Re: The scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon Nov 28 2005 - 02:27:07 EST

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cornelius Hunter" <ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: The scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design

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

there is a big difference between preDarwin scientists and the ID crowd.
First the predars saw design in everything as did Paley and Buckland, rather
than some "we cant explain it so it must have been designed" (see my PSCF
paper of Dec 99 and chapter in Debating Design ed by Ruse and Dembski CUP
2004). Secondly despite them finding some help from the design notion it was
rejected as too wooden and no help in explaining the historical succession
of life over long geological periods. As Darwin points out in the Origin
design explains nothing and is only a restatement that God is creator.
Design also went out because it was rhetorical and not explanatory. Also
note that many predar scientists did not use design eg Adam Sedgwick.

From your posts you have a funny view of what earlier scientists actually
said and I suppose I would have to read your books to find out where you go
wrong. I have neither the time or the money to do that!!
Michael
Received on Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:27:07 -0000

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 28 2005 - 02:30:29 EST