Re: [asa] PvM's View of What Science IS

Again, while I understand your 'argument' I see no compelling reason
to answer your question. ID proponents like to point to the
demarcation problem as somehow being relevant to ID, however, there is
a much simpler approach namely to identify that ID is scientifically
vacuous.

This approach avoids the unnecessary philosophical arguments about
what is science or what is not and focuses instead on the foundation
of ID as well as its track record. For this I submit the following
evidences

1. ID is the set theoretic complement of regularity and chance
2. ID refuses to constrain its designer
3. As such ID cannot even compete with 'we don't know'

4. ID has failed to lay out a research program based on the
foundations of ID's thesis
5. ID has failed to publish any ID relevant publications, other than
to argue against some evolutionary strawmen or to argue against
Darwinian theory.
6. ID lacks any non trivial predictions which can be traced back to
the foundational principles of ID

Hope this clarifies my position. My view of what science is or isn't
is irrelevant to the simple conclusion that ID is scientifically
vacuous.

I could point to such statements by Dembski as

<quote>Before I proceed, however, I note that Dembski makes an
important concession to his critics. He refuses to make the second
assumption noted above. When the EF implies that certain systems are
intelligently designed, Dembski does not think it follows that there
is some intelligent designer or other. He says that, "even though in
practice inferring design is the first step in identifying an
intelligent agent, taken by itself design does not require that such
an agent be posited. The notion of design that emerges from the design
inference must not be confused with intelligent agency" (TDI, 227, my
emphasis).</quote>

It's a powerful meme indeed, and ID proponents understand this. How to
respond to it seems to be much harder, lest one wants to attack the
messenger rather than the message.

On 9/15/07, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Strike two, Pim van Meurs.
>
> If 'what science IS' is irrelevant, then you have NO business, and NO
> authority whatsoever to say what is or is not 'scientifically' vacuous. If
> it were in a court of law, your testimony would be struck from the record -
> as if you had never testified. You are on the verge of revealing your
> irrelevance if you cannot or will not answer.
>
> Last chance Pim. Do you really have NO view of what science IS? Your
> geology/oceanography degree seems to be hanging in the balance. What makes
> your views 'scientific'?
>
> Respectfully awaiting a positive response,
>
> G.A.
>
> PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Irrelevant my dear friend, totally irrelevant.
>
>
>
> On 9/15/07, Gregory Arago wrote:
> > Strike one, Pim.
>
> > If necessary, please re-read the OP and then actually address the question
> - no need to discuss intelligent design theories or divert, distract, wander
> away. The title of the thread makes the question rather obvious. If you
> won't or can't answer it or make a positive contribution to ASA's knowledge,
> then it appears Peter Loose's opinion of you is justified. Why not just
> share your perspective?
>
> > What, in your view, IS science, Pim?
>
>
> ________________________________
> All new Yahoo! Mail ________________________________
> Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.
>
>

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 15:40:14 2007