Sorry, I couldn't resist jumping in....
From: Stephen E. Jones <sejones@iinet.net.au>
[...]
>If that is the case, then Cliff sure does gives a good imitation of it! The
fact is
>that if Cliff is truly a Darwinist, then he would *have* to have
*everything*
>"against the idea of ID" because if ID were true, then Darwinism, as a
>general theory, would be false.
That depends on the definition of ID (which we're still waiting for).
Darwinism (which I take to mean mainstream evolutionary theory) is only
concerned with biological evolution. ID could be detected in the origin of
the universe, or of the first organism, without invalidating Darwinism.
[...]
>It is a tautology to speak of a "belief based upon faith". If Cliff has a
>"belief" it must be based on *evidence*.
Perhaps Stephen would care to correct this apparent typo. Presumably he
means that a belief must be based on *faith* (I don't agree by the way).
If, on the other hand, Stephen really does think that a belief must be based
on evidence, then "belief based
on faith" is not a tautology but an oxymoron.
>And if Cliff has a belief in creation by "some supernatural deity", based
on
>the evidence of nature, then Cliff has made a design inference.
>
>And it is a "scientific" inference, even if not formulated rigorously. It
is the
>task of the ID movement to give scientific rigour to such design
inferences.
>
>CH>I would be thrilled if the basic hypothesis of ID was shown to
>>be scientifically valid.
>
>Not if Cliff wants to be a consistent Darwinist he wouldn't be. Darwinism
is
>the claim that a "mindless procedure could produce design without a
>designer":
Stephen seems unable to recognise the fact that some people can change their
opinions, based on new evidence. He apparently assumes that people *want* to
be Darwinists despite the evidence, rather than that they *are* Darwinists
because of the evidence. Perhaps, if genuine scientific evidence of ID in
biological evolution were forthcoming, then Cliff would cease to be a
Darwinist.
[...]
>CH>However, that is not what the leaders of the ID movement are engaged in.
>>They call ID science, but refuse to hold to the standards of science.
>
>What does Cliff think Mike Behe's irreducible complexity hypothesis
>is? He has proposed it as a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, and
>his scientific critics have in fact subjected it to scientific
>criticism:
I note that, despite my lengthy explanations, Stephen *still* doesn't
understand the meaning of falsifiability. Not that falsifiability alone is
sufficient to make a claim scientific anyway--evidence is required.
Stephen's idea that scientific criticism of an argument makes that argument
(or the hypothesis it purports to support) scientific seems to be on a par
with his idea that, for a theory to be considered scientific, there must be
a telling argument *against* it. In other words, it's nonsense.
[...]
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 08 2000 - 05:55:05 EDT