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

I don't cast pearls before swine and as you have shown a total refusal to
accept half of science I see no point in attempting a definition for your
benefit. I presume you support Art's false allegations as you simply ignore
that part of my post. I was under the impression that honesty was expected
of Christians, correct me if I am wrong.

I am still hoping that I can read YEC publications which are actually honest
in their representation of those they disagree with. I have been patiently
waiting a very long time.

Until this is tackled both YEC and ID occupy the moral low ground.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "PvM"
<pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 10:22 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?

We are anxiously waiting for your wise and all-encompassing definition of
what science is. Please do not let us wait so long for the subtle emanations
from your mind. We can no longer resist it!

Moorad

________________________________

From: Michael Roberts [mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
Sent: Sat 9/15/2007 4:34 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad; PvM
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?

From what I have read of your (mis) understanding of science on this list I
don't need to read any more wrong definitions.

Michael

PS I see Art still hasn't removed his disgraceful allegations about
Kettlewell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Cc: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 4:21 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?

I have a well-defined definition of science. You can Google my name and
find out.

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: PvM [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 10:20 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad
Cc: Michael Roberts; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?

Isn't that what philosophy is all about? But what's wrong with the
argument? Even more, how do you know it is not scientific?

Really Alexanian.. You are right, defining something to be scientific
a priori does not mean that one cannot establish something to be
scientifically wrong, or in the case of ID scientifically vacuous.

But enlighten us, what has ID contributed to science? Or even easier,
to our knowledge? That our God(s) hide in shadows of our ignorance?

On 9/14/07, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> I suppose, therefore, that we are to take the meaning of what science
is just as that for pornography, "I know it when I see it." Not too
"scientific."
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Michael Roberts [mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
> Sent: Fri 9/14/2007 12:29 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad; PvM
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
> I support Pim as you clearly do not know what science is, despite all
> attempts to help you understand.
>
> Science is far more than physics, as George pointed out. He is a
physicist
> who understands what science is!
>
> It is clear to me that Peter is asking frivolous questions when he has
no
> interest in either finding out what science is or accepting what
science is.
>
> It is no wonder some us give impatient answers. Perhaps we should heed
the
> advice in Proverbs 26.5
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> To: "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>; "Peter Loose"
<peterwloose@compuserve.com>
> Cc: <rpaulmason@juno.com>; <heddle@gmail.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 4:55 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?
>
>
> > You have no right to use the word science to say something is not
> > science if we do not know what you mean by science.
> >
> > Moorad
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
On
> > Behalf Of PvM
> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 11:01 AM
> > To: Peter Loose
> > Cc: rpaulmason@juno.com; heddle@gmail.com; asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: 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.
> >
> >
> > 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, 15 Sep 2007 22:51:06 +0100