Re: The scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design

From: Cornelius Hunter <ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sun Nov 27 2005 - 18:33:47 EST

Terry and Wayne:

Terry:

> Can you give us an example of this "new kind of science"? Please give us
> an example of a design theory. You're a scientist...you think that design
> is a useful way to do science. Tell us what you do. Pim's issue is that
> it seems that ID folks are merely attempting to show how evolutionary
> explanations fail. You seem to be suggesting that design functions
> positively in scientific theorizing. Please show us.
>
> TG
>

The short answer is to look at the pre Darwin scientists. This will disabuse
folks of the notion that design science cannot function positively.

Wayne:

> Even in the best circumstances, ID could only say that an intelligent
> agent interacted with the world at a particular time. Yet even this
> suggests something of the nature in which God interacts with the
> world. For one, it suggests that God feels compelled to leave his
> "Intel inside" stamp on every product made by heaven. What if ID
> cannot find any evidence of this "Intel inside". Shall we burn our
> Bibles and change our allegence to infedels.org? I mean this seriously.
> What if you don't find anything? Is it even remotely possible that the
> theology could be wrong?
>
> By Grace alone we proceed,
> Wayne

This is a mischaracterization of ID. There is no such theology.
Received on Sun Nov 27 18:36:55 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Nov 27 2005 - 18:36:55 EST