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

From: Collin Brendemuehl <collinb@brendemuehl.net>
Date: Wed Jul 02 2008 - 15:43:20 EDT

I don't know that this is a tu quoque error.
Naturalism, especially materialistic determinism, can't exist without certain presuppositions.
Could it be that much of today's science is really non-science?
Or should we work from the assumption that science (in its current state) requires these apparently problematic presuppositions?
My point is not that that we share the same problem, but that we share the same characteristic.

-----Original Message-----
From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 02:57 PM
To: collinb@brendemuehl.net
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Four myths about I.D.; four myths about T.E.

Collin wrote:
"Science stopper"?
I wonder if it is any more a science stopper than today's deterministic materialism?
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.

I'm sorry, but a tu quoque doesn't disprove Rich's clear demonstration. We are faced with two metaphysical claims, neither of which is conducive to understanding the observable. One needs continually to note that metaphysical claims, whether atheistic, deistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, polytheistic or theistic, are not supported by any of the sciences.
Dave (ASA)

____________________________________________________________
Play it loud with a new car stereo! Click here!

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 15:44:01 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 02 2008 - 15:44:01 EDT