Re: [asa] The Myth of the Rejected ID Paper

From: Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
Date: Mon Jul 07 2008 - 21:18:06 EDT

Hi Pim,

Regarding the claim re testability in the following;

> "The National Academy of Sciences in 1999 stated "Creationism,
> intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in
> the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not
> testable by the methods of science."

It's well-worn observation in debates over YECism that one cannot, at
one and the same time, claim that a position is "scientifically
unfalsifiable" and also that it is "scientifically false".

In that respect, I think the doorkeepers of scientific orthodoxy
(amongst whom the AAAS and the NAS) are simply so keen to reject ID that
they end up making quite contradictory statements.

So too for those - such as yourself - who want to claim that ID is not
falsifiable AND that there IS evidentiary support for (say) evolutionary
development of the Bacterial Flagellum.

One can either advance the "not falsifiable/testible" OR the "falsified"
claim, but not both.

Care to pick one? :)

Blessings,
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology

PvM wrote:

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jul 7 21:18:43 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 07 2008 - 21:18:43 EDT