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

>
>
> 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.

This has been addressed in various places in PSCF. For example, professor
of biology Pattle Pun wrote an article dealing with this in Volume 59, No.
2, June 2007.

I've been wondering why there isn't more discussion of the content of the
PSCF articles on this ASA list.

Another article in that same issue touches scientism. Its by Ian
Hutchinson, head of the department of Nuclear Science and engineering at
MIT.

And then there is a fascinating piece in the Sept 2007 PSCF by Harry Lee
Poe and Chelsea Mytyk (biologist and a med student at UofMo) on inventor of
the term Methodological Naturalism, Paul deVries.
The term first appeared in print in "Naturalism in the Natural Sciences" in
Christian Scholars Review in 1986. It seems to have been invented to solve
a theological problem with the interface between Christianity and science.
It seems to be a Christian concept which has been distorted into
metaphysical naturalism by both Christians and non-Christians alike.

If someone wanted to seriously argue that the content of these articles is
"vacuous" then the thing to do is submit a rebutting article (or at least a
rebutting letter) to the journal.

Thank you,
David Clounch (ASA member)

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 09:14:36 2007