Re: [asa] ID: Neither Science nor Religion

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Jul 02 2008 - 10:57:12 EDT

I see no other options. Sure, we could be ignorant of better
explanations, even Darwinism had to evolve although the main principle
of variation and selection remains.

ID's approach makes the conclusions and arguments rather weak because
it concludes design when we have eliminated known natural processes,
when a better conclusion would surely have been "we don't know". It's
through equivocation on terms like complexity, information and design
that ID confuses, misdirects.

Ask yourself, how does ID explain anything it concludes to be 'designed'?

Hint: It doesn't.

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Collin Brendemuehl
<collinb@brendemuehl.net> wrote:
>>But what does remain when natural processes have been eliminated?
>>Either the supernatural, or our ignorance or perhaps an empty set?
>
> Are there no other options?
> How about corrections to naturalism?
> Maybe there is another evolutionary argument that will work better than
> Darwinsim?
> While b&w arguments are considered weak, likewise so are many b&w
> conclusions.

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 10:57:36 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 02 2008 - 10:57:36 EDT