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

From: Collin R Brendemuehl <collinb@brendemuehl.net>
Date: Wed Jul 02 2008 - 12:08:16 EDT

I'm not suggesting that all are determinists.
All I'm suggesting is that *some* science is heading in the wrong direction.
It seems a strange coincidence that, for the last 200 years or so,
much of both theology and naturalism has ended up with a form of determinism.

It seems adequate to say that a theory which produces nothing might
be, at minimum, malformed.

At 11:24 AM 7/2/2008, you wrote:

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

Sincerely,

Collin Brendemuehl
http://www.brendemuehl.net

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose"
                                                 -- Jim Elliott

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 12:08:47 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 02 2008 - 12:08:47 EDT