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

Dave,

I anxiously await the letter. I think the issue they raised is very
important and should be discussed.

I also think that when one has something really serious to say the ASA
membership, a venue like PSCF is one of the appropriate places to say it.
Because most ASA members aren't on the listserver, whereas all do recieve
the journal.

May I ask, isn't it true that within the ASA, PSCF is "the" peer reviewed
literature?

If that is true, I would think that the ASA listserver exists partly as a
mean for members to discuss the contributions to the literature. Isn't this
part of what differentiates the ASA list from the thousands of chat groups
around the world?

As far as a general discussion between ASA members and non-ASA (but AAAS
members), an exchange which I do think is very important, PSCF is relevant
because it represents the best thoughts of ASA members who have expertise
to bring to bear on any particular subject at hand. Serious AAAS members
won't want to ignore that literature.

As for some chatter's claims of prior art in this thread, I am left
wondering, if there really was indeed a serious argument previously
presented, where is the article, or where is the letter to the journal? (To
any journal?)

Best Regards,
David Clounch (ASA member)

On 9/14/07, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>
> 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 Sun Sep 16 11:36:38 2007