RE: [asa] Expelled and ID

From: skrogh. <panterragroup@mindspring.com>
Date: Sun Apr 20 2008 - 15:21:49 EDT

Bad designs haven't seemed to gotten through the ID design detector.
=========================================

  -----Original Message-----
  From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
  Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:35 PM
  To: panterragroup@mindspring.com
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled and ID

  I think there is one which does so in principle. It's opposite would
justify ID. If we have sequenced the genomes of all the species, or at least
all the species in one kingdom, and figured out exactly how all the various
parts work, if we discover some genes/control sequences/whatever else comes
up that cannot be derived from others earlier in the evolutionary
development, we presumably have evidence that they were introduced by the
deity or some superior power. This is sure evidence for ID. However, the
current indication is that we have sequences in genomes that simply preserve
stuff from the past, which is clear evidence against ID. Things are too
sloppy to be designed, unless the designer intends to mislead us.

  Generally, given the state of human knowledge, proof and falsification are
claims too strong to be supported.
  Dave (ASA)

  On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:46:02 -0500 "skrogh."
<panterragroup@mindspring.com> writes:
    Also, can one conceive of a potential observation that would falsify ID?

      -----Original Message-----
      From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
      Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 5:39 PM
      To: asa@calvin.edu
      Subject: RE: [asa] Expelled and ID

      ID is saying it is “science” so it can be more serious. To make it
science, you have to bear on scientific things, such as math (statistics)
and biology. So they are appealing to the hard sciences to bring it into
the scientific realm.

      However, they have no scientific hypothesis. “God made it” is not a
hypothesis, since it can’t be tested. By definition, the scientific method
requires a hypothesis that can be tested. You also can’t test evolution per
“origin of life,” but there are other parts of evolution which are testable…
ID has nothing testable. They think by disproving known naturalistic
methods, God is then the default answer—but it isn’t.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
On Behalf Of Mountainwoman
      Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 2:10 PM
      To: asa@calvin.edu
      Subject: [asa] Expelled and ID

      Having just seen Ben Stein's "Expelled," one thought that occurred to
me is the following:

      Is Intelligent Design a modern incarnation of the classic teleological
argument for the existence of God and therefore belongs in the philosophy
and/or theology departments of universities rather than in the science
departments?

      Paul Bruggink (ASA Member)

      Clarington, PA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 20 15:24:30 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 20 2008 - 15:24:30 EDT