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

From: William Hamilton <>
Date: Wed Jul 02 2008 - 14:30:16 EDT

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Loren Haarsma <> wrote:

> Reply to Merv and PvM.
> Merv wrote:
> I do have a question regarding the ID Myth #1 (which you address by
>> recognizing that we need to differentiate between the parts of ID
>> that are science and the parts that aren't.) Here is an excerpt of
>> one part you give as an example of where ID IS science.
>> * Scientific claim: It is extremely improbable that first life
>> could have self-organized via known natural processes; it is
>> extremely improbable that certain subsequent increases in
>> biological complexity could have evolved via known natural
>> processes.
>> Won't the ID detractors simply answer that the phrase "*known*
>> natural processes" (emphasis added) will become a crux of
>> determination about whether this is a scientific claim or not? I.e.
>> Everybody would agree that this is indeed science if the speaker is
>> then willing to proceed by saying, "Okay, so let's try to discover
>> unknown processes that *would* explain this." or "Let's keep
>> working on how existing known processes might explain it in ways we
>> haven't yet understood."
>> But if we conclude that it is so improbable and MUST remain so, so
>> that we say an outside intelligent agency is therefore responsible,
>> then (even if we all agree to include this on the 'acceptable list')
>> doesn't this qualify as a science stopper? If not, where would
>> science proceed with that conclusion?
I think one critical point is that IF ID advocates regard the "God did it"
hypothesis as provisional, then ID is not a science stopper. However, if
they regard it as settled, then it is a science stopper and they are not
doing science.

As a Calvinist I believe that "God did it" applies to all processes. The
question for scientists is _how_ God did it. If I write a program, one could
say of the program's results, "Bill did it". And that's true, but the
program consists of logic and data structures that are worth studying. How
Bill did it is a relevant question that is worth studying whether or not you
know Bill or even care about the identity of the developer.

> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

William E (Bill) Hamilton Jr., Ph.D.
Member American Scientific Affiliation
Rochester, MI/Austin, TX
248 821 8156
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 2 14:31:09 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 02 2008 - 14:31:09 EDT