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

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Mon Aug 20 2007 - 09:53:27 EDT

You are constantly harping on ID proponents for not doing good science. I ask you what good science is being doing by proponents of evolutionary theory. By that, I am not accepting as an answer, say, a biologist who is doing solid biology and is a proponent of evolutionary theory.


Dog breeders knew enough about hereditary laws to use or provide their knowledge to do good science. One does not need to go back to questions of origin to do good science. The overwhelming majority of physicists do excellent physics without invoking whatsoever the Big Bang. Similarly for scientist in the life sciences who do excellent science without invoking the origin neither of life nor man. Witness monk Mandel and his seminal work clearly not based on evolutionary theory.


Evolutionary theory deals with developing a history of events using pure science precisely as done by forensic scientists, who also use science but do not overwhelming do good science.





From: PvM []
Sent: Sun 8/19/2007 9:46 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad
Cc: James Mahaffy;
Subject: Re: [asa] FYI: Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of

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 <> 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 with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Aug 20 09:54:00 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 20 2007 - 09:54:00 EDT