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

Well PvM, that's quite remarkable. I've asked the questions:

"What is Science?

What is the purpose of Science?

And

Who says that is the case?"

But your response avoids the question by raising the matter of ID. I did not
raise that. Until the question I asked is discussed it is vacuous to
consider what may be 'in' or 'out' scientifically. There has to be an agreed
'definition' of science.

How can one categorise a matter as 'unscientific' such as you do for ID,
without first saying what science is, positively? Are you implying that all
'space' not occupied by ID is science? I hope not.

It's like trying to measure an object but having no agreed ruler or
'standard' to measure it by. That is incoherent and illogical.

Or is the prevailing consensus definition of 'science' likely to expose the
reality of my contention, namely it rigs the result? Is this the
trade-secret of neo-Darwinism?

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: pvm.pandas@gmail.com [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:02 PM
To: Peter Loose
Cc: rpaulmason@juno.com; heddle@gmail.com; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?

 
THen explain to me what you believe science should be that it would
include a vacuous concept like ID to be called 'scientific'?
What has ID contributed to our knowledge?

On 9/13/07, Peter Loose <peterwloose@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> 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?

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.16/1004 - Release Date: 12/09/2007
17:22
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Sep 14 04:00:33 2007