Re: [asa] ID is scientifically vacuous

From: PvM <>
Date: Fri Jun 22 2007 - 13:33:20 EDT

But if the foundation of ID is built on the assumption that ID cannot
and does not say anything about the designer, then it is hard to argue
that these predictions follow from ID. In fact, I'd say that any
prediction has to come from supplementary assumptions and that these
assumptions are most often theologically inspired. For instance the
idea that habitability and observability 'coincide' cannot be seen as
a prediction, unless one presumes that the designer had in mind that
its people would eventually be able to develop a fruitful scientific

On 6/21/07, David Campbell <> wrote:

> Of course, one could make a variety of reasonable (or unreasonable)
> assumptions about what a designer or non-designer might do. Based on
> such assumptions, it can be possible to make some scientific
> predictions. Various ID advocates have made such predictions (often
> formulated as claims to have established fact); most have fared poorly
> under scientific testing. Such versions of ID are not scientifically
> vacuous, but they tend towards the scientifically wrong.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 22 13:33:36 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 22 2007 - 13:33:36 EDT