| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Very simply: the argument from (about) design is a Theological argument with a long history of progressive rebuttal. ID has failed to demonstrate that it is value in any education in Science. I don't agree with Steve Gould's NOMA. Theology should take more science into its understanding: for example in the idea of a soul, and the dogma of the "Fall". (It should also include more archaeology, and philosophy, and a better idea of the relation between humans and the environment) Science as a human activity should take into account a better understanding of the relatedness of all things, and a number of ethical issues which I will not amplify. However, in my reading of ethics: it has almost nothing to do with sexual matters, and much more do do with how we act towards each other - especially the asymmetry of power... My bookshelf is overflowing with books on religion/science issues: however three authors stand out as indispensable. If you haven't encountered these, then you have been deprived: Mary Midgley Charles Birch Chet Raymo Frank Holterhoff wrote: > Help, I'm having an identity crisis! Am I really one of the Bad Guys? > > I'm a staunch Christian, though definitely NOT a Creationist, > Fundamentalist or Literal-Interpretationist. In fact, I'm really not > even a very good Christian, as I'm not big on evangelizing, which is > the Great Commission Jesus gave to all Christians. But I'm also VERY > staunchly pro-Evolution, Science, Truth, Reason, etc. I am not a > professional paleontologist; for those wondering why I'm even here, I > have a paleontology education (MS), worked as a petroleum geologist > for 20 years (until 8 years ago), and have been a lifelong fossil > collector/fan of Science in general. > > I have my own views, and while I might disagree with those of others, > I would never invalidate or ridicule them (that's part of why I'm not > a better evangelist). I will however always stand up against > disingenuous convoluted logic, and malice, when those are used as > weapons in the Evolution/Creation conflict. And, believe me, neither > side has a monopoly on those! > > For a while now here, it seems that ID has been lumped with the > mindless invalidation of observeable phenomena and reasonable > interpretation, as well as the disingenuous support of > Creationism/refutation of Evolution by bogus science, practiced by > many Creationists. > > Based on my understanding of the term when I first heard it, I've come > to regard myself as an IDer. I thought that ID was a way of looking > at things that was able to reconcile the undeniable observations of > the world, and their reasonable interpretation, with faith that a > Creator exists. To me, Evolution, The Big Bang, Relativity, how > neurons & synapses produce consciousness, etc. etc. are all part of > how He set things up to run. I thought that ID was a way for those of > Faith to acknowledge observeable phenomena, rather than trying to > discredit them as formal Creationists do much of the time. > > I would never for a second claim that, at present, there's any > scientific evidence for a Creator; I didn't realize any proponent of > ID did, as some here seem to assert. Maybe I haven't read enough > about ID yet. However, there's also no scientific evidence that a > Creator doesn't exist (this of course gets to the "absence of evidence > vs. evidence of absence" discussion of a few days ago). Based on > that, I see ID as a reasoned, reasonable view for a person of Faith, > Occam's Razor notwithstanding (I didn't say the MOST reasonable). > Therefore, I can't see where there's an attack on Science. > > So, I guess I've made everybody read through my life story just to ask > the question: Do I not understand the term Intelligent Design > correctly? Or am I one of the Bad Guys after all? > > F > > Dr. Lisa E. Park wrote: > >> Dolf's own closing remarks mentioned ID and how we must continue >> discussing and challenging this attack on science. > > -- Phil Bock mailto:bockp001@optusnet.com.au Bryozoa Home Page http://www.civgeo.rmit.edu.au/bryozoa/default.html
Partial index: