Re: [asa] Expelled and ID

From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Apr 23 2008 - 15:21:49 EDT

Hi Don,

 They are looking for ways to identify design.

I think I disagree. I think they have been looking for ways to identify
what is natural versus what is not natural. let me be more specific.
Natural re-arrangements of pre-existing material, versus non-natural
re-arrangements. And their detractors are looking for the exactly that
same criteria too. Except for one group: those who are driven by an
ideology that says by definition there cannot be anything but natural
phenomena because nothing else exists. The latter is a form of
materialism.

> 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.

But they dont do this based on science. If something by definition cannot
be tested (cannot be evaluated by science) then how can someone use
science to draw a conclusion? It is impossible, and thus it is illogical to
claim that science was used to reach a viewpoint.

> They can't have it both ways.
>

>
> I'm not sure what you mean by your last phrase ".. science hasn't
> concluded". Both the NAS and AAAS apparently have concluded.

What do they claim? But it is really important that they back it up with
science in the exact same sense and the exact same way that they claim
science is used to reach all other scientific conclusions. That is the
potential disconnect. You cannot say it is impossible to test something,
and then to simultaneously claim to have tested something. To do so makes
one look like an idiot.

> They rule out any possible explanation that is not "natural".

And this, which is itself a both conclusion and a belief, was tested how?
In the absence of testing it sounds like fideism or dogma. Neither of which
is supposed to be a characteristic of science. Is it an "ultimate" sort of
belief, affecting "ultimate questions"?

On the other hand, since science is allegedly "tentative", if (the ruling
out ) is a "tentative belief" (and thus subject to change as new
information becomes available) then that might be different. In a legal
sense.

> Sounds like they have already made up their minds.

Maybe.

Cheers,
Dave (ASA member)

>
>
> Don (ASA member)
> ________________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of
> David Clounch [david.clounch@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:15 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled and ID
>
> 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
> <mailto: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<mailto:
> dopderbeck@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 8:34 PM
> To: panterragroup@mindspring.com<mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com>
> Cc: D. F. Siemens, Jr.; asa@calvin.edu<mailto: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
> <mailto: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>
> [mailto: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<mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu<mailto: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
> <mailto: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>
> [mailto: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<mailto: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>
> [mailto: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<mailto: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.
>

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 15:22:48 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 23 2008 - 15:22:48 EDT