism.

If the problem with young-earth creationism is that it is off by a few orders of magnitude about the age of the earth and universe, the problem with scientific materialism is that is off by infinite orders of magnitude about what is ultimately the nature of nature. When I received this letter, I was so upset that I decided to let my membership (which I had maintained since the 1980s) lapse. Only at the instance of some fellow ID proponents in the organization did I decide to stay.

I write this post to put into perspective Denyse O’Leary’s recent remarks about the “gutting of a spiritual tradition from within” (see here — the relevance of her remarks to the ASA cannot be missed) and to highlight that with the efforts by Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris to ramp up their propaganda for atheism since this letter by Jack Haas was written suggests that the ASA was mistaken in shifting its emphasis away from “the sweeping tide of scientific materialism.”

Lay Education Committee of the
American Scientific Affiliation
PO Box 668 ~ 55 Market Street
Ipswich, MA 01938

November 2003

Greetings,

I am writing to report the progress of the Lay Education Committee (LEC) on the “educational package for the person in the pew designed to promote a better understanding of the place of science within a Christian worldview.”

ASA’s original concern “for the waning faith of modern youth subjected to the sweeping tide of scientific materialism” was set aside for other interests as the times changed and the organization grew larger. As a result, our direct impact on the local church has been minimal.

At the 2000 Annual Meeting at Gordon College, some members discussed the difficulties that evangelicals have with questions deemed to have both scientific and biblical input. Later, the ASA office received a letter and a substantial gift from one participant challenging us to reach out to the church laity. He noted:

[BEGIN BLOCKQUOTE]The young-earth message has bitten deeply into the evangelical culture, and people trust this message. What will it take to show people believably that the young-earth view is not the only possible one, without undermining the Christianity or sincerity of those that hold that position?[END BLOCKQUOTE]

The ASA Council directed the formation of a committee to respond to the challenge. The LEC first met at the 2001 Annual Meeting. It was decided to develop an educational package that could be adapted for church adults and high school students, Christian schools and home schools. The package will consist of a 300-page book, 60-minute DVD and teaching/study guide. At this point, much of the book has been completed and we are starting work on the DVD and teaching/study guide. Publication is expected by mid-2005 unless we run into a financial roadblock.

Much of the project is expected to be funded by foundation grants. We have already received encouraging responses. The total budget will exceed $250,000 which includes production and marketing costs. Many of us have given large blocks of time in planning, writing and management of this project. Now we need your financial help! We need your gifts both to accomplish the project and to indicate to foundations our commitment to it. At the same time, I want to express my concern that you not forget the need to support the general budget of the ASA. Executive Director Don Munro reports that member contributions are significantly down this year. Any gifts to the LEC project should be in addition to your usual ASA contribution.

I would be pleased to respond to any questions via snip@comcast.net. Thank you for hearing me out — and for your support. Please make out your check to the ASA marked as LEC project.

Jack Haas
For the LEC Committee

Comments
My Cracks and Serials... I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view...My Cracks and Serials
April 20, 2008
April
04
Apr
20
20
2008
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
George Murphy: A scientist qua scientist should be very hesitant to make such a claim about any phenomenon. If he/she does so it’s a statement that that phenomenon is outside the bounds of scientific explanation & is a miracle in the strictest sense.
This is simply not true. If we find information written in a language (including within a cell), that is excellent evidence of intelligent agency. Only intelligent agents create language. But language does not require or prove the miraculous.
... & if that’s the case, the scientist should not pretend that it’s going to be part of a scientific research program. We can’t do experiments on God.
ID has never proposed or required doing experiments on God. (Nor does the ID inference require that the intelligence is God.) We can, however, make observations about intelligence and intelligent agency in distinction from natural processes. Those are certainly within the reach of scientific research.
But yes, as far as I’m concerned, scientific arguments in themselves cannot in any strict sense tell us that there is “intelligent intervention beyond natural processes” In other words, I reject the possibility of a legitimate independent natural theology - & that on theological grounds.
Thank you for your honesty about excluding the possibility that scientific arguments could infer "intelligent intervention beyond natural processes". My central point about the pivotal distinction between TE and ID has been that TE embraces methodological naturalism (or scientific materialism) and rejects by definition the possibility of an inference to intelligent agency for any natural effect. That said, it is clearly not true that we cannot infer intelligent intervention beyond natural processes. As MatthewTan said, "If we see a watch on Planet Mars, does it mean that science cannot determine that the watch is designed?" If we receive a message from outer space, we will also surely infer intelligence and not natural processes. When you say "I reject the possibility of a legitimate independent natural theology" I will note in passing that the apostle Paul does not share your view (cf. Romans 1). Aside from that, I hope you will eventually realize that you have been creating a straw man and then rejecting the straw man. ID does not provide an independent natural theology. When you come to understand what ID in biology is actually claiming and why, you will see that it cannot even claim to infer the supernatural, let alone deity. It is infering intelligence. Some who acknowledge that intelligence is necessarily do in fact argue for natural intelligence, rather than supernatural, and they were doing so a decade or more before what you have depicted in your paper as the start of the ID movement. You were a bit "concerned" earlier about the prospect that someone might not be willing to try to truly understand TE. I hope you will apply that same standard to yourself toward the end of gaining a more accurate understanding of ID.ericB
April 26, 2007
April
04
Apr
26
26
2007
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
rblinne, and all evolutionary creationists, and all ID creationists, and all ID evolutionists: many of you TEs prefer to call yourself "evolutionary creationists". I think that is good, and whoever is comfortable with it should call themselves "evolutionary creationists" when the situation warrants it. And I salute you, evolutionary creationists! You are not ashamed or embarassed to identify yourself with creationists! Similarly, I suggest that ID advocates should not hesitate to call ourselves "ID creationists" or "ID evolutionists" when the situation warrants it. I am ID advocate - 30% leaning to evolution, 70% leaning to creation. Making clear who we are and what we believe - not science, but belief - is the best answer to those who laid charges against us calling us Creationist Trojan Horse. And it also prepares us for future court battle, saying loudly that ID can be creationists or evolutionists! Calling yourself ID creationist does not reduce the status of ID as a scientific enquiry, just like calling oneself evolutionary creationist does not reduce the status of evolution as a scientific enquiry. But I wonder, how is it possible for evolutionary creationists not to accept Intelligent Design? Do you evolutionary creationists understand Intelligent Design? How is it possible for God to initiate evolution leading to the creation of man without intelligent design?MatthewTan
April 26, 2007
April
04
Apr
26
26
2007
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Matthew Tan, It is obviously much more complicated than my quick one liners but where I heard both was Monophysites - On the video, Christianity, the first 2000 years and similar things in Bat Yeor's two books "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam : From Jihad to Dhimmitude : Seventh-Twentieth Century " and "Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide " Also involved were believers in Nestorianism who were Christians mostly located in present day Iraq and Persia. I always wondered how these areas collapsed so fast and this is apparently one of the reasons. The people in the East did not like the Byzantines very much. I believe some of these Christians also helped the Parthians fight Byzantium just before the Arab invasions. They also did not realize that the invasion was based on religion and initially thought it was just Arab raiders seeking booty. The comment about Constantinople came from a Teaching Company course on Byzantium. At the end the only thing that still existed was the city itself, nearly all the empire had been lost mostly to the Ottomans. It has been a couple years since I looked at this course so I would have to go back and find where the quote was made. There was a lot of animosity between Constantinople and the West as they fought with each other and competed in trade. Most of the animosity I believe stems from the sack of Constantinople in 1204. One of the shortcomings of the New Testament was that it primarily covered the western expansion of Christianity in the first century based on Peter and Paul while having little or nothing to say about the movement to the East. And since the East was essentially swallowed up by Islam, we know little today but there were bishops and dioceses in the East and Africa and one of the biggest was in Alexandria. All fell quickly and all were at odds with Byzantium over religious beliefs.jerry
April 26, 2007
April
04
Apr
26
26
2007
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
George Murphy, If we see a watch on Planet Mars, does it mean that science cannot determine that the watch is designed?MatthewTan
April 26, 2007
April
04
Apr
26
26
2007
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
Jerry: About the Monophysites surrendering to Islam rather than Byzantium Emperor, and Eastern Orthodox Christians preferring Islamic(Ottoman?) rule than receiving help from Rome. Any reference?MatthewTan
April 26, 2007
April
04
Apr
26
26
2007
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
George you wrote
But yes, as far as I’m concerned, scientific arguments in themselves cannot in any strict sense tell us that there is “intelligent intervention beyond natural processes”
Science is a word used by people to describe a process of understanding something. If that process or science is based upon a priori restraints on what we can understand through that process, then that does not change what science can actually uncover. Science which is based upon rejecting that which is not directly seen as being of any relevance is hampered by the factual reality of our universe. In fact here have been many things which we could not see and still do not see but which became accepted as plausible truth and made much ado about by "scientists" e.g gravity, consciousness and mind, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, etc. To categorically reject our ability to make a plausible case for detecting purposefull design in nature is nothing more then a personal bias which has nothing to do with science other then rejecting the very concept of science as being led by the evidence rather then by bias..mentok
April 26, 2007
April
04
Apr
26
26
2007
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
ericB: I said: "What I think scientists should do when they don’t understand something [not "when they've shown that something can't be understood"]in terms of natural processes is to say “We don’t understand it - maybe next year we will.” I'm prepared to grant (as a non-specialist) that at the time of writing _Darwin's Black Box_ Behe had identified some phenomena which had not been explained in terms of natural processes. I did not then - even less do today - agree with the idea that in any sense he had shown that they are incapable of such explanation, or even that evidence pointed in that direction. A scientist qua scientist should be very hesitant to make such a claim about any phenomenon. If he/she does so it's a statement that that phenomenon is outside the bounds of scientific explanation & is a miracle in the strictest sense. & if that's the case, the scientist should not pretend that it's going to be part of a scientific research program. We can't do experiments on God. I am saying here - & I think this will be the point on which we disagree, as it's a basic point at which ID challenges the science of the past 400+ years - that science is the attempt to understand the world in terms of natural processes. I.e., methodological naturalism is a basic principle of science. That doesn't mean that all knowledge of reality can be gained in that way. It is simply a definition of what constitutes science. I think that there are good theological reasons for believing that the natural world can be understood quite well by a science which operates in accord with that definition. I.e., the world can be understood, to use the phrase Bonhoeffer popularized, etsi deus non daretur, though God were not given. OTOH I think that there are good reasons to believe that the God revealed in Jesus Christ is involved in everything that goes on in the world. But you are quite right - that statement is not part of science, & science can be done properly without any reference to such a belief. Please understand though that what I said in the previous 2 paragraphs is my own position, not that of all Christians who accept evolution. TE is not, as I've noted before, a monolithic position. But yes, as far as I'm concerned, scientific arguments in themselves cannot in any strict sense tell us that there is "intelligent intervention beyond natural processes" In other words, I reject the possibility of a legitimate independent natural theology - & that on theological grounds. (But please, no one should say that by that I'm allowing theology to dictate to science. What I'm saying is that science shouldn't dictate to theology.)George Murphy
April 26, 2007
April
04
Apr
26
26
2007
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
George Murphy, Thank you, thank you! Although you accused me of not understanding TE, your own words have provided as fine a confirmation and illustration of exactly what I have been saying as one could hope for. I am and have been asking you what a scientist should do when "the evidence is against" the sufficiency of natural process explanations. The term "unguided" in the context of a scientific explanation is shorthand for the absence of detectable, direct, personal intervention. Your response (with emphasis added) changed the premise of my question. "What I think scientists should do when they don’t understand something in terms of natural processes is to say “We don’t understand it - maybe next year we will.” They should not claim that it can never be understood scientifically." So, by your own words, the only options you allow to the scientist are 1. Understanding in terms of natural processes, or 2. An admission of ignorance. You did not allow that an inference to guidance/intelligent design was even a possible option. To "be understood scientifically" means "understand something in terms of natural processes." And if inference to direct, intelligent intervention is not even an option, then it is plain why it could never be that "the evidence is against" the sufficiency of natural process explanations. It has been excluded in principle, by definition of science, regardless of the evidence. This is exactly what I have been saying about the embrace of the materialist's rule with regard to scientific explanations. BTW, I have never claimed that TE fails to give God credit as an indirect and/or undetectable cause, but this is irrelevant to the scientific explanation, which (as you show) is strictly in terms of natural processes. If you want to show that I have misunderstood the TE position regarding scientific explanations, then please indicate when an inference to an intelligent intervention beyond natural processes would be warranted by the evidence. If never, my description is fully vindicated and your answer is an excellent illustration.ericB
April 26, 2007
April
04
Apr
26
26
2007
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
rockyr, you said "I was just asking whether ID has actually discovered any facts implying how design may have been tinkered with at different stages by whatever agency." As far as I know, there is nothing. It is generally a big mystery. The only conclusion is that the differences between several species require substantial re-mappings of the genomes, something that defies probability by a non intelligent process. Science is just getting started on the differences in genomes and know little about how body parts are formed or controlled during gestation and development. So the analysis of the specific differences that must have occurred to the genomes when new species were formed is in the future. Others here may have some other thoughts. Essentially ID has found some huge holes in Evolutionary theory. It does not mean that NDE has nothing going for it. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to a naturalistic approach of which gradualism is the one nearly universally accepted. But is also the one with all the holes which is why I worded like I did. On one of your other points, my experience is that most people do not want to discuss evolution. They realize I know a fair amount about it and don't want to be told something different from what they believe. There is also this feeling that "Jerry is a nice guy but he has this strange belief on this one thing". So to keep discussions polite it rarely gets discussed.jerry
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
jerry, if some NE (naturalistic evolutionists) who have rejected Darwinism don't want to embrace ID, it most likely has to do with their atheistic bias or prejudice. That at least has been my experience with a few NE's I debate the issue. One atheist blatantly told me that evo must presuppose that God does not exist. None of them are, in fact, religious, one is a lapsed Catholic who is basically an atheist now, he is quite bitter about religion, and he became an evolutionist when the priests who used to teach him, could not satisfactorily explain evo. They will come up with all sorts ridiculous accusations, saying that ID isn't science, that ID is creationism, repeatedly implying literal or YEC despite being corrected each time, that experimental science since Bacon has worked just fine, that allowing supernatural in any form to enter science will make it ridiculous and false, etc. In other words, they know that God and supernatural must be kept out of science and rationality, even by ridiculing it and comparing Christianity to a belief in fairies, unicorns or spaghetti monsters. When I point out that ID also wants to keep the Designer out of science, they nevertheless fall back and repeat the same accusations again. I think the word "gradualist" is somewhat confusing in this context of God intervening or tinkering with design, but again, as with other scientific details and theories, I am open to any suggestions of how this may actually happen, just as I am open to any "front loading" arguments. To me all this is fair debate and science. I was just asking whether ID has actually discovered any facts implying how design may have been tinkered with at different stages by whatever agency. (George Murphy, re your essay: notice that I didn't ask how God may have tinkered with his creation, since ID makes no claims about the origin of the detected design. To me personaally it would be God intervening, but to a believer in a spaghetti monster it would be the designer or agency of his own belief.)rockyr
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
bj. Have you ever heard of the Reformation? Want to see some vitriol. See what both sides said during the 150 years after the start of the Reformation. Want to know why Islam had such an easy time conquering Christian lands. It is mainly due to the fact that the Christians in the areas near Saudi Arabia and North Africa believed in Monophysitism and were under the rule of Constantinople so in order to gain freedom from Constantinople who restricted their religious beliefs they laid down and let Islam take over. In other words they did not fight the Arabs to be free from the Orthodox Christianity of the Byzantine Empire. When Constantinople fell in 1453 they refused help from the West and Rome and said they would rather live under Islam than seek help from Rome. By then Eastern Christianity had some minor theological differences with Rome but not much. Are we seeing something similar now? Is it really theological differences that drive these emotions? I don't think so. Just see what Yankees and Red Sox fans think of each other. There is another example of vitriol over nothing.jerry
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
I do not understand why one group of Christians cannot emphasize one endeavor and another take a different direction. Why is it necessary for one to judge to other? Is this not arrogance? Why can't ASA take on the error of the young earth belief? Why can't ID take on scientific materialsim? Both are needed and my take is that things work about better when organizations with limited funding take on one task and do it well. As an agnostic, I have a number or reasons for not being a Christian, but I do value the religion. I find it sad and also reinforcing of my beliefs when I find a religion which promises unity and peace of heart to be so full of division and ill-will.bj
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
ericB: The reason I fault IDers for bad theology is sketched in a short article of mine, "ID as a Theological Problem," which you can find at http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/IDTHG.html . I gave a somewhat more detailed treatment in a paper at the 2005 ASA meeting, a revised version of which was published last year in _Seminary Ridge Review_ as “Is the True Creator an Intelligent Designer?” It isn't online but I can sent it to anyone who wants to gives me an email address. What I think scientists should do when they don't understand something in terms of natural processes is to say "We don't understand it - maybe next year we will." They should not claim that it can never be understood scientifically. For Christians that attitude is grounded in the theology of the cross, as I discuss in the articles I mentioned. Again you make the mistake of thinking that TEs believe in "unguided nature." You will never get anywhere in trying to understand my position, & that of most other TEs, if you continue to think that. The lack of comprehension of TE that I see here is appalling. E.g., geoffrobinson (Post #7) wrote, "My understanding of the difference between TE and IDers who believe in common descent: TE are OK with winding up the machine and letting it play out." The best I can say about this is that he should have begun with "My misunderstanding ..." Few TEs are deists. There is no point in trying to carry on a debate with people who refuse even to try to understand what you're saying: "Wer den Dichter will verstehen, Muss in Dichters Lande gehen."George Murphy
April 25, 2007
April
04
Apr
25
25
2007
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
To George Murphy, I am glad to hear that you "don’t think that theology should dictate to science". But then I am completely unclear about how you can fault the ID inference for "bad theology". Really, what should a scientist such as Dr. Behe do about the fact that the evidence is against the TE idea that unguided nature is endowed with the ability to invent language or construct irreducibly complex molecular machines? Neither Miller nor anyone else can yet explain clearly how unguided processes can construct a flagellum, even if you generously supposed that every protein needed were in use elsewhere in the cell. If you don't hold that theology should trump an ID inference based on scientific considerations, what are you proposing ID scientists should do?ericB
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
Regarding rblinne/Ted Davis, I respect your concerns but I believe there is a key perspective you are missing. To illustrate, consider Big Bang cosmology. The fact that the universe had a beginning has secondary implications, including potentially theological implications, and many are intrested in those implications. But that is not why Big Bang cosmology exists. It wasn't created for the sake of those secondary implications. It became established because it is the best inference from the data we have. The same is true for ID, including ID in biology. It was not created to have a "slam-dunk". It exists because the best available inference we have from the evidence is that language, information, irreducible complexity, etc. are caused by intelligent agency. We have literally no other observed explanation that accounts for these. So, whatever one might say about strategic response to materialism and the subtle positions of Polkinghorne, et al, that tells me nothing about how an unguided natural process could possibly invent language or construct an irreducibly complex molecular machine. What I want to know from TE defenders is whether you support or reject the methodological rule that says that "scientific" explanations may only appeal to unguided natural processes (i.e. never to telic/intelligent agency). This is by a definition, regardless of any evidence. That artificial rule is harmful to science as a pursuit of truth about nature. If TE accepts that rule, then TE is part of the problem.ericB
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
I agree jerry.Atom
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
rblinne, I think most of here believe science is very limited which is the basis for this site and our conclusions. Science has not shown very much in terms of evolution and that is our point but that is not the impression you get in the classroom. In the classroom, the opposite is the orthodoxy. Evolution is proven by overwhelming evidence., George Murphy says our main findings are negative. I will grant him that many of them are. But these negative findings are excluded from the curriculum and instead speculation masks as findings and conclusions. This is what students learn. How hard is this to understand. Our problem is with the false findings and conclusions of the science presented in the classroom and in the popular press. I find it ironic that others can stand by and acquiesce in this who claim they are truth seekers.jerry
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Another post from Ted: jerry asks, "What has ASA got to lose if your postion is based on evidence and logic?" Ted answers: I understand why jerry frames the question this way, but it's important to keep something in mind. The ASA is not a think tank or advocacy organization that defends/upholds a specific understanding of the details concerning evolution/design. Every ASA member who posts here, on the ASA list, or elsewhere, including me, is speaking as an individual. Quite a few ASA members, for example, would not agree with me or with George Murphy or with Rich Blinne at some points. Just as I do not agree with Bill Dembski, Steve Meyer, or David Snokes (all of them ASA members, and all of them ID advocates) at some points. The ASA publishes in our journal lots of articles on various sides of this complex issue--a fact that is easily checked. Our members agree completely (at least I think we should assume this unless evidence about a given member suggests otherwise) with the following statement: "As an organization, the ASA does not take a position when there is honest disagreement between Christians on an issue. We are committed to providing an open forum where controversies can be discussed without fear of unjust condemnation. Legitimate differences of opinion among Christians who have studied both the Bible and science are freely expressed within the Affiliation in a context of Christian love and concern for truth. Our platform of faith has four important planks: 1. We accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct. 2. We confess the Triune God affirmed in the Nicene and Apostles' creeds which we accept as brief, faithful statements of Christian doctrine based upon Scripture. 3. We believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation. 4. We recognize our responsibility, as stewards of God's creation, to use science and technology for the good of humanity and the whole world. These four statements of faith spell out the distinctive character of the ASA, and we uphold them in every activity and publication of the Affiliation." This is who we are, and have been. Thus, it is not really appropriate to ask, "what has ASA got to lose," in this particular context. If it were our position (for example) that TE is true and ID is false, or vice versa, then our journal would not contain a lot of what it contains. Nor would our annual meetings have some of the papers and symposia that they have, and some of the speakers we have featured--including Phil Johnson and Mike Behe. If people want to take issue with our platform of faith, then of course they are free to do so--though I am not trying to invite that type of conversation here, and it probably doesn't suit the nature of this blog either. If the opening paragraph of our statement is understood, however, it should be clear that ASA is here to promote fellowship, respect, understanding, and faith among Christians in the scientific community. The fact that, as I often say, the ASA is not TDI is not meant as a slam against TDI. Several of my friends are closely linked with TDI, including some who are fellow ASA members, and I am not criticizing them for promoting ideas they believe in. The same should operate in reverse. The ASA is not TDI, and that should not be a reason for anyone to slam the ASA. You weren't doing that in your post, jerry, and I am not implying that you were. But some people do exactly that, accusing the ASA as an organization or its members as individuals of lacking backbone, convictions, or integrity. In fact, we would lack integrity if we took a specific side on this issue, given our platform above. Lots of our members agree with ID, and lots of them don't. Our own integrity as an organization requires us not to go beyond the four planks above. I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight.rblinne
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
"Rude, thanks for trying to de-fog (Re: The key here is “natural evolution”—TE’s maintain that the science is all on the side of Richard Dawkins but that theist’s are capable of noble feelings.) But, as even the name implies, TE is about “theistic” evo, and thus those who profess it, ought to consider God acting in evo somehow! If they foolishly don’t, or if they are caught in a blatant contradiction, such as endorsing Darwinism, let us point it out!" That's why many of us prefer the term evolutionary creationists. Theistic evolution implies the core commitment is to evolution and the contingent commitment is to theism. That does not accurately describe what we believe where our core commitment is to creation and the contingent commitment is to evolution. Our contingent commitment could change on a dime tomorrow if you would prove your hypothesis. I find it somewhat strange how you see us as obsessed with scientific "orthodoxy". We are the ones that keep stressing how limited science is and how we should not be building structures on sinking sand. The reason I keep hitting on theology is that's what matters to me. Maybe it takes actually doing science to see how limited it really is.rblinne
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
Rude, thanks for trying to de-fog (Re: The key here is “natural evolution”—TE’s maintain that the science is all on the side of Richard Dawkins but that theist’s are capable of noble feelings.) But, as even the name implies, TE is about "theistic" evo, and thus those who profess it, ought to consider God acting in evo somehow! If they foolishly don't, or if they are caught in a blatant contradiction, such as endorsing Darwinism, let us point it out! Jay Richards is right. Good quote. JPII may have been vague about evolution and his vague comments were mistranslated and twisted into his supposed endorsement of evo, (and I doubt he ever really believed Darwinism), but this pope is no friend of Darwinism. I haven't read Benedict's new & just published book, but he was quoted saying that the "Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory." (Popes always talk politely and carefully, and this should be seen as a rather severe criticism.) Besides, pope's close friend, and the main editor & author of the now standard Catholic Catechism, Cardinal Schönborn, seems to be a friend of ID. Whether the Catholic Church officially endorses ID as science, is another issue. I don't think the Church has a mandate to do that. Church can fight bad philosophy (or bad logic) and bad theology, but it's up to ID to fight science with science.rockyr
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
rockyr, Several naturalistic evolutionists have rejected Darwinism because the science does not support it. We agree with them and it is nice to have support on this point. But they do not support ID at all because they think there must be some naturalistic mechanism to explain the large changes that took place in life's progress. ID would probably accept any naturalistic mechanism if it could be shown to be likely but all that exists now is complete speculation. As a consequence ID indicates a designer is more likely over some of the mechanisms speculated on. Which changes require a non gradualist approach? There are many, many log jams where life seemed to make miraculous jumps. The most obvious one is the origin of life itself. But there are many others and as they add up it would point to some intelligence making the necessary changes when required. There are other theories to explain life's changes such as front loading which essentially says an intelligence did it once and the rest played out based on the environment and the instructions in the genome. But there are others who say the most likely explanation is that changes were made on the way such as the formation of the eukaryote cell, multi-celled organism, complex systems and capabilities such as the eye, nervous system, flying, advanced circulatory functions such as 4 chambered heart and the obvious differences with humans versus other animals in terms of intelligence and consciousness. It sort of looks like an intelligence tinkered along the way to get the results you see in the world today and in the past. So who did the intervention if in fact there was intervention. ID says the changes defy probability, so what caused the changes? ID says an intelligence. And how often were they necessary? Maybe a lot.jerry
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Too many TEs want to lose us in obscure theological esoterica and the kind of nuanced disputation that pleases the pompous yet is such a joke to the hard core atheist who, by the way, finds the TE as convenient a foil as he does the YEC. The one he openly ridicules and the other he laughs at privately, the one is a strawman to shoot down and the other is to be used to promote the two-tiered demarcationism that created the culture war. Can’t find it on the internet but—does anyone remember where Feynman once remarked how much he detested the liberal theologians (“they can’t even be wrong!”)? At least the fundamentalists said things that could be challenged. So Amen to Demski’s,
If the problem with young-earth creationism is that it is off by a few orders of magnitude about the age of the earth and universe, the problem with scientific materialism is that is off by infinite orders of magnitude about what is ultimately the nature of nature.
Reminds me of hearing Gerald Schroeder note how we ridicule the YECs for being off by a few billion years and yet if the Big Bang is right then until recently the YECs were closer to the truth by the order of billions of years over against infinity. I’m neither a YEC nor a Day-Ager, by the way, and I’m skeptical of the Big Bang—but Schroeder’s point was well taken.Rude
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Jerry: 1) If you imagine that religion isn't a major part of the ID movement, what is the point of posts here about Darwinism "gutting the SPIRITUAL tradition" (O'Leary) & criticizing ASA for not giving more attention to current "propaganda for ATHEISM" (Dembski)? [Emphases added.] 2) OF course I haven't suggested that theological discussions here will settle all the religious disputes in the world. But since the great majority of people who are involved in ID-TE debates are in the Judaeo-Christian tradition & thus share some common ground, it ought to be possible at least to get our differences in this area clarified. 3) & of course I have not said that I am unable to discuss the science involved in ID claims. I don't choose to spend my time here doing so, though I have in other venues. What I chose to focus on here is the theological issues - about which discussion here is under-represented, in part because folks like you flee from it. angryoldfatman: My statement that directed panspermia would "solve nothing" was in the context of the ID discussion. I.e., if CSI &/or irreducible complexity can't be explained by natural mechanisms then they can't be explained by natural ETs. I.e., we can ask "Who designed the ETs." This doesn't rule out directed panspermia a la Crick in itself but it does mean that it doesn't solve the problem that ID has set. ericB: 1) Why Behe believes what he does is hard for me to say, not being able to get inside his head. I'm sure he believes that there is scientific evidence for his claims - as does Ken Miller for his. Having read both & having heard them debate, I think Miller gets the better of it. In particular, I think that Behe pointed out some features of biological systems that current work hadn't yet explained, but erred in going on to argue that current paradigms _couldn't_ explain them. 2) Your notion that TEs generally believe in "unguided nature" vitiates the questions you pose. 3) I don't think that theology should dictate to science. I do wish that IDers would be willing to discuss their theological agendas in a more straightforward way.George Murphy
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
"Maybe we could have a home and home. One topic here, while another takes place on your site. As long as it’s polite. The moderators should be able to arrange this. Why not. What has ASA got to lose if your postion is based on evidence and logic?" We don't and that's why our journal, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith regularly have proponents of all three perspectives debate the science (and the theology which appears to be mostly verboten here). IIRC, our president-elect is ID. Dr. Dembski has a valid point in that our e-mail list can tend to be like the Wild West. We have people who as far as I know are not ASA members who are *ahem* less than polite. Let me be more precise. I have little problem with ID qua science but I do with ID qua ideology. I also have little interest in changing your mind with respect to gradualism. In fact, I earnestly hope your right and I'm wrong. This is your place and I'm a guest and I want to be respectful here. My point is communicating what drives us and to give you all assurance that we are indeed on the same team. Also, I want to warn you when I believe you are shooting yourself in the foot when fighting atheism and materialism. You all have done the same for us and -- believe it or not -- we appreciate the warning because the stakes are so high.rblinne
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
George Murphy, you are partially right about your item 3, (Re: You say, “ID is about science and not theology.” Nonsense!) To a theist it matters that God is excluded or prohibited from science, as if He didn't exist at all, and that a believer in God is forced to think and rationalize like an atheist! Why would it matter to any open-minded and fair atheist that a theist wants to consider God acting in natural processes? ID has managed to take the Designer out of the equation. However, if Design in things can be proved, then it is up to each individual to fill in the blanks. In other words, it's the atheist's problem to correctly interpret the result, and if he cannot rationally do, it's his problem, not God's or mine!rockyr
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
jerry, thanks for recommending Falk's book, I'll try to get it. Nevertheless, whether God did it gradually, or suddenly, is a matter of perspective and theology. (Relates to God being "outside time," and to how we understand time, and perceive things, etc.) In other words, I am not too worried about such "details," and I am willing to listen to what the experts say. What worries me, and I suppose most people in this forum, is that in modern science God is completely wiped out of the picture, from all nature and all natural processes. I am not sure why you say that ID seems to indicate God's constant intervention. Can you elaborate?rockyr
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Ok, now I'm beginning to get the picture...jb
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
"If Blindwatchmaker Darwinism is true, then we are here because of a series of lucky accidents, culled by our own struggle to reproduce. We finally got here and then a god would pull along side us and say “BTW, I am your creator and you should honor me as such.” Well, excuse me, but I would think in that case we did all the hard work…" Well, it's not true. We are not saying that it is by chance. Nor are we saying that it is not designed. We are saying that the current scientific "proof" may be overreaching. We are also saying that evolutionary processes and design are not mutually exclusive categories. Just as the "random" arrow that killed Ahab was under God's providential care so is the rest of Creation. Merely because some puny scientist can describe the process does in no way negate that fact.rblinne
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
rbline, you said "What we want is the “respectability” of integrity in science, following the evidence wherever it lies, even if it makes our rhetorical case more difficult. That integrity is at the core of what the ASA is all about." If this is an accurate statement of your beliefs, then have a dialog based on science. Many here have asked for it. It would seem so simple a thing to do and then when the dialog is well under way maybe some others might want to discuss theology some place else. That would be a simple thing to do too. I personally think some here are so cock-sured that gradualism has nothing going for it when there is obviously a lot that can be discussed that supports a naturalistic mechanism for evolution. So there is a lot for us to learn. Given that, I also personally have seen too many shortcomings for gradualism to even consider it a viable option for the more complex changes that arose in life. But if all of us here are essentially wrong on this, then most will admit it. But all should be on the table and each should state their cases. And you will learn why we believe certain things. We have Darwinists who post here who also would probably like to contribute to the discussion. It should be enlightening. Maybe we could have a home and home. One topic here, while another takes place on your site. As long as it's polite. The moderators should be able to arrange this. Why not. What has ASA got to lose if your postion is based on evidence and logic?jerry
April 24, 2007
April
04
Apr
24
24
2007
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply