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

PvM

Now let's get this straight shall we? You are claiming that we can use a
term and reason about 'it', making judgements on the basis of the term but
never have a definition of that term?

I am wondering what's happened to common sense let alone to reason, to
logic, to understanding, to scholarship....

I have posed these questions - "What is science?" "What is the purpose of
science?" because they are part of the culture and have assumed meanings. It
is a genuine discussion and there seem to be a range of possible answers.

Surely one can ask for foundational rigour? Or are you reluctant to join the
debate because you understand very well that some definitions of science do
load the outcomes??

I look forward to some serious scholarship...

Thank you

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of PvM
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 4:05 PM
To: David Clounch
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?

 
I argue that ID is vacuous. Whether or not the content of these
articles are vacuous is irrelevant.

So let's focus on the issue at hand, which is not about methodological
naturalism, or scientism but about the scientific vacuity of ID.

Why does it seem to be so hard to point to scientific contributions of ID?

On 9/14/07, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.

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 Sat Sep 15 05:02:02 2007