RE: Pyramids

Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:52:55 -0500

At 01:57 PM 7/15/99 -0500, John E. Rylander wrote:
>My point for years has been that if ID advocates want to move it into 1, all
>they need do is come up with not philosophically or rationally compelling
>argument, but EMPIRICAL arguments, new, detailed, intersubjective/objective
>theories that make unambiguous, novel, and successful predictions even
>according to those with no prior commitment to ID. That'll make it not just
>TRUE, but SCIENCE.

I think John's point here is close to one I articulated in an earlier post.
I earlier cautioned against using metaphysical beliefs to argue against
scientific theories. So far, ID, creationism, etc. address metaphysical
issues such as purpose and fail to examine mechanisms which evolution
attempts to do. By the same token, the claim that evolution proves lack of
purpose in the cosmos is also guilty of mixing epistemological arguments.

Cheers,

Steve