Re: [asa] ID is scientifically vacuous

From: David Campbell <>
Date: Tue Jun 26 2007 - 12:14:57 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
> program.

Yes, but it's hard to argue that something is the foundation of ID
when the definition of ID varies as a function of the speaker and the
audience. As marketed to the general church-going public, ID is
usually all about attacking evolution, even when (in the case of Behe,
for example) it actually accepts most of it. Of course, this follows
from assuming that a designer can't use evolution, an error also
popular in many atheistic circles.

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 Tue Jun 26 12:15:12 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 26 2007 - 12:15:12 EDT