Well... If the subject is to do with God and his relatiohship to the universe, then I think that qualifies as theology.
Of course, ID probaboly isn't very good theology (or science). Jim Clark noted: "I suspect that the number of purely theological claims made in the name of religion approaches 0 (i.e., claims with NO empirical / scientific / logical / linguistic implications)." But this should be no surprise to anyone. Would a theology that had no implications be of any use to anyone? I would imagine that most any theology has such implications. For example, it is a theological statement to say that God created order from disorder (as the Old Testament claims). Clearly this theological statement has many implications such as allowing for the possibility of the existence of empirical science, logic, and language. In a similar vein, I think most if not all theology has implications about how we live, interact, and understand the world. The article states that, "the human body is certainly no masterpiece of intelligent planning". How would we know? Can people recoginize intelligent planning when they see it? I doubt it. Most human "planning" is based on trial and error: I'm sure the next oil rig platform will be better planned and designed, well if not, the next one for sure! Why does the author think that the existence of "junk DNA", "errors", etc., implies unintelligent design?--it would seem it isn't only evolution that is "short-sighted". The article fails to impress either scientifically or theologically. Lucky it was only published in a rag :-) --Mike But what was the point of the article? To put forth On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Lilienfeld, Scott O <[email protected]> wrote: > I would also maintain that at least some core assumptions of ID theory, like > the assertion that some biological systems (e.g., the hemoglobin molecule, > the bacterial flagellum) are "irreducibly complex," are in principle, if not > in practice, falsifiable. So, intended or not, many or most ID theorists > have ventured into the domain of the scientifically testable, as Jim Clark > observes. Moreover, many ID theorists have staked their claim to scientific > status by arguing that their theory should be taught alongside of natural > selection in science classes. > > ..Scott > > > Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. > Professor > Editor, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice > Department of Psychology, Room 473 Psychology and Interdisciplinary Sciences > (PAIS) > Emory University > 36 Eagle Row > Atlanta, Georgia 30322 > [email protected] > (404) 727-1125 > > Psychology Today Blog: > http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-skeptical-psychologist > > 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: > http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140513111X.html > > Scientific American Mind: Facts and Fictions in Mental Health Column: > http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammind/ > > The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work and > his play, > his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his > recreation, > his love and his intellectual passions. He hardly knows which is which. > He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, > leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. > To him - he is always doing both. > > - Zen Buddhist text > (slightly modified) > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Clark [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 2:42 PM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: Re: [tips] Unintelligent design and theodicy > > Hi > > Moreover, is intelligent design a "theological" claim? I thought the whole > purpose of ID was to make a non-theological case for a designer? Doesn't > that put it in the purview of science, rather than religion? I suspect that > the number of purely theological claims made in the name of religion > approaches 0 (i.e., claims with NO empirical / scientific / logical / > linguistic implications). > > Although we try to avoid the topic of religion here and in other academic > contexts, I think it is inevitable that the subject is going to arise more > and more. I have a slide I use in my culture and psychology class (I'm the > real cross-cultural dude on TIPs) from a Pew foundation survey showing just > how important religion is in the lives of people around the world. Although > we tend toward the secular in the west (USA being a notable exception), there > are many parts of the world were over 90% of the population indicates that > religion is very important to them (much higher even than the 69% in USA ... > vs about 30% in Canada and about 11% in France and other secular nations). > Difficult to talk fully about cultural aspects of psychology without > considering the importance of religion (its nature, predictors of belief, > consequences and other correlates), although lots of texts tend to give it > short shrift. Is one issue that will inevitably arise the question of the > foundations for people's religious beliefs? And how should we address such > issues in the classroom? > > Take care > Jim > > James M. Clark > Professor of Psychology > 204-786-9757 > 204-774-4134 Fax > [email protected] > >>>> Paul Brandon <[email protected]> 04-May-10 1:00:26 PM >>> > Because they might embarrass someone? > > On May 4, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Michael Smith wrote: > >> ..another good example of why science writers shouldn't comment on >> theology >> >> --Mike >> >> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:38 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> What a shoddy piece of work is man. >>> >>> http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100503/full/news.2010.215.ht >>> ml or http://tinyurl.com/shoddy-man > > Paul Brandon > Emeritus Professor of Psychology > Minnesota State University, Mankato > [email protected] > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=2443 > or send a blank email to > leave-2443-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9b2f&n=T&l=tips&o=2444 > or send a blank email to > leave-2444-13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of > the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged > information. If the reader of this message is not the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution > or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly > prohibited. > > If you have received this message in error, please contact > the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the > original message (including attachments). > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13541.42a7e8017ab9578358f118300f4720fb&n=T&l=tips&o=2446 > or send a blank email to > leave-2446-13541.42a7e8017ab9578358f118300f472...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=2469 or send a blank email to leave-2469-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
