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

Peter

It is clear that you have no interest in getting to the foundations but
prefer to huff and puff about defining science, when you simply reject half
of science and are happy with false accusations of fraud.

It is you who make discussion impossible'

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Loose" <peterwloose@compuserve.com>
To: <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Cc: "'David Clounch'" <david.clounch@gmail.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 7:23 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?

>
> 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 16:36:14 2007