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

From: Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
Date: Mon Jul 07 2008 - 22:39:09 EDT

Hi Rich,

Thanks for the below: I hadn't come across it before. It's a neat
summary/distinction.

I stand corrected! :)

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

>
> A choice is not needed because the two statements are to two different
> claims by ID. The following is from the 2008 NAS statement. The
> (testable and thus scientific) idea of irreducible complexity has been
> disproven while the positive argument for ID (IC therefore ID) is not
> science. The confusion comes from the conflation of ID with IC by both
> proponents and opponents of ID.

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 22:39:44 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 07 2008 - 22:39:44 EDT