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

From: Collin Brendemuehl <collinb@brendemuehl.net>
Date: Tue Jul 01 2008 - 20:28:46 EDT

>I still see some common confusions with what ID is and is not. Myth #
>1 is not that ID is not science but rather that its foundation in
>ignorance prevents it from making scientifically relevant
>contributions.

ID / IC is a model, just like Darwinism is a model.
Both are the same type of science.

>The claim that science need to limit itself to naturalistic mechanisms
>conflates the meaning of the term 'intelligence' when in fact
>intelligence can be seen as a naturalistic mechanism.

The "intelligence" of ID is an active agency. Naturalism does not allow for that.

>The closest ID comes to a scientific claim is stating that 'x' cannot
>yet be explained by science. The rest is based on poor logic at best.

No. ID acts as a falsifier for Darwinism and some claims of evolutionary biology.
For those who claim to depend upon some form of empiricism a falsifier should be welcome.

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 20:29:11 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 01 2008 - 20:29:11 EDT