From: Howard J. Van Till (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 03 2002 - 20:37:02 EDT
> Are the words "non-natural" and "unembodied" part of the overall ID thesis?
> I mean their scientific one, not their theological speculations.
Yes, I believe these concepts must be considered part of what ID offers as
their scientific thesis.
> ... second question. Suppose that the ID movement changed
> its position and recognized the difference between methodological naturalism
> and philosophical naturalism. Suppose also that it confined its
> argumentation to methodological naturalism -- science as we know it. Would
> there be anything remaining of the venture, as a scientific venture?
I presume ID would still hold on to the (wholly unwarranted) claim that it
could demonstrate the inadequacy of the "chance hypothesis" (a term that,
strangely enough, means "all hypotheses, postulates and theories concerning
the natural causation of events") to account for the actualization of
particular biotic structures like the bacterial flagellum.
> Would the resulting arguments be of any additional force?
> I presume that if this happened, they would still argue for an intelligent
> agent (as I was doing in the late 1980s) but their SCIENCE would no longer
> use "unembodied" or "non-natural" as descriptors of this IA.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 03 2002 - 22:53:26 EDT