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

From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Date: Wed Jul 02 2008 - 12:00:30 EDT

"In truth, many of the scientists in the trenches of evolutionary
biology are not atheists nor believe in deterministic materialism."

 

True... Kenneth Miller said that the majority of those testifying on
behalf of evolution at the Dover trial were actually believers.

 

...Bernie

 

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Rich Blinne
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:25 AM
To: Collin Brendemuehl
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Four myths about I.D.; four myths about T.E.

 

 

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+auth
or%3ASeelke&as_ylo=2003&btnG=Search
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=+%22SA+Minnich%22+author:SA+author:M
innich&hl=en&lr=&as_subj=bio&scoring=r&as_ylo=2003
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_ep
q=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+ev
olution&as_ylo=2003&btnG=Search&as_subj=bio
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=Y+pestis+evoluti
on&as_ylo=2003&btnG=Search&as_subj=bio
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=blood+clotting+e
volution&as_ylo=2003&btnG=Search&as_subj=bio
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=vertebrate+eye+e
volution&as_ylo=2003&btnG=Search&as_subj=bio
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=plasmodium+evolu
tion&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 12:01:17 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 02 2008 - 12:01:17 EDT