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

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Sat Jul 05 2008 - 18:11:41 EDT

On Jul 5, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Murray Hogg wrote:

> Hi Pim and Rich,
>
> I hope you'll excuse me if I express some mild bemusement at your
> responses. It's almost as if I had utterly repudiated everything Pim
> had written when, in actual fact, I was very careful to preface my
> remarks with an acknowledgment that I am in substantial agreement
> with Pim's post.
>
> Here I think you gents should keep in mind that my remarks were
> addressed ONLY to one particular claim - namely the following;
>
> <snip>
> The problem is that ID does stop with identifying areas which escape
> our present day understanding and rather than provide evidence that ID
> has a better explanation, ID falters because in order to take the next
> step it has to show that its explanation can compete with ignorance.
> </snip>
>
> My ONLY point was that this claim - that ID STOPS with identifying
> areas of ignorance - seems overstated.
>

I tend to agree with you here and in point of fact it was part of the
original 1998 plan to go beyond merely identifying these points of
ignorance. Both Johnson and Nelson are on record with their
disappointment with the lack of progress on the science track of ID.
When the "plan" was executed with the scientific back up of ID failed
that just went on to step 2 because it was so easy to convince the
general public of their "progress" because they could gin up
"controversy". The problem is that the general evangelical public is
now under the false impression that ID has been a scientific success
when it has been a singular failure. The other thing that ID does not
do is to admit to areas of FORMER ignorance. They are under no
obligation to fill the gaps themselves but they should have the
integrity to admit when others have filled them as was shown in vivid
relief at the Dover trial. Instead, they concoct this myth of a
conspiracy of rejected papers. Thus, I have a somewhat different take
than Pim. I say ID should have stopped with identifying areas of
ignorance and not moved on to their political plank as they promised
until they have marshaled the evidence and they most definitely should
have stopped when evidence disproving their hypothesis was produced.

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 Sat Jul 5 18:12:04 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 05 2008 - 18:12:04 EDT