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

Have you ever thought of an ostensive definition?
Dave (ASA)

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:23:16 +0100 "Peter Loose"
<peterwloose@compuserve.com> writes:
>
> PvM
>
> Ah, that's all now plain I think is it not? You are not willing to
> discuss
> an absolutely foundational matter.
>
> Sadly it appears that you've excluded yourself entirely from any
> further
> discussion involving 'science' because you either don't know what
> it means,
> or if you do, you are not willing to make that public. Perhaps we
> must infer
> that you have a private and special definition?
>
> It is extremely hard, if not quite impossible to reach you. I find
> that most
> disappointing.
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pvm.pandas@gmail.com [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 5:03 PM
> To: Peter Loose
> Cc: David Clounch; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?
>
>
> You tell me what ID has contributed to science and we can determine
> if
> ID is indeed, as so many have come to conclude, scientifically
> without
> any merit.
>
> Let's start with ID's definition. ID is the set theoretic
> complement
> of regularity and chance. That which remains after natural
> processes
> of regularity and chance have been eliminated. That by itself
> strongly
> suggests that ID is about the supernatural, although some ID
> proponents seem to consider intelligence itself not reducible to
> such
> processes of regularity and chance even though science has
> remarkable
> success in areas of archaeology, criminology etc, by addressing
> such
> issues as means, motives, opportunities, capabilities etc.
>
> Since ID is unable to claim that they have eliminated all proceses
> of
> regularity and chance, they have to claim that ID is that which
> remains after known processes have been eliminated. But that places
> ID
> in a gap like position since it is now competing with our ignorance
> and has no way to resolve the issue.
>
> But things get even worse, ID relies on calculating probabilities
> and
> in most cases they are unable to provide any relevant probabilities
> beyond some pure uniform chance strawmen.
>
> One does not have to define science to understand that ID is
> vacuous.
>
> And now my favorite science killer comment
>
> <quote>As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're
> asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of
> possible
> causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian
> position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task
> to
> match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.
> If
> ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable
> for
> certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your
> method
> of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected.
> But
> there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems
> that is what ID is discovering."</quote>
>
> Dembski...
>
> In Christ
> Pim
>
>
>
> On 9/15/07, Peter Loose <peterwloose@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> 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.
Received on Sat Sep 15 15:33:44 2007