From: Michael Roberts (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Sep 24 2003 - 17:48:53 EDT
Can anyone give me one example where ID has been fruitful in science? I
cannot think of one example.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Petermann" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Howard J. Van Till" <email@example.com>; "ted davis"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: RFEP & ID
> Howard wrote:
> > I would argue that its remarkable fruitfulness as the working
> > assumption for the historical sciences for a century or more should be
> > as an indication (not a proof, of course) that the universe actually has
> > nature described by the RFEP.
> I would suggest that the <fruitfulness as a working assumption> is exactly
> why science should take an interest in ID. Seems to me that what the RFEP
> assumption did was not contribute directly to specific advances in science
> but instead promoted the continued search for natural causes to phenomenon
> instead of attributing some anomalous data to the supernatural. What RFEP
> did in affect is continually drive science to challenge itself and
> investigate further. At this point in time this is also what ID concepts
> are doing. What ID says to scientists is, when confronted with problems
> causation in biology, don't just assume natural causation and stop. Look
> > Given his additional argumentation that science will never be
> > able to do this because the joint effect of all natural causes (both
> > and unknown) is incapable of actualizing a bacterial flagellum, Dembski
> > counts this as evidence that RFEP is false.
> Dembski's opinions and speculations don't count as evidence.
> > I suspect that biologists will never be able to construct a causally
> > specific account that would satisfy advocates of ID. Some critical
> > would always be declared missing; plausibility arguments, no matter how
> > reasonable, could always be declared to be less than convincing. I will,
> > however, defer to biologists for more commentary on your question
> For those IDists who are primarily motivated by political or religious
> reasons, you are probably right, they will never acquiesce(just like the
> YEC's ). However, I have run across some researchers who seem to be
> objectively tackling the plausibility of ID in good scientific faith(Mike
> Gene for one).
> However, if Darwinian biologists are *not* able to reasonably line out in
> detail *some* complex biological designs it will prove ID. Obviously if
> very intelligent human designers cannot figure out how to make a flagellum
> using a Darwinian model with all they know, how in the world could
> unintelligent natural forces do it, even over millions of years. It's
> to be a very interesting decade as this unfolds.
> Steve Petermann
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 24 2003 - 17:50:30 EDT