Re: [Bulk] RE: [asa] Design Inference Mixed with Faith WAS Stupid/Dumb Science and Intelligent/Intelligence Science

From: David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Oct 23 2007 - 16:01:13 EDT

On Rom. 1:20, in addition to the point made (by George if I recall
correctly) that it expresses what theoretically ought to be - the
following verses make it clear that the reality is inevitably idolatry
and trying to learn what's needed about God from the creation alone is
a failure-I would also note that the next several chapters strongly
suggest that Paul had in mind primarily intangible things like the
conscience rather than physics or biology.

Is it possible to scientifically detect intelligent design? Yes, if
we have information about what the designer can do, what likely
purposes it has, and what "undesigned" actions can achieve. Forensics
and archaeology are examples frequently invoked by ID advocates.
However, the criteria advocated for identifying complex biochemical
systems as designed are not based on information about what the
designer does and what "undesigned" things are like; rather, they are
based on perceived similarities between complex biochemical systems
and certain human-designed things. As a result, the level of false
positives and false negatives under criteria like specified complexity
or irreducible complexity (not to mention the watered down and
distorted versions in more popular presentations) make them invalid.
Perhaps more important than the scientific failure is that ID is not
well-rooted in considerations of the designer's purposes and normal
approaches.

-- 
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 majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 23 16:01:59 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 23 2007 - 16:01:59 EDT