Re: [asa] EU proposed regulation of creationism and ID

John Walley wrote:
> But in fairness, by this definition of ID below which they still term
> "dangerous", it disqualifies any form of theism and accepts only natural
> selection as science.
>
>
>

What is wrong with that? Is not the implication of the document that
science employs methodological naturalism?
> While granted it may be more properly addressed in philosophy or religion
> classes, at least the NAS concedes that TE is not in conflict with science.
> That sounds liberal compared to these regulations.
>
Not to me. These are not regulations but rather guidelines as to what is
good science and what is not.
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> "Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The "intelligent design"
>
> theory, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does
>
> not deny a certain degree of evolution but claims that this is the work
>
> of a superior intelligence and not natural selection. Though more subtle
>
>
> in its presentation, the doctrine of intelligent design is no less
>
> dangerous."
>
Don

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Sep 21 22:02:50 2007