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

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Jul 07 2008 - 22:59:07 EDT

On Jul 7, 2008, at 8:26 PM, Rich Blinne wrote:

> 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.

Let me add further clarification here. Just because the statement
above is not science does not imply it is not true. Also from the same
NAS statement:

> Science and religion are based on different aspects of human
> experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn
> from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations
> or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must
> lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation.
> Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical
> evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting
> evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities.
> Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot
> be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are
> separate and address aspects of human understanding in different
> ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create
> controversy where none needs to exist. [emphasis in the original]

Note how this differs from what Richard Dawkins might say. For
example, he would get rid of the "only" out of "Religious faith, in
contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence".

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 Mon Jul 7 22:59:44 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 07 2008 - 22:59:44 EDT