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

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Jul 02 2008 - 11:24:32 EDT

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Collin Brendemuehl <collinb@brendemuehl.net>
wrote:

>
> "Science stopper"?
> I wonder if it is any more a science stopper than today's deterministic
> materialism?
>

You've got to be kidding. Note these searches:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=author%3ARW+author%3ASeelke&as_ylo=2003&btnG=Search
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=+%22SA+Minnich%22+author:SA+author:Minnich&hl=en&lr=&as_subj=bio&scoring=r&as_ylo=2003
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=MJ+Behe&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=MJ+Behe&as_publication=&as_ylo=2003&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=some&as_subj=bio&hl=en&lr=

And compare with this:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=E+Coli+flagella+evolution&as_ylo=2003&btnG=Search&as_subj=bio
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=immune+system+evolution&as_ylo=2003&btnG=Search&as_subj=bio
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=Y+pestis+evolution&as_ylo=2003&btnG=Search&as_subj=bio
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=blood+clotting+evolution&as_ylo=2003&btnG=Search&as_subj=bio
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=vertebrate+eye+evolution&as_ylo=2003&btnG=Search&as_subj=bio
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=plasmodium+evolution&as_ylo=2003&btnG=Search&as_subj=bio

and of course:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=evolution&as_ylo=2003&btnG=Search&as_subj=bio

>
> My thought is that it does not carry any more metaphysical baggage than the
> "science" of the New Atheists.
> I'm not an ID proponent. I have some serious concerns about ID. But I
> think this criticism is not realistic.
> I think a better criticism is that it may be a mal-formed theory and
> requires some revision.
>
It's not a theory because a theory by definition is tested. A mal-formed
theory would be much preferable to the current situation. The reason why
testing is important is the original hypothesis is often wrong or
incomplete. The art of science if you will is coming up with the clever test
and finding things you hadn't dreamed of going into the experiment. ID has
been completely static for decades now. When Micheal Behe came to Colorado
State to speak it was same old, same old. The Dover trial proved that any
new evidence is simply "not good enough" and the reason why ID has not
contributed at all to the state of the science which has taken off like a
rocket without them. On the other hand, the so-called New Atheist's
evolutionary biology is much different than 15 years ago. [Mr. Rogers
voice.] Can you say comparative genomics? Sure, I knew you could. N.B., I
don't consider that the atheists "own" evolutionary biology but I accepted
that as fact for the sake of argument. In truth, many of the scientists in
the trenches of evolutionary biology are not atheists nor believe in
deterministic materialism.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

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 11:24:42 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 02 2008 - 11:24:42 EDT