> Glenn answered me as follows:
> >>What I like about ID is that it does support design of the universe
> which I agree. What I dislike and dislike strongly, is the avoidance of
> scenario about earth history. That is the game the historical sciences
> playing--the determination of what actually happened in the past--and ID
> isn't even on the playing field having forfeited to the other side.
> IMO, ID writings say little about earth history because they see no
objection to standard cosmological and geological accounts of these subjects.
Where they do see "Design" is in the cases where complexities are observed,
complexities which are ridiculously improbable for any stochastic scenario so
far proposed. Such as abiotic origin of life scenarios. Even here they do
not try to make absolute predictions, they say that Design is a more probable
explanation than the stochastic one, unless one has the a' priori commitment
that designers do not exist, and cannot be invoked in a scientific explanation.
> To me this avoidance of a scenario that works in the ID movement is a
> failure of courage on their part--they can never be proven wrong if they
> don't propose anything with future observational implications.>>
ID people are offering falsifiable scenarios, in that they pick examples of
IC systems which may later be shown to have a plausible naturalistic
explanation. And other people sometimes think of naturalistic explanations,
and claim to have falsified the ID model. Hey, that's the way science is
supposed to work.
Thanks, Glenn and Burgy. I have my own ideas of weaknesses in the ID
movement, but I don't see them here.
In Christ, Larry
Lawrence H. Johnston 917 E. 8th st.
professor of physics, emeritus Moscow, Id 83843
University of Idaho (208) 882-2765