Re: [asa] FYI: Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Aug 15 2007 - 22:14:28 EDT

On 8/15/07, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >I do not have a high regard of the British press
>
> The arguments about the definition of science and ID as not truly
> science do seem off the mark and often motivated philosophically
> rather than scientifically. In reality, the reason ID doesn't belong
> in science classes is because as currently practiced it is usually
> scientifically wrong.

That's because it lacks a scientific foundation. Have you read Ryan
Nichols' paper on this topic?
Ryan Nichols, Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of
Intelligent Design theory The American Catholic philosophical
quarterly, 2003 ,vol. 77 ,no 4 ,pp. 591 - 611

<quote>
In my argument against Intelligent Design Theory I will not contend
that it is not falsifiable or that it implies contradictions. I'll
argue that Intelligent Design Theory doesn't imply anything at all,
i.e. it has no content. By 'content' I refer to a body of determinate
principles and propositions entailed by those principles. By
'principle' I refer to a proposition of central importance to the
theory at issue. By 'determinate principle' I refer to a proposition
of central importance to the theory at issue in which the extensions
of its terms are clearly defined.
I'll evaluate the work of William Dembski because he specifies his
methodology in detail, thinks Intelligent Design Theory is contentful
and thinks Intelligent Design Theory (hereafter 'IDT') grounds an
empirical research program.1 Later in the paper I assess a recent
trend in which IDT is allegedly found a better home as a
metascientific hypothesis, which serves as a paradigm that catalyzes
research. I'll conclude that, whether IDT is construed as a scientific
or metascientific hypothesis, IDT lacks content.
</quote>

See also my thoughts on this matter at
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/inference1.cfm

Dr Nichols Homepage http://hss.fullerton.edu/philosophy/Nichols.htm

Christine asks a very good question

<quote>Given this understanding, how is it that "natural
selection" gives rise to life, rather than acting upon
it? Isn't an existing life form inherent in the
definition?</quote>

Not really, imperfect replication is all that is really needed, and
some form of selective pressures.
Interview http://thesciphishow.com/darwinordesign/?page_id=18

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 15 22:14:52 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 15 2007 - 22:14:52 EDT