Re: [asa] ID: Neither Science nor Religion

From: Collin Brendemuehl <collinb@brendemuehl.net>
Date: Wed Jul 02 2008 - 17:33:43 EDT

"Lacks content"?
You appeal to verificationism and logical positivism yet support non-productive theories.
That is one serious contradiction.
-----Original Message-----
From: PvM [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 05:14 PM
To: 'Collin Brendemuehl'
Cc: 'ASA'
Subject: Re: [asa] ID: Neither Science nor Religion

While it may be hard to define what science is, it seems trivial to show that ID is scientifically vacuous as it lacks any content. First of all there is no theory of ID, as several ID proponents have also come to admit. In addition, multiverses for instance follow logically from existing theories and lead to predictions and a framework for fruitful theoretical development. ID has nothing of the kind. This has nothing to do with empiricism but all with content. On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: > That depends upon what "science" is. Many theories begin with nothing or > very little, or something as weak as simple visual observation. > There is a good quantity of theoretical science which produces no fruit. > Tacyhons. Hypercanes. Multiple dimensions and universes. > We must be careful to not cling to empiricism too strongly. > It might do damage to other valuable sciences. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: PvM [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 04:41 PM > To: 'William Hamilton' > Cc: 'Nucacids', asa@calvin.edu > Subject: Re: [asa] ID: Neither Science nor Religion > > Exactly, science does deal with legal approaches such as means, motives, > opportunities, physical evidence, eye witnesses etc. Which is why 1) ID's > claim that science cannot deal with intelligent causes is flawed 2) ID's > claim that intelligent causes can be reliably detected by methods which > focus on our ignorance is flawed. On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 11:55 AM, William > Hamilton wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:08 PM, PvM wrote: >> >> > Your version of ID however is somewhat at odds with how ID is commonly >> > applied and we run the risk of conflating the two concepts. ID as >> > proposed by the mainstream is not about a police investigation, no eye >> > witnesses, no physical evidence, no motives means and opportunities. > > > However, Phillip Johnson, the so-called "father of ID" sometimes > > characterizes science as a legal investigation. True he doesn't deal with > > eyewitnesses, but his analogies deal analyzing physical evidence. >> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu 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 majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the > body of the message.

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 17:34:10 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 02 2008 - 17:34:10 EDT