|
Author
|
Topic: Pennock on Intelligent Design
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 13. September 2003 22:11
Pennock recently had paper published in 'Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics Sep 2003, Vol. 4, pp. 143-163", Dembski may want to update his list of ID relevant peer reviewed literature accordingly.
quote:
Abstract Creationism, the rejection of evolution in favor of supernatural design, comes in many varieties besides the common young-earth Genesis version. Creationist attacks on science education have been evolving in the last few years through the alliance of different varieties. Instead of calls to teach "creation science," one now finds lobbying for "intelligent design" (ID). Guided by the Discovery Institute's "Wedge strategy," the ID movement aims to overturn evolution and what it sees as a pernicious materialist worldview and to renew a theistic foundation to Western culture, in which human beings are recognized as being created in the image of God. Common ID arguments involving scientific naturalism, "irreducible complexity," "complex specified information," and "icons of evolution," have been thoroughly examined and refuted. Nevertheless, from Kansas to Ohio to the U.S. Congress, ID continues lobbying to teach the controversy, and scientists need to be ready to defend good evolution education.
I will see if I can find the full text article. From my perspective I see that part of the ID movement may have bypassed the scientific process mirroring Del Ratzsch when he stated that " I think that ID may very well have things to offer science, but I think that it is too early for ID to claim that it has done so. I don't think that it is just obvious that ID will contribute substantively to science, but I think it has that potential, and that it should be pushed as far as it can be made to legitimately go. "
By bypassing scientific pathways, ID may have exposed itself to critiques such as Pennock's. My question for discussion is two fold
1. How can ID regain its focus on scientific stature ?
2. Are Pennock's comments defensible as he seems to paint ID as mostly religiously motivated ?
Del argues "I think that one can be honestly convinced that design offers no significant scientific promise and that it represents significant scientific risk. In fact, I believe that there are Christians who believe that, and who originally came to the debate not particularly predisposed to hostility."
Does ID pose a significant scientific risk? Does it pose a significant non-scientific risk?
Del continues: "And if one looks historically, some of the most devout Christians there have been in the sciences - Boyle, for instance - thought that it was a serious mistake to mix "final causes" with "efficient causes". "
Is it a mistake to mix these form of causes? Can ID alternatives such as front loading avoid such mixing?
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 14. September 2003 09:00
Again, Pim, this post is not relevant to our discussions at ISCID.
For one thing, it would probably serve you well to ignore anything that Pennock has to say about Creationism (or anything else for that matter). The moderator is suspicious of everything that Pennock writes, especially when it seethes polemic. That is a good starting heuristic. Second, you may want to pass up on posting discussions of theology in general.
Thanks: these posts will be deleted in a few days.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic