Re: The scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design

From: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun Nov 27 2005 - 19:36:16 EST

Could you perhaps give a longer answer? It seems that your answer is not that design in the past had any scientific relevance other than to spur on inquiry.
  That's what I mean by scientific vacuity.
   
  Or am I missing something here?
  Also since the present day ID movement has chosen to mostly limit itself to eliminative approaches, the problems of ID's vacuity only are amplified.
Cornelius Hunter <ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    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.

  ID's theology is as vague and underdeveloped as its scientific claims but ID's position raises some troublesome questions such as why the designer would use the bacterial flagellum.
   
   
Received on Sun Nov 27 19:39:15 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Nov 27 2005 - 19:39:15 EST