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

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Jul 02 2008 - 03:52:37 EDT

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Collin Brendemuehl
<collinb@brendemuehl.net> wrote:
>>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.

Au contraire, just let me ask you how does ID explain the bacterial
flagellum? Nuf said

>>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.

Nonsense

>>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.

so show me that ID has anything relevant to contribute to science. So
far you have provided no evidence. I am not surprised

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 2 03:53:15 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 02 2008 - 03:53:15 EDT