Re: [asa] Responding to Atheists, Agnostics & Apatheist

>>> Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> 10/29/2008 8:53 PM >>> writes:
Heya John,

I haven't read Fuz Rana's books, though I was glancing over reviews at
Amazon. Is Rana arguing that design can be scientifically detected? I seem
to recall that some TEs (maybe even Ken Miller?) have argued that ID
belongs
in the philosophy of science category, and therefore it's implied that
some
ID arguments have value but are still not 'scientific' themselves.

Ted replies:

This has been my argument also, for some time. As I define it, ID is a
philosophical critique of the explanatory efficacy of Darwinian evolution.
If this is accurate--and I believe it is--then IMO it can be mentioned in
public school science classes, as an optional topic in a unit or lesson on
philosophy of science. In PA, science teachers are obliged to discuss some
(not well specified) aspects of the philosophy of science; the relevant term
is "nature of science," which is educationese for POS. I maintain this even
after the Kitzmiller trial, though I doubt that school districts will line
up to try it, owing to the chilling effect of the decision.

See http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/Intelligent%20Design%20on%20Trial.pdf

Incidentally, I suggested to the defense that this line of argument--IMO,
their only potentially winning hand--be tried in court, but they stuck with
their losing line that ID is science pure and simple. I don't think that
anyone in Seattle was enthusiastic about my analysis either (remember that
TDI did what they could to distance themselves from the defense for various
reasons), since they have invested a great deal in arguing that ID is
science and not philosophy of science.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 30 09:41:20 2008