From: George Murphy (
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 09:51:38 EDT

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: It happened!!"

    Howard J. Van Till wrote:
    > Michael had asked:
    > >> Can anyone give me one example where ID has been fruitful in science? I
    > >> cannot think of one example.
    > Steve answered:
    > > Sure. It has forced Darwinists to look a lot work harder at how
    > > microbiological evolution works. Any challenge to current theory in science
    > > creates an impetus for new creativity.
    > Two comments:
    > 1. That's a remarkably generous way of scoring this game. Your are saying,
    > in effect, that even the nuttiest of proposals may be given credit for
    > stimulating responsible scientists to do better science. True, perhaps, but
    > that doesn't make the nutty proposal any less nutty, does it?
    > 2. I don't think you actually answered Michael's question. I think his
    > question was, Can anyone give me an instance in which ID-based research
    > produced a uniquely ID-grounded explanation that could be held up as a
    > better scientific explanation than those contributed by conventional
    > science?

            A distinction needs to be made between the criticisms of "conventional"
    evolutionary theories by ID proponents & their own ID proposal as an answer to problems.
    It's helpful to point out things that current theories haven't explained adequately, &
    to the extent that Behe & Dembski have done that (& I'm making no commitment about how
    valid their criticisms are), they make the sort of contribution that Steve points out.
    But Howard is right - that's quite different from saying that their distoinctive ID
    proposal has been fruitful. To put it simply, it hasn't been.


    George L. Murphy

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 25 2003 - 10:00:11 EDT