RE: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith

From: Thomas Pearson <>
Date: Thu Nov 12 2009 - 09:46:14 EST

On Thursday, November 12, John Walley reported the following quote from William Lane Craig:


>>>First, I argued that Ayala fails to disqualify ID scientifically because he cannot show that the Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection are capable of producing the sort of biological complexity we see on earth.<<<


Do proponents of ID routinely argue that if Darwinian mechanisms of RM and NS are inadequate as explanations, that constitutes a failure to disqualify ID scientifically? Does that mean ID automatically becomes the default position if doubts are cast on Darwinian accounts of evolution? It seems like a non sequitur to me. What am I missing here?


Tom Pearson




Thomas D. Pearson

Department of History & Philosophy

The University of Texas-Pan American

Edinburg, Texas




To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 12 09:46:26 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 12 2009 - 09:46:26 EST