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

OFF LIST

Pim -

I am in fairly broad agreement with you about the issues related to ID but, after observing the non-exchange on the "PvM's View of What Science IS" thread, I have to say that you're putting your case in a rather poor light. You are insisting that you can show (or have shown) that ID is "scientifically vacuous" without being willing to say what you understand "science" to be & that simply doesn't work. It would be OK if there were general agreement on what science is but it's clear that that isn't so, especially on this list. If you don't want to discuss that, fine, but then what are you doing on the asa list? I'm afraid I get the impression that you just enjoy taunting people like Gregory or Peter who disagree with you

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
To: "Gregory Arago" <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 3:39 PM
Subject: 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.
>

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 17:01:14 2007