Re: [asa] Demarcation was Re: thinking was prosecutors and not that of the judge

From: David Campbell <>
Date: Mon May 07 2007 - 12:57:02 EDT

There are a number of claims relating to the supernatural that can be
tested by conventional science approaches. If it is claimed that
doing x activity always produces result y, such a claim can be tested.
 Examples include horoscopes, magic, etc. Similarly, a number of ID
claims are amenable to ordinary scientific testing and generally don't
fare well under such tests.

The key problem with regard to defining science is the common
perception that science is especially authoritative. In reality, It
does a good job on some topics and not on others.

ID is against common descent when it is presented (a) by someone
against common descent or (b) to an audience against common descent.
It accepts common descent in other situations. Although it's possible
for a big tent to include multiple viewpoints on the subject, it's not
honest for the tent to claim unity on the subject, nor to attack
others for holding the same belief. Popular presentations of ID often
reject common descent, often in conjunction with defining
antievolutionism as integral to ID. Presentations in a more academic
context often assert that common descent and evolution are compatible
with ID. The question of whether ID is good science, bad science,
philosophy, religion, etc. cannot be answered until a consistent
definition of ID exists.

Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 7 12:57:38 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 07 2007 - 12:57:38 EDT