Re: [asa] Expelled and ID

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Mon Apr 21 2008 - 16:41:28 EDT

Behe would be right if random mutation were all of genetic change.
However, the mechanisms are much more complex, with duplication, gene
transfer, timing change, etc., etc. I recently read that the identical
gene in Pan and Homo is controlled differently. I also remember reading
that some of the "impossible" steps in clotting claimed by Behe had been
bridged by observed developmental changes.

I know I have encountered claims by statisticians that Dembski's argument
is specious. It looks to me like ad ignorantiam or gaps.

As to Gonzalez' argument, it can be reversed: we wouldn't be here to
observe unless the earth supported our kind of life. Fine tuning may be
explained by divine design, or by conditions in a multiverse. What is
claimed depends on whether one starts as a theist, agnostic or atheist.
Dave (ASA)

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:12:32 -0500 "James Mahaffy" <Mahaffy@dordt.edu>
writes:
> Folks
>
> >>> On 4/19/2008 at 5:39 PM, in message
> <20080419224008.9F95071145D@gray.dordt.edu>, "Dehler, Bernie"
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> Please don't pick on strawman. ID has gained notice in the
> scientific world in
> part because some of the heavy players do good science. Behe is his
> latest book
> "The edge of evolution makes a scientific case for what can and can
> not be caused
> by random mutation. The examples he draws on are from his own
> published area of
> hemoglobin research.
>
> Dembski makes mathematical arguments that is possible to detect
> design mathematically.
>
> Gonzalez does a good job of showing that earth is uniquely fit to
> support life. I believe a lot of his
> well cited publications dealt with defining what conditions where
> needed to have a planet that could support life.
>
>
> I would agree that there a bunch of second tier ID folks that don't
> do much research but
> it surely is NOT true of these three. I am not suggesting that the
> science of these three is
> always right but it clearly is science. I see weakness in ID trying
> to only make a scientific
> argument (I have too much of C. Van til's presuppositionalism in me).
> In fact Bernie's statement,
> "They think by disproving known naturalistic methods, God is then
> the default answer-but it isn't." just is not true.
> The spokesman are VERY careful to say they can NOT prove the God of
> the Bible.
>
> It is possible that over time ID could replace YEC's but then ID
> would become something quite different.
>
> bcc to a colleague (as a bcc his e-mail is not out on the web in our
> ASA archives.
>
> James Mahaffy (ASA member).
>
>
>
>
> 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 Mon Apr 21 16:47:45 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 21 2008 - 16:47:45 EDT