Re: Van Till's chapter

From: Richard Wein (rwein@lineone.net)
Date: Wed Jul 26 2000 - 04:09:58 EDT

  • Next message: Steven P Crawford: "Re: Van Till's chapter"

    From: Steven P Crawford <stevenpcrawford@juno.com>

    [...]

    >Thus, the real opposition to ID does indeed appear to be philosophical,
    >not scientific. The status quo seems to be afraid that scientific
    >undecidables would more easily fit into a theistic interpretation rather
    >than an atheistic one. I don't expect all scientists of the future to
    >become theists if ID supplants the present paradigm. That will hardly be
    >the case. But I do think that they will no longer so easily assume that
    >science "can" answer all natural, physical questions.

    I disagree with your conclusion that the real opposition to ID is
    philosophical, not scientific. I note that this conclusion seems to be based
    on reading Lamoureux's book, which I haven't read but which, from your
    description, appears to be primarily concerned with the
    philosophical/theological issues.

    The main reason why scientists reject ID is because it is bad
    science. The scientific and mathematical arguments made in support of ID are
    logically invalid. I suggest you read Dembski's book, The Design Inference,
    and you will see what I mean.

    As an atheist, I disagree with the philosophy of theistic evolutionists. As
    a political liberal, I disagree with the philosophy of political
    conservatives. Etc. But that has nothing to do with science, and proponents
    of those philosophies do not claim a scientific basis for their
    philosophies. The reason for the vociferous objection of many scientists to
    ID is because its proponents *falsely* claim that their philosophy is
    supported by science.

    Richard Wein (Tich)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 26 2000 - 04:09:38 EDT