> We can detect intelligent causation. We do so regularly.
> As Bill Dembski puts it in his forthcoming monograph,
> "Entire industries would be dead in the water without the
> ability to detect design."
> About the only place where intelligent causation is controversial
> is historical biology and cosmology. Guess why.
Well, no, it's also controversial (if the idea is even raised) in
particle physics, general relativity, meteorology, atomic physics,
organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, plant biology, seismology,
vulcanology, aerodynamics, classical mechanics, geology, stellar
evolution, galactic evolution, solid state physics, fluid dynamics,
optics, . . . I think you get the idea. As for why, my guess would
be that it's because no one has ever specified an improbable event
(improbable assuming natural, unintelligent causes) in those fields
that suggested intelligent causation, and then gone out and observed
that event. As far as I can tell, that goes for historical biology
and cosmology as well as for any of the other fields.
Steve Schaffner firstname.lastname@example.org
SLAC and I have a deal: they don't || Immediate assurance is an excellent sign
pay me, and I don't speak for them. || of probable lack of insight into the
|| topic. Josiah Royce