>> Hi Chris:
>>Saying "nature" did something is no more informative than saying god did
>it.
>
>
>
>>The only questions science can try to answer is how they did it. ( either
>>"god" or this guy, "nature") Most IDs do not deny evolution, they are
>>skeptical of "accidental evolution"-- some process occurring without plan,
>>purpose or design.
>
>Susan:
>as Chris and I (and others) have pointed out that is religion, not science.
>Plan and purpose are not detectible by science--people who wish to hold
>these views as religious beliefs are perfectly free to do so. In fact they
>have a constitutionally guaranteed right to do so. However, "most IDs" want
>those religious views accepted and taught as science and they simply can't
>be without violating church and state separation.
>
>Nelson:
>I don't see how the evidence of the irreducible complexity of the bacterial
>flagellum has anything to do with the seperation of church and state?
And Susan Replies:
Behe ceases to explore possible evolutionary pathways for his IC systems
with the simple pronouncement "God did it."
Nelson:
No he ceases to explore them because evolutionary pathways are sterile, and
it is better explained by intelligence.
Susan:
That's one of the main
objections to ID: it is stultifying to scientific inquiry.
Nelson:
Only if you equate "I understand this" with "It arose naturally".
That is simply not the case. One can use ID to understand any biological
feature.
Susan:
The purpose of
ID (and IC) is to "prove" the existence of the gods is a scientific fact.
Nelson:
No it is to detect intelligent agency and distinguish it from natural
process.
Sorry, I just realized I was sending this through personal e-mail.
Susan:
If you can do that, you can get around the major legal roadblock to having
Christian dogma taught in public schools--in science class, no less.
Nelson:
That is a clear cut unsubstantiated assertion.
Susan:
This
is one of the major objectives of the Discovery Institute which, at least
in part, bankrolls Behe, Dembski and Johnson.
Nelson:
It seems like your only "objection" to ID is an ad hominem with no basis in
fact.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 08 2000 - 13:43:59 EDT