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

The matter is really simple, whether or not ID is science is
irrelevant, it's scientifically vacuous. If by rigging the results you
mean that science expects that contributions to it have some
scientific relevance then let it be so.

But in all honesty, ID has rigged the issue by conflating terminology
and misleading its followers about what it is and what it isn't.

So in other words, I do not have to define what is science and what it
isn't. All I have to do is ask some simple questions

1. How does ID explain the bacterial flagellum?
2. What non trivial contributions has ID made to science?
3. What predictions follow logically from the premises of ID?

The answers

1. It does not
2. Nothing
3. None

On 9/14/07, Peter Loose <peterwloose@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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 11:01:08 2007