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

From: dfsiemensjr <>
Date: Thu Nov 12 2009 - 15:21:27 EST

I think you're forgetting those two much used premises. "I'm right" is
often basic. Then there is what I have termed Premise Number One: "Since
you disagree with me about {insert item}, you are {insert appropriate
pejorative term]." As used, they require no proof beyond the assumption.
Dave (ASA)

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:46:14 -0600 "Thomas Pearson" <>
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
Weight Loss Program
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 12 15:46:00 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 12 2009 - 15:46:00 EST