Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)

From: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>
Date: Fri May 29 2009 - 07:36:54 EDT

Thank you, Cameron.
May I just make a minor further clarification?
I'm not "limiting "science" in the way that you do". I don't have the power
or ability to limit science. It's just that design by an unknown agent or
methodology cannot be done scientifically--no one has shown the ability to
do so, no matter how much we may want to.

May I also comment on of your statements to Terry? You quote Dembski, Behe,
and others as saying that ID is not incompatible with evolution and that
even if evolution were shown to be true, ID is still valid. I think that is
certainly true of id but I have often asked for clarification of the
compatibility of ID with evolution. If I understand all your comments as
well as those of Dembski and Behe, the compatibility of ID with evolution
depends critically on evolution being incomplete. That is, "we agree with
everything except it cannot explain the details" or something along those
lines. Let us suppose (I know you think it is a fantasy but let's pretend)
that the evolutionary theory explains at every level of detail the
development of all proteins. Would ID still be compatible with evolution in
that scenario?

Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 29 07:37:32 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 29 2009 - 07:37:32 EDT