Re: asa-digest V1 #1309
George Murphy (email@example.com)
Sat, 07 Aug 1999 21:39:09 -0400
John W. Burgeson wrote:
> George also wrote (later):
> "As far as the claim to be doing only science or philosophy of science is
> concerned, MN is no more restricted than ID, for the latter (regardless
> of what its proponents may say) amounts to a declaration that some things
> (those that have been found to be the result of divine intervention)
> should not be investigated further by science."
> George -- you are flat wrong in this assertion, my friend.
> At the NTSE, this claim was rather thoroughly thrashed out.
> Specifically, if ID is ever established to any degree, and I, for one, am
> skeptical that it will, it will NOT suggest "stop the science." Nor will
> it establish supernatural intervention in any way. What it will do is
> establish the very probable existence of the IA (intelligent agent(s)."
I've heard the arguments & am not impressed. Of course there is the possibility
of non-theistic designers & things like Crick's directed panspermia. But the rhetoric
of prominent ID proponents makes it clear that the Intelligent Designer they are arguing
for is God. What is the point of ID attacks on MN if ID can be understood "naturally"?
& if this is the case, & science is to continue to investigate some phenomenon when it
has been found to be the product of intelligent design, then science must investigate
God. Lotsa luck!
> The claim is a straw man.
Au contraire, I think the claim that ID amounts to anything more than a
scientifically clothed attempt to say "God did it" is an empty formality.
George L. Murphy