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

Perhaps Peter knows what science is, but he wants to know if you and PvM
do? Give us your definition. Forget about YEC or ID and limit yourself
to answer a specific question.

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Michael Roberts
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 8:16 AM
To: Peter Loose; pvm.pandas@gmail.com
Cc: rpaulmason@juno.com; heddle@gmail.com; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?

Peter

I am afraid your questions are frivolous. You KNOW what science is
although
it is clearly not what either YEC or ID considers science to be. These
type
of questions have often been answered, which the emphasis that so much
of
YEC and ID is not science and is further based on flagrant
misrepresentation
which you and others choose to deny pace Wells' porkies in Icons.

Your question about Methodological Naturalism was answered well by Ted
Davis.

Throwing in Neo-Darwinism is a red herring (that a herring with a couple
of
mutations to give it a red colour) as those who do not consider
themselves
Neo-Darwinists are happy with MN so long as it is not "etaphysical" and
"aturalism" is not anti-theistic. You will find most in ASA or CIS
agreeing
with me.

If you wish to have clarity in your discussions first recognise that YEC
and
ID is anti-scientific where it takes on the scientific consensus with
its
warblings about MN, Design, origins and operational science,
baraminology
and flood geology.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Loose" <peterwloose@compuserve.com>
To: <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Cc: <rpaulmason@juno.com>; <heddle@gmail.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 8:59 AM
Subject: 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.
>

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

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 08:49:34 2007