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

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Aug 19 2007 - 21:46:51 EDT

Let's for the moment not get carried away from the issue here which is
whether or not some ID proponents actually do science.

So far, ID's approach remains without content, as it refuses to admit
the necessary side assumptions for ID to have scientific relevance,
unlike forensic science which is based on many positive assumptions
which have been tested, and verified.

ID has nothing to offer in this area.

On 8/19/07, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> Forensic scientists do not do science; they use the results of the experimental sciences to do their detective work. One can say the same for evolutionary theory. One can easily show the good science done by experimental physicists, chemists, biologists, geneticists, etc. What good science has evolutionary theory done?
>

I am not sure why some are taking Wells' Icons of Evolution seriously
as somehow positive contributions to science. As to the case of
malaria, a simple reading of the many refuttals of Behe's claims
should say enough about the level of his claims. It's the nitpicking
of details which make ID so irrelevant since it fails to take these
cases into consideration.

I am not very impressed by Behe's Explore Evolution especially since
it fails to deliver the rhetoric of the press releases that
accompanied it.

Behe's level of math is almost as earth shattering in my opinion as
Dembski's calculations of the probability of a protein arising by
chance. Sufficient to make people believe that there is some real
data, but insufficient to really defend the premise.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Aug 19 21:47:15 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 19 2007 - 21:47:15 EDT