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

When a professor of biology publishes in the literature that ID
scientifically contains content and he proposes ways to investigate this,
this directly contradicts the assertion that ID is scientifically vacuous.
Therefore it is indeed extremely germane to the question at hand, and is
not at all irrelevant.

Please don't get the idea I agree with Pattle Pun. I merely think that
when scientists write such articles the contents of their articles need to
be addressed prior to boldly claiming the articles to be "vacuous".

On 9/14/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Received on Sun Sep 16 23:19:54 2007