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
Bill, I find it utterly ironic that the thread Denyse misquoted was started by a young geologist who found the ASA after almost losing her faith reading Lee Strobel's the Case for Creation and finding his utterly weak arguments slaughtered by infidels.org. This is at the core of many of our concerns. My opposition to YEC (I cannot speak for all of the ASA because some are YEC as some are also ID like yourself) is not because of what separates us but rather is because of what we have in common, viz. a desire for the spiritual welfare of those who are in the scientific disciplines and the propagation of the Gospel. We aren't enemies as we are the loyal opposition. This is no different than the relationship between YEC and ID. Just because you disagree doesn't make you enemies. More on this later. I am currently attending a Sunday School class in an evangelical church. We are having YEC, ID, and TE proponents presenting. We have no problem ministering side by side with our brothers where our only disagreement is HOW God created. My question is if we can do this at the grass roots why cannot the same be done at the leadership level? ASA's Executive Director found out about the class, also hearing that an ASA member was presenting on TE. He asked me to see if I could collect some materials in order that we might accomplish the goals above. He also noted that a number of our members are doing precisely that kind of ministry for the Body of Christ. That's what motivates us and gets us out of bed in the morning. Now look at what upset you for a second: 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? The reason why we desire that is because we want to avoid the as that young geologist put it a "spiritual meltdown" that weak arguments inevitably cause. If YEC is the only option then if it goes down, the whole faith goes down as was almost the case with the young geologist. That's why we want people to know there are other viable options, including ID. We fight the same fight against materialism. Just because we chose a more irenic path does not mean we are not engaged. In fact, I have found it to be quite fruitful as being quick to accuse rarely is a good witness. I'm sure you share that same sentiment. Your Brother in Christ, Richrblinne
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
George Murphy, I am sure there is a great deal of misunderstanding about theistic evolution. There seems to be many different varieties of it and that may be leading to problems. It seems that many Evangelicals, Lutherans and popes all hold it and this is not a group that agrees on a lot of things. If it is not so varied, then maybe you could explain it better to us. We would be interested. I personally ordered several of the books you recommended and also the one by Darrell Falk which someone else recommended. So far I have read Falk's book because it came first and started reading chapters in Keith Miller's book since it is set up as separate readings but it looks to be heavily into theology so I have started on the science section of the book. I am only interested in the science and not the theology and find the theology just gets in the way of understanding the science. So to read the books for science one has to either plow through pages of irrelevant material or try to skip and see what may be relevant. I am not saying the material is irrelevant to one's religion and how one looks at the world, just irrelevant to the science of evolution. Now back to your comment on misunderstanding. If you have read this thread, then you should understand that ID is about science and not theology and any portrayal of it as such should be corrected. And while you may not agree with the science that ID espouses, you should defend it to be represented fairly in discussions. We hope you will help in that.jerry
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
jerry: As an addendum, I get the feeling that most theistic evolutionists would rather have a God who didn’t have to tinker every now and then with the nucleotides to create life as we know it. A omniscient God would figure out to do it without the constant intervention that ID seems to indicate. Such a God is more in tune with traditional theology.
I would agree with your first point that TE prefers a more deistic, God-wound-a-clock theology whereever science and theology touch. In general, a TE would like to assure their materialist fellow scientists that they need never fear that the TE's scientific conclusions would ever require questioning, let alone violating, the working assumption of scientific materialism that they share. Unless someone thinks it makes sense to reason from a false premise, this virtually requires a deistic theology whereever science is concerned. About your other points, I would think differently. Traditional theology is theistic, not deistic. Traditional theology views God as not only transcendent (beyond space-time) but also imminent (able to participate within space-time with real consequences). The TE truce with scientific materialism needs to suppose that God is not imminent with regard to anything that science deals with. When you say "A omniscient God would figure out to do it without the constant intervention that ID seems to indicate." I would say that has matters a bit turned around backwards. ID doesn't reach its conclusion for theological reasons. It infers the need for intelligent intervention only in those cases where the evidence indicates that unguided processes cannot accomplish the task. That is what supports the inference. It would be a fundamental mistake to try to answer the scientific question "Can unguided processes do this?" as though it were a theological question. This is why the TE position seems a failed one to me. I really don't care whether someone's theology is OK with the idea that God might have endowed nature with the ability, for example, to create language-based life without intelligent intervention. The plain facts are that we have no scientific (or theological) basis for concluding that He has done so. The evidence says He has not done so.ericB
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
There is a great deal of misunderstanding in some of the posts here, beginning with Mr. Dembski's. To suggest that YEC is just "off by a few orders of magnitude about the age of the earth" is quite misleading. Militant & vocal YECs sometimes come very close to making a young earth a fundamental doctrine of their religion. This is a serious perversion of Christianity. (I do not suggest, of course, that all Christians who believe in a young earth make that error.) By giving such a central role to a claim that is manifestly false on scientific grounds they set up many believers (and especially young people) for a crisis of faith when they are finally convincing of the falsity of YEC. This makes them easier prey for the likes of Dawkins. & that in fact is one reason why there needs to be some focus on the YEC error. One of the best ways of defending Christianity against atheism is to present a mature and intelligent version of the faith, and it's hard to do that if YEC views are taken seriously. Then several posters here express puzzlement about what TE is. It isn't hard to find out some of the views of Christians who accept evolution if one wants to read a bit. I posted several titles in an earlier comment. To reprise & expand a bit: Ted Peters & Martinez Hewlett, _Evolution from Creation to New Creation_. Kenneth Miller, _Finding Darwin's God_. Keith Miller (ed.), _Perspectives on an Evolving Creation_ David Wilcox, _God and Evolution_. Francis Collins, _The Language of God_ Denis Edwards, _The God of Evolution_ Philip Hefner, _The Human Factor_ Not all of these deal exclusively with evolution & some are more specialized than others. I'll also add my own _The Trademark of God_ which is out of print but, I believe, available from Amazon.George Murphy
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
@ Jerry, Do you have a link of the paper Marcus Ross wrote on the Cambrian explosion? I'm guessing from the context that it is an anti-YEC paper...? Even if not I'd like to see it. M ost Christian Cambrian explosion apologetics focuses mostly on anti-materialist explanation s instead of anti-YEC evidence. I'd like to see it, though i am a YEC myself.jpark320
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
I found this on wikipedia under "Marsupials":
Fossil evidence, first announced by researcher M.J. Spechtt in 1982, does not support the once-common belief that marsupials were a primitive forerunner of the placental mammals: both main branches of the mammal tree appear to have evolved at around the same time, toward the end of the Mesozoic era, and have been competitors since that time. In most continents, placentals were much more successful and no marsupials survived (emphasis mine); in South America the opossums retained a strong presence, and in the Tertiary marsupials produced predators such as the borhyaenids and the saber-toothed Thylacosmilus. In Australia placental mammals were not present throughout much of the Tertiary and marsupials and monotremes dominated completely. Native Australian placental mammals are more recent immigrants (e.g., the hopping mice).
Atom
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
Hey Jerry, I grabbed my copy of "The Biotic Message" and this is from page 439 of the book, in the chapter entitled "Biogeography":
Fossils show that marsupials lived on all other continents. Possible the marsupials survived predominantly in Australia precisely because the eutherian mammals did not find their way there. In this way, the solution to biogeographic problems can have more to do with ecology and extinction than evolution. Presently, these matters must go unresolved while awaiting further developments.
So I guess there is a difference of opinion between ReMine and Falk, and I don't have the relevant background to judge either claim. As I said, I'll defer to anyone with a bit more info on the topic.Atom
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
Atom, Maybe we can have a discussion about marsupials on the site. I mentioned Falk's book above and he said they are in South American and Australia only. The one exception is the possum which is thought to have headed north when the land bridge in Central America formed about 2.5 million years ago. Australia was once thought part of South America so there are some other commonalities as well. Australia has no placenta mammals except for bats according to Falk and they can fly which is why they could get there. I am just reporting what he says, and certainly not an expert so maybe this could be a topic in the future. Salvador is interested in marsupials. I would love to hear from anybody with contray information.jerry
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
rockyr, I just finished Darrel Falk's book this weekend and he is a TE and I believe an evangelical. Others here could clarify that because I do not know exactly what his specific religious affiliation is. He comes to a gradualist approach by a process of elimination of the various possibilities. However, I found no evidence for a gradualist approach from his arguments, only a naturalistic one. Anytime, he concludes a gradualist solution, a sudden naturalistic solution would work just as well. Most assume that the only logical naturalistic approach is a gradualistic one because Darwin postulated one and there is no accepted alternative mechanism for abrupt changes. But we have had others here (materialists) who say that the abrupt change is more in sync with the evidence than a gradualist approach. I recommend Falk's book. It is a quick read and the only problem I had was his frequent push of his personal theology which I had to wade through to make sure I was not missing the science. I also fault a couple places where his science seems to get vague when it doesn't support his overall position but it is a good account of what the science says. But after reading it, I am no way convinced of a solely naturalistic approach. There are still too many holes. As I said above his audience is the YEC's. As an addendum, I get the feeling that most theistic evolutionists would rather have a God who didn't have to tinker every now and then with the nucleotides to create life as we know it. A omniscient God would figure out to do it without the constant intervention that ID seems to indicate. Such a God is more in tune with traditional theology.jerry
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
"Hey, why is Australia so different?" I think it was ReMine who addressed this in his book and brought up the point that marsupial mammals exist/existed on all the continents, not just Australia. They just died out in greater numbers elsewhere, making it look like they were an Australian oddity. But I'm not well versed in paleontology or biogeography, so I'll defer to those who may know more info.Atom
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
Sajones, It seem that the majority of intellectuals today, including the pope and many Catholics, are TE believers. (Re: While I have been working to follow as closely as possible the ID vs. Darwin debate, I don’t really yet understand where the TE crowd fits in. I hate to waste people’s time, but can someone offer a good Reader’s Digest synopsis?) Nullasalus is right, TE is very diverse, but what unites them is their belief or philosophy -- they believe that God somehow used natural evolution to accomplish His creation. This is a safe intellectual position, because it is most likely true in one sense or another. The problem lies with the name. The word T (theistic) is attacked by atheists, since they claim Science cannot be "theistic". The word E (evolution) is about how it actually happened, about science, and this is where E is just a label. Since E is so confusing, it would be best to use a brand new untainted word. Whatever happened, it happened by some process , be it "development" or "unfolding" or "genesis" or whatever we call it. The E word is satisfactory to many, because it is vague enough to cover the differences. (For example, that is why Cardinal Schönborn dismissed John Paul II’s views on E as “vague and unimportant”.) I don't want to call it intellectual laziness, but most people don't feel comfortable when they have to go against the established norm, especially the pros whose reputation is at stake. It is the norm that has to be attacked and changed first. About YEC, read my previous comment: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/pope-defends-theistic-evolution/rockyr
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
geoffrobinson, The materialists are not the objective. You are not going to convince them. It is those who haven't a clue what the debate is about and would be interested in a honest discussion of the science but never get there because of how the arguments are framed or who is framing them. I can tell you that I know lots of them but they would not care to listen to any science if it is associated with a religious point of view. Their antenna will say it is bogus immediately. When I say interested in an honest discussion, most people are not very interested but curious a bit about the debate and will spend little if any time reading about it. And when they do, guess what they find. As long as ID is associated with YEC, rightly or wrongly, it will be hard to get a fair debate despite the accuracy of their critiques on Darwinism. By the way I haven't seen a good argument against the geographic division of species by anyone and this is one of the Darwinist's strongest arguments for a long term naturalistic progression. Hey, why is Australia so different?jerry
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
"However, YEC have to pick and choose what they support based on an ideology. I just read Darrel Falk’s book and his obvious target is YEC’s. He points out quite rightly that many sciences would have to change most of their basic findings and assumptions to accommodate the YEC position." The problem with this mindset is that scientific paradigms can change drastically with the discovery of a single piece of new data. What was yesterday's unquestionable, infallible, undeniable orthodoxy can become tomorrows outdated dark-age idiocy. In one of Dembski's works (editor), Uncommon Dissent, he recounts how Geosynchrinal Theory was considered an absolute FACT by geologists. It was even considered as much a fact as Darwinism. In a few months, that theory was overturned, and the new theory, Plate-tectonics took its place as the new paradigm. Because of science's nature to be in constant flux, science can never *logically* serve as the foundation of one's epistemology. All those evidences could one day be reinterpreted in another way, and the paradigm would shift toward YECism. The only thing that could prevent that is the bias of scientists toward the current fad paradigm theory (which unfortunately, is all too common).Ryan
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
While I don't agree with their views on the age of the Earth, their negative critiques were instrumental to me. We should also note that materialists aren't going to like us any better because we may be Old Earthers. Any deviation is heresy. Let Young Earthers, Old Earthers, or those who believe in common descent make arguments based on evidence instead of just-so stories. Wouldn't that be refreshing?geoffrobinson
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
jerry, "But in my observations in the world outside this website, ID is closely associated in most people’s eyes with some group that has eccentric religious and scientific views despite the official opinion of this site, your efforts and those of others." That's not entirely the fault of Dr. Dembski or ID proponents in general. ID is actively cast as YEC-in-disguise, certainly by grassroots opponents. I say this as someone who is personally neutral, maybe even skeptical, of ID claims: There are many who will insist the ID is YEC, and that any members who assert not to be YECers are either deluded or lying. I'm also convinced that some realize this is not the case, but use the label anyway as a means to an end. Maybe it's a wedge strategy of their own - wanting ID to aggressively turn against YECers, to create further divisions among the non-materialist set.nullasalus
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
Dr. Dembski, I understand both your points and have been a reader of most of what happens on this site for a couple years and have seen this stated clearly before. But in my observations in the world outside this website, ID is closely associated in most people's eyes with some group that has eccentric religious and scientific views despite the official opinion of this site, your efforts and those of others. Now if someone has YEC views, they obviously don't think they are eccentric. However, most of the people I come in contact with do not even know who YECs are and my only personal association is reading what is published on this site. I have often made the comment that I have never met a YEC though I am sure many live around me. The perception people have who I associate with is that there is some group out there who have strange religious and science beliefs who are trying to change the curriculum of the science in schools. And when they are told what some of these views are, they are very ready to strongly oppose this attempt to introduce these views into the schools. I realize the distortions that are made about ID but right now it is a fact of life. So all I am saying is that is what ID is up against. D. Opderbeck said here a few weeks ago how ID and YEC have been boxed in together by the press and the scientific establishment. On this site I would personally estimate that half or more of the contributions are from YEC's. Just watch how many comments get made when the topic implies something about an old earth. A discussion of the science of the Cambrian explosion rarely gets more than a few comments despite Marcus Ross having authored a paper on the topic. I do not have a high regard for some of the TE's who have come here. None of them will readily admit just what ID is even if it is openly stated. I would think a person sincerely seeking the truth would want to have a dialog but they do not seem to want to have such a discussion.jerry
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
"the problem with scientific materialism is that is off by infinite orders of magnitude about what is ultimately the nature of nature" By scientific materialism do you mean the limitation of scientific enquiry to natural causes or general philosophical materialism?Chris Hyland
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
"YEC have to pick and choose what they support based on an ideology." That is true of everyone. You should read the book "The Myth of Religious Neutrality". YECs are just hated in the scientific community because of the specific ideology that they support, not because they have one and others don't. It seems that the ASA has found out that they are hated, too, when they go against certain ideologies, and that's why they have chosen to pick on the YECs instead of the materialists. The YECs aren't more ideological than anyone else, they are simply (a) more explicit on their ideology (which should actually _help_ in their science, as it is more clear assumptions from conclusions), and (b) their ideology is not one of the favored ones by the scientific elite.johnnyb
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
Jerry writes: "As long as ID remains strongly associated with YEC, it will have a hard time getting people to sign up for the more important fight with the philosophical naturalists. It is hard to criticize the nuances of the science of the philosophical naturalists when you are associated with what most considers really bad science despite the great work of some of its advocates." Two points in reply: (1) ID has no ties or formal association with YEC -- ID simply does not exclude proponents of YEC from contributing to its discussion of DESIGN (not the AGE OF THE EARTH). (2) YEC proponents have in recent years distanced themselves from ID and even, in some cases, become hostile to it (have you read Answers in Genesis lately?).William Dembski
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
johnnyb, I understand all the things you have presented and appreciate that these good people are doing great work. I have no problem believing that YEC's make excellent scientists in many areas and and also make good medical doctors. There are many areas of science where there is no problem. However, YEC have to pick and choose what they support based on an ideology. I just read Darrel Falk's book and his obvious target is YEC's. He points out quite rightly that many sciences would have to change most of their basic findings and assumptions to accommodate the YEC position. There is so much in the world that is so consistent with an old earth position that it is hard to begin to enumerate them all. So much that an average person when presented with the evidence can only just nod their head. As long as ID remains strongly associated with YEC, it will have a hard time getting people to sign up for the more important fight with the philosophical naturalists. It is hard to criticize the nuances of the science of the philosophical naturalists when you are associated with what most considers really bad science despite the great work of some of its advocates.jerry
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
The ASA is crazy to be spending so much effort on YEC (which I am also). It would be like Calvinist spending their resources reaching evangelizing to Arminians (or vice versa) instead of people who don't know the Gospel! As Dr. Dembski pointed out, why fight w/ ppl that have way more in common w/ you than your most bitter enemy and archrival. Besides YEC has no intentions of underming Christianity and the Gospel, while atheits out to get Christ.jpark320
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Jerry:
Many of the ID supporters ostensibly do not adhering to the YEC viewpoint which is by far more devoid of science than the materialist’s science.
I beg to disagree with you on this point (NOTE - I am a YEC myself). While there are in fact many YECs whose science is worthless, there are also many who are fantastic scientists. John Sanford co-invented the Gene Gun for producing transgenic crops. Raymond Damadian developed the technology behind the MRI. Todd Wood was part of the team that sequenced the Rice genome, has published many papers on transposable elements, and has written chapters in standard genetics textbooks on genome sequencing and statistical genetics. Art Chadwick is not only digging up a gigantic collection of dinosaur fossils, he is using 3D high-precision GPS technology to map their positions in the original findings. Leonard Brand and other YEC researchers made the front cover of the journal "Geology" for their work in the rapid burial of whales. John Baumgardner developed a program to model the Earth's mantle dynamics (which he also uses for modeling the Genesis flood) that has been used by NASA and Los Alamos National Laboratory. In fact, LANL desired access to his work so much that they let him spend a lot of work and computer time for his genesis flood models. Also, most people on this blog appreciate the work of Walter Remine (i.e. Haldane's Dilemma). E. Norbert Smith pioneered animal telemetry. Remine is also, as far as I'm aware, a YEC. Steven Austin has published in International Geology Review, and is doing some very interesting work with Nautiloids in the grand canyon. And these are only the people that I know of (a very small percentage) and people who are public about their ideas on origins (many YEC scientists do not share their opinions publicly for fear of professional retribution).johnnyb
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
bork, You're saying Dembski should write a textbook on information theory. What a good idea. I hope he gives it some thought. His summaries of info theory are well done and a full text treatmant by him would be probably be excellent. Note that the book that "got his foot in the door", The Design Inference, was a work in information theory that didn't address evolution at all.StuHarris
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
TE's have thrown themselves in with the materialists on science, to the point that they mislead what some of the data actually says. Many of the ID supporters ostensibly do not adhering to the YEC viewpoint which is by far more devoid of science than the materialist's science. But many ID proponents are careful not to be very aggressive in disputing YEC claims and often support ID together. Both have picked different scientific charades with which to associate. My guess is that the TE's at ASA would be more supportive of ID if the ID argument wasn't so heavily associated with YEC. The TE's are probably good people, The YEC's are probably good people. However, both are driven by bogus science in places.jerry
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
I have an idea Dr. Dembski. Why don't you publish a book only on information theory. Have it be accurate in totality without any objective information. The book could then be used for course instruction. Ok, maybe a few pot-shots to Dawkins, just as he does in his evolution books. In doing so, you can get your foot in the door and heard a bit more. Also, it satisfies my desire to learn more about information theory. It seems quite amazing!bork
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
Bill, Who knows or cares about the "American Scientific Affiliation"? Why have you been wasting your time chasing down the opinions of picayune advocacy groups and reacting to every little news article on social controversies related to ID? You are better than this. Please, please get back to writing books, papers and articles on the mathematical and scientific underpinnings of Intelligent Design.StuHarris
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
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. IDers understand that a simple unfolding of naturalistic causes and effects won't get you from point A to point B in biological systems without intelligent intervention (of whatever sort-using known or unknown methods). Whether that is the start of life or the flagellum.geoffrobinson
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
My impression is that the ASA holds to Gould's "Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA)". They seem to want to depict christians as viable scientists that don't bring their religion into their research. I think it is to prevent the "Galieo depiction" f christians hating science. However, I think it was done to prevent the camps of christians and seculars from fighting. I think it is time for the ASA to wake up. From my agnostic stance point, it seems like seculars are doing a good job as positing their interpretation of evidence and philosophy of materialism and reductionism as the only way. Theists need a "smart group" to help them keep their faith. I was raised with the notion that all smart men are atheists. It is only a few years ago that I started to seriously question this viewpoint. Unfortunately, science is imbued with anti-theism. I can't read a book on evolution by Dawkin's without a pot-shot to religion. Oh well, I could be wrong though.bork
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Thanks, sajones for raising this. I, too, am having difficulty separating TE from Non-YEC ID in my mind. At some points there appears to be a clear difference (i.e., Francis Collins being definately not-ID), but some points where they appear the same (i.e., acceptance of "Common Descent" by Dembski and Behe, etc.). I noticed a copy of "Mere Creation" in my church library recently, and started to read it. Got as far as about half-way through Dr. Dembski's introduction and haven't had a chance to get back to it. Perhaps that volume will clear things up for me.jb
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
Sajones97, I have been a layman in this discussion for a number of years now. I would agree with your assessment of the majority of the TE crowd. The most noteable exception I see is Michael Denton. His latest book, "Nature's Destiny" is clearly a TE work, yet he sees himself as a dissenter, an IDer. I really believe that Denton provides a good model, a good bridge, to move the TE community away from the Dawkins crowd and into the ID fold. Id is big enough to hold the "by law" (God created laws and conditions -- strong anthropic principle -- which, when played out, produce life as we know it.) We recognize the strong anthropic principle in Physics as an ID position, yet the TEers reject the idea that the same applies to their field. I personally don't care, if God designed first, then arranged for his design to be played out, or if God intervened along the way, either way we are intelligently designed. I, however, have rejected Denton's version of ID/TE without philosophical bias because I do not find that it is supported by the evidence. To me, the evidence indicates frequent acts of agency.bFast
April 23, 2007
April
04
Apr
23
23
2007
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply