RE: Definitions of ID

From: Susan Brassfield Cogan (Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu)
Date: Fri Sep 08 2000 - 15:22:16 EDT

  • Next message: Nelson Alonso: "RE: Definitions of ID"

    >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.

    sterile? You (and Behe, of course) know that in advance? Without looking?
    What does it mean to find an evolutionary pathway sterile? It becomes a
    pathway with no further implications?

    >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.

    give me an example. Can I assume you've read Gould's essay "The Panda's Thumb"?

    >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.

    how? can you name a couple of processes that aren't natural and a couple
    that are and explain to me how they are different?

    >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.

    :-) really? There are several Supreme Court decisions over the last several
    years that substantiate my claim. There are several areas of the country
    where conservative Christian pressure is being brought to bear to teach
    "ID" in classrooms.

    >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.

    show me a naturally evolved organism and a supernaturally designed organism
    and explain to me how they are different and I will withdraw the statement.

    Susan

    ----------

    The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
    actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
    morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
    --Albert Einstein

    http://www.telepath.com/susanb/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 08 2000 - 15:24:27 EDT