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

The letter on Poe and Mytyk awaits publication.
Dave (ASA)

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:14:17 -0500 "David Clounch"
<david.clounch@gmail.com> writes:

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 15:15:43 2007