RE: [asa] Stupid/Dumb Science and Intelligent/Intelligence Science

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat Oct 20 2007 - 21:08:01 EDT

>Of course, that ID is merely the set theoretic complement of regularity
>and chance shows that 'design' is not an explanation but rather a
>position of ignorance based on the fact that science cannot (yet)
>explain a particular feature.

This sounds like the modern day equivalent of the Pharisees rationalizing
and dismissing the miracles of Jesus. God is the author of our natural laws
and He chose exceptions to these laws that he worked at His will to be a
testimony to Him.

And in fact for this correlation to be logical, God obviously intended a
common sense interpretation from the masses of His exceptions to the
standard laws to show His divine handiwork based on their improbability, not
an appeal to ignorance (this goes both ways) and a faith that science will
one day explain it.

Thus Pim, your rabid ID bashing goes against God's chosen methodology of
revealing himself to humanity.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of PvM
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 7:09 PM
To: (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Stupid/Dumb Science and Intelligent/Intelligence Science

As George has already pointed out, this is a very inept response. Of
course, that ID is merely the set theoretic complement of regularity
and chance shows that 'design' is not an explanation but rather a
position of ignorance based on the fact that science cannot (yet)
explain a particular feature.

I have invited many an ID activist to present their best explanation
for how the bacterial flagellum was 'designed' but given the fact that
there do exist plausible evolutionary explanations or hypotheses, ID
cannot even speak about the flagellum being designed. ID proponents
argue that these explanations are not detailed enough and that design
is still the best explanation, but that is an illogical position
because ID does not explain anything.

What has ID to offer beyond 'design'? Nothing at all really. And the
proof is in the pudding so the speak as ID has yet to propose ANY
scientific explanation for what it claims is 'designed'.

On 10/20/07, (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan <tanyewhock@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From the THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC BIOETHICS QUARTERLY --
>
> [my title] Stupid/Dumb Science and Intelligent/Intelligence Science
>
> I chanced upon this very excellent article on intelligent design which I
> want to recommend to all who are open to intelligence design. Among other
> things, it explains why intelligent design is science, and that it makes
> predictions, and is falsifiable, and that the Darwinist theory of NO
DESIGN
> needs to be tested against the competing intelligent design theory of REAL
> DESIGN, and that was what Darwin himself was doing. [But present-day
> Darwinists are obviously afraid to deal with intelligent design theory.]
>
> Let me quote just the following response to intelligent design being a
> "science stopper". I think this reply is most excellent and should put a
> stop to all "science stopper" allegations. Same for God-of-the-Gaps.
>
> http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Oct 20 21:09:02 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Oct 20 2007 - 21:09:02 EDT