RE: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?

PvM says

<Why is ID not science ?>

I see the response as interesting but not immediately relevant.

Why?

Until there is clarity on:

What is Science?

What is the purpose of Science?

And

Who says that is the case?

 - then all the other discussion stands on quick-sand.

I know some say this has all been discussed before. But the issue is not
settled. It is not settled because many hide behind a definition or an
'understanding' that science only proceeds on the basis of Methodological
Naturalism. So any theory that is not consistent with MN is declared to be
unscientific. Really? Who made these high priests of naturalism that so
speak ex-cathedra?

That is not accurate historically - science did not proceed on an MN base -
and to accept MN is to rig the outcome. Logically, this has to be faced.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of PvM
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 3:25 AM
To: rpaulmason@juno.com
Cc: heddle@gmail.com; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?

 
This posting shows how ID has confused the issue.

Information rich is identical to eliminating known natural causes.
Alien intelligence however is still a natural cause.
And finally, SETI is using for simple signals, not complex signals,
despite the consistent confusion by ID proponents.
Why is ID not science ? SImple, it is based on an eliminative
argument, and conflates common terminology to lead its followers to
conclusions that do not follow from the premise. The abuse of
terminology like information, complexity has done a lot of disservice
to science and religious faith.

So to ask you a question: What has ID done with regard to DNA and
biological structures? Anything worth reporting on from a scientific
perspective? I'd say, nothing, nothing at all. In the mean time
scientists have shown how simple processes of variation and selection
can trivially explain the increase in information and complexity.

What if one eliminates all known natural causes, then what remains is
our ignorance. What makes you think that the set theoretic complement
of reguarity and chance should be called intelligence?

On 9/12/07, rpaulmason@juno.com <rpaulmason@juno.com> wrote:
> What if one eliminates all known natural causes for a highly organized and
information rich phenomenon - nonrandom and nonrepetative complexity. Is it
OK intelligence if the intelligence is an alien race? We are looking for
complex nonrandom signal in out space as evidence of intelligence beyond
earth: SETI. Is SETI science? If ID is doing the same thing with regard to
DNA and biologic structures, why is that not science?
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.15/1002 - Release Date: 11/09/2007
17:46
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Sep 13 05:38:04 2007