Re: [asa] Expelled and ID

From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Apr 23 2008 - 00:15:54 EDT

skrogh,

>"Since there is no lab test that can be used to tell what is designed or
what isn't"

I think I actually agree with you somewhat here. I've been saying for years
that first we must be able to measure design. Then and only then should we
worry about what the implications might be if we obtained a result from the
measurement.

But if someone is going to claim that something is all natural (ie, due to
all natural processes) shouldn't one first be able to measure the
difference between a natural phenomenon and a non-natural phenomenon? If
science cannot measure this then how can science reach a conclusion that
everything is natural?

The answer is, science hasn't concluded.

But there are design detectors. These exist between the ears of humans. Now,
if one is going to tell people that "science says they are wrong", shouldn't
one be able to at least have science objectively measure what is designed
and what isn't? If your premise is correct, then those making this claim
that "science says they are wrong", (or perhaps even that believers in
design are being irrational) have a serious credibility problem with the
public.

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:44 PM, skrogh. <panterragroup@mindspring.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for the input, but that is not what we are really talking about
> with my modicum of sarcasm. I am talking about Design in the ID movement in
> trying to compete with legit sciences, not as in that 70's song "Master
> Designer." Since there is no lab test that can be used to tell what is
> designed or what isn't or nothing that can falsify it. Similar to trying to
> falsify Omphalism. Hope that clears it up.
>
> =========================================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 20, 2008 8:34 PM
> *To:* panterragroup@mindspring.com
> *Cc:* D. F. Siemens, Jr.; asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Expelled and ID
>
> Whatever you think if ID, "bad design" is a poor response if you believe
> in a creator God at all. However God created, this is we He did, "bad"
> designs and all. Unless you profess a God who isn't in control over
> whatever procesess He used to create.
>
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 3:21 PM, skrogh. <panterragroup@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Apr 23 00:16:57 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 23 2008 - 00:16:57 EDT