Re: [asa] The Myth of the Rejected ID Paper (science stoppers and OOL)

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Fri Jul 04 2008 - 15:59:00 EDT

The question is of course, would the position of 'science cannot
explain x' would have achieved the same without the unnecessary
conflation of terminology?

Sure, science proceeds by filling in gaps of our knowledge, the
question is what does ID have to contribute here other than to point
out that science does not have all the answers yet?

On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As we can see, It's not really a science stopper in the absolute sense
> because Lenski and others have continued to practice science while the small
> group of ID proponents have not. Thus, the net effect on science itself is
> actually quite small while the effect on the community of faith is
> incalculable.
> 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 Fri Jul 4 15:59:27 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jul 04 2008 - 15:59:27 EDT