Re: [asa] Four myths about I.D.; four myths about T.E.

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Jul 01 2008 - 02:41:23 EDT

Good question, and you have pointed out why ID fails since it provides
no manner to determine if the ID explanation is in any way better than
our ignorance. In fact, as history has shown, our inability to
understand certain concepts has led to countless false positives for
design and there is no compelling reason why the future should not be
the same. Of course, the possibility could always exist that some
non-natural, read supernatural, process is required but how would we
be able to determine such if we have no way of formulating the
method/process involved.

In other words, at best ID is on the same level as our ignorance, in
reality it seems to suffer from a lack of research program once a
'design inference' has been reached.

ID's objections to science are also mostly limited to evolutionary
theory because of the flawed belief that if natural processes can
explain the origin and evolution of life, that God has somehow been
disproven or made irrelevant. And yet, what more powerful faith than a
faith in God against all evidence? After all, the mere fact that
natural processes may be sufficient does not mean that they were
unique. In fact, we already know how artificial selection was used by
Darwin in his arguments for natural selection. In other words, the two
are not mutually exclusive.

The problem is that ID has chosen to assign a 'super natural' position
to intelligence, arguing that intelligence is not reducible to chance
and regularity, even though I see no inherent problems with the
position that intelligence is a natural outcome. However to some this
seems to reduce the relevance of God. I fail to see how science can
possibly achieve this.

In fact, a concept of front loading, which is the logical solution to
merging ID and TE also makes ID irrelevant as a concept of science. In
other words, if the origin of the 'design' was somehow front loaded we
reach at best a stalemate as to how the initial conditions, or
boundary conditions became specified.

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
> Won't the ID detractors simply answer that the phrase "*known* natural processes" (emphasis added) will become a crux of determination
> about whether this is a scientific claim or not? I.e. Everybody would agree that this is indeed science if the speaker is then willing to
> proceed by saying, "Okay, so let's try to discover unknown processes that *would* explain this." or "Let's keep working on how existing
> known processes might explain it in ways we haven't yet understood."

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 1 02:41:58 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 01 2008 - 02:41:58 EDT