Re: design and the nature of science (was: Re: [asa] Re: Gingerich on TE and ID)

From: <>
Date: Wed Jun 10 2009 - 17:47:01 EDT

I wasn't trying to be subtle.  I simply meant the overwhelmingly accepted descent-with-modification of modern biology.  I don't buy your artificial distinctions between science, historical science, and metaphysics.  All are at least partly interrelated and not completely separable.  But that really doesn't matter.  The point was that ID needs to produce some results before they can claim that there is a controversy and that they should be part of it.

Karl V. Evans

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
To: <>; <>
Sent: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 9:06 am
Subject: RE: design and the nature of science (was: Re: [asa] Re: Gingerich on TE and ID)

ould you kindly define what “standard biology” is? Is it experimental biology?
f in evolutionary theory metaphysical assumptions are made that go beyond
cience, then evolutionary theory is not science and such assumptions have to be
learly stated. What are the metaphysical assumptions being made in evolutionary
heory? Evolutionary theory is a historical science and one must discern very
arefully the aspect of evolutionary theory that relies on experimental biology
nd those other aspects that may not.
rom: [] On Behalf Of []
ent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:35 AM
ubject: Re: design and the nature of sc
ience (was: Re: [asa] Re: Gingerich on
E and ID)
David makes a good point that I'd like to second. If ID can find folks to fund
hem (and they can), I doubt that anyone here would say "stop that".
ersonally, I think that there are very good scientific and theological reasons
or thinking that they will never produce results of any substance. But clearly
thers can differ with me on this. What is most objectionable is that virtually
rom ID's birth some two decades ago, they have insisted that they are an
lternative to standard biology. And all this without ever having produced any
esults -- as Behe essentially admitted under oath at Dover.
ID can do all the "research" they want, but let's have some results before
houting about 'teaching the controversy'.
arl V. Evans<>
-----Original Message-----
rom: David Campbell <>
ent: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 5:23 pm
ubject: Re: design and the nature of science (was: Re: [asa] Re: Gingerich on
E and ID)

 So the question arises why, if we can infer an intangible, invisible,
 massless thing like "gravity", without violating "methodological
 naturalism", why can't we infer something intangible, invisible and massless
 like "final cause" in nature? I am not arguing that we *should* make the
 inference that final causes operate in nature; I am only asking why such an
 inference is shut out of science *in principle*.
I can't think of a good reason that
final cause would be, in
rinciple, excluded from science. However, I do not think it is
ikely that final cause will be amenable to scientific investigation,
or do I think that the methods for detecting such advocated by
embski, Behe, etc. actually work.
In other words, I would respond to the theoretical end of ID "go ahead
nd try to find scientific evidence of design if you like, but I'm not
ptimistic that you'll get anywhere."

r. David Campbell
25 Scientific Collections
niversity of Alabama
I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
o unsubscribe, send a message to with
unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
ell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell's full line of 
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 10 17:48:51 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 10 2009 - 17:48:51 EDT