Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Draft of anti-ID letter to the editor
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 6 of 17 (409579)
07-10-2007 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
07-10-2007 5:36 AM


Is this the Duluth News Tribune? If so, I couldn't find the letter on-line. Their website seems to list very few letters.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-10-2007 5:36 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 14 of 17 (409785)
07-11-2007 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Minnemooseus
07-10-2007 8:59 PM


Re: The letter I'm replying to
I don't think you're directly addressing all the points Erickson raises. Some of his points are more obvious than others, these are the key points I think he's making:
  1. The "detectives with Elvis evidence" argument is an analogy to what he believes is the situation for ID. He believes that legitimate scientists have identified evidence for ID, and that the possibility and its evidence should therefore be given serious consideration.
    You sort of indirectly allude to this point about the supporting evidence for ID, but don't directly address it. It might be worth mentioning that ID isn't an idea given any serious consideration by legitimate scientists, and that it isn't true that there are some scientists out there with convincing evidence of ID.
  2. When Erickson says, "Intellectual honesty requires folks on both sides of this debate to acknowledge that very intelligent people disagree with them," he's attempting to give the impression that there's a a legitimate difference of opinion within scientific circles. I think it would be a good idea to point out that the difference of opinion is not within science, but stems from a rejection by Christian evangelicals of evolution.
  3. When Erickson says, "The discussion should then continue with an effort to honestly weigh the evidence and discover the truth," he's making an appeal to people's sense of fairness. He's saying that the right and fair thing to do when there's a difference of opinion is to objectively examine both sides.
    The reply to this point is that it must first be asked if such an examination is warranted. For example, you could pose the rhetorical question of how examining the ID/evolution disagreements is more legitimate than examining the spherical earth/flat earth disagreements. After all, ID and flat earth are alike in their near total lack of supporting evidence.
  4. When Erickson says, "This means refusing to make “a priori” assumptions which rule out certain conclusions, even supernatural ones," he's questioning the fundamental definition of science as studying the natural world. Evolution is science because it brings the same naturalistic perspective to our study of the universe as does physics and chemistry. Adding supernatural possibilities to a theory means it isn't science anymore.
  5. Perhaps what is most important is what Erickson doesn't say. Unrecognized by many on the science side is the chasm that Dover opened up between creation science and ID. Before Dover, creation science and ID were in an uneasy alliance. ID's acceptance of much of traditional science aroused much discomfort among creation science adherents, but creation science's legal defeats combined with ID's apparent and growing successes persuaded the creation science faction to maintain a polite silence, believing that if ID ultimately succeeded, then creation science and ID could have a polite discussion among themselves to settle differences.
    Dover blasted this uneasy truce to smithereens, and the plain fact is, Discovery Institute aside, creation science adherents vastly outnumber ID adherents, primarily because ID is insufficiently bound to Biblical folklore.
    So the important point to make is that ID isn't even the theory of choice for most evangelical Christians.
Because Erickson introduces the foundation of ID's stance into the debate, a response is an opportunity to expose in a broad and sweeping way ID's intellectual poverty and inherent dishonesty. Post your next revision and let's give it another review so that ID is on the receiving end of the most high caliber ammunition we're capable of delivering. In fact, you might even sign it:
Your name here
EvC Forum
I don't know your newspaper's position on very long letters, but you might be surprised at what can happen. A few years ago in a local school board dispute I wrote a very lengthy letter to the editor. They gave it column status and it took up the entire bottom half of the Sunday editorial page. If you work on something hard enough and give it sufficient quality, it might be printed regardless of the length.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-10-2007 8:59 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024