Re: Snoke's paper

From: Randy Isaac <>
Date: Fri Aug 12 2005 - 20:48:58 EDT


    I should have been more precise but took some shortcuts since some of this was covered in Dave's paper. The issue Dave addressed in his paper was that some people were claiming that it is not "scientific" to criticize a scientific theory without offering a plausible alternative theory. Dave's point, and I fully agree, is that it is indeed part of the scientific process to show data or evidence that a particular theory is inadequate, even in the absence of an alternative, though a proper explanation is always desired. Whether or not a particular criticism is valid or even whether such criticism is done in a manner consistent with sound scientific methods is another matter altogether. That must be judged on a case by case basis. Many critiques of ID are as bad as any I've seen from the ID folks. Let's stop the generalizations and judge each argument on the basis of its merits.

    As for your speculation that "if these things are designed by an intelligence then we should see the same design patterns occurring across phyla", I fear you may be making the same mistake that is often made by ID folks as well as TE's and all the rest of us, namely presuming to know a priori what a supernatural creator would do and what his work would look like.


----- Original Message -----
  From: Richard Fischer
  To: ASA
  Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 7:14 PM
  Subject: RE: Snoke's paper

  Randy Isaac wrote:

  First, just a short point on where I see the science in ID right now.
  You rightly mention one area, which is the critique of evolutionary

  Anyone can criticize. And criticizing a scientific theory doesn't mean the criticism itself is science at all. Read Darwin on Trial and you'll see what I mean. The essence of ID is that certain organic structures are so complicated that natural processes alone couldn't have produced them. But if these things are designed by an intelligence then we should see the same design patterns occurring across phyla. We don't. The absence of similarly designed structures occurring in distantly related organisms is the evidence for no intelligent design in my opinion.


  Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
  Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
Received on Fri Aug 12 20:54:08 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 12 2005 - 20:54:08 EDT