Re: supernatural observation & faith def.

Stephen Gooch (sgooch@sm10.sciatl.com)
Mon, 30 Sep 1996 16:27:53 -0400

On Sep 30, 12:13pm, Paul A. Nelson wrote:
> Subject: Re: supernatural observation & faith def.
>
> Dear Stephen:
>
> Some confusion here.
>
> The point at issue in my post concerns Tom Moore's apparent
> claim that "supernatural ID" is (probably) an in-principle
> untestable or empirically empty theory.

No confusion, thats what I am writing about.

>
> That's false. Darwin's entire published corpus, including
> his transformation notebooks, refutes it.

Darwin used it in his arguments because he believed in ID before the voyage. He
was convincing himself as much as anybody else. I may have once believed that
life came out of a can of V8. And I might also write a book about how I
concluded that life did not come out of a can of V8. But that does not make
the V8 theory *not* a empirically empty theory. But at least the V8 theory is
testable.

-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------     Stephen Gooch                                      stephen.gooch@asu.edu                   770.903.6778 || 602.891.2300 || 800.388.6242*2300