Re: [asa] Behe on Darwin, design and teleology

From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
Date: Fri May 22 2009 - 08:42:11 EDT

Randy,

  The response from the scientific community is simply that design, in that
> abstract sense where there is no known agent or known detailed design
> mechanism, is not detectable by science. Furthermore, the mainstream (as
> opposed to the vociferous anti-theistic elements) evolutionists do not see
> the lack of a detailed causal mechanism as fundamental but aspects which can
> increasingly be understood. Furthermore, they argue there is no
> characteristic that requires "intelligence" in the sense implied.
>
>
So design is not detectable by science, but we know design is not required?

If this is the response from the scientific community, then someone needs to
set the scientific community straight. If questions of design are outside
the scope of science, then whether "intelligence in the sense implied" is
required cannot be ruled on either.

One of these days, said "community" is going to have to decide which horn of
the dilemma to impale themselves on. Arguing that design is not detectable
by science - and also that science has shown design is not necessary -
demonstrates either passive ignorance or active deception.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 22 08:42:18 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 22 2009 - 08:42:18 EDT