Re: [asa] Expelled and ID (ASA annual mtg.)

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Wed Apr 23 2008 - 10:50:17 EDT

There was a panel discussion on ID at the Messiah meeting in 2005. Two
notable features of it were:

1) The organizer deliberately excluded ant specifically theological
critiuque of ID.

2) Dembski said irenically in the course of the discussion that he didn't
think that it was necessary to rule out theistic evolution. His performance
since then gioves good reason to wonder how sincere he was about that.

ID is a failed research program both scientifically and theologically. It
has failed every attempt to make any positive contribution in either area &
its attempt to give itself some credibility by such devices as smuggling
Meyer's term paper into a peer-reviewed journal shows how pitiful it really


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:35 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] Expelled and ID (ASA annual mtg.)

That would be a good debate to have at the annual mtg- I would find it

Invite an ID guest to debate:

"Science is only natural, not supernatural."

Debate the pro's/con's, with Q & A.

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of Donald F Calbreath
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:42 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] Expelled and ID

But isn't this what the ID folks have been saying all along? They are
looking for ways to identify design. From what has been said, you imply
that design is a testable hypothesis. Yes, it is. But mainstream
scientists attack ID as being non-scientific. They can't have it both

I'm not sure what you mean by your last phrase ".. science hasn't
concluded". Both the NAS and AAAS apparently have concluded. They rule
out any possible explanation that is not "natural". Sounds like they
have already made up their minds.

Don (ASA member)
From: [] On Behalf
Of David Clounch []
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled and ID


>"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.
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
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 8:34 PM
Cc: D. F. Siemens, Jr.;<>
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.

Bad designs haven't seemed to gotten through the ID design detector.
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:35 PM
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."
Also, can one conceive of a potential observation that would falsify ID?
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 5:39 PM
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.


On Behalf Of Mountainwoman
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 2:10 PM
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 with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Apr 23 10:53:12 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 23 2008 - 10:53:12 EDT