Another inconsistency in the ID position

From: Richard Wein (rwein@lineone.net)
Date: Sat Sep 09 2000 - 12:20:55 EDT

  • Next message: Richard Wein: "Re: Piecemeal genetic differences as support for macroevolution"

    I've already pointed out the illogic of Phillip Johnson and other IDers,
    when they claim that mainstream science rejects ID because of a
    philosophical bias against the supernatural, while also claiming that ID
    doesn't necessarily involve the supernatural.

    Another, related point has just occurred to me. It's pretty obviously
    really, but I haven't seen it made before. Many mainstream scientists are
    involved in or support SETI, which is the search for evidence of ID in
    extraterrestrial radio signals. Clearly, these scientists are open to the
    possibility of an intelligent alien species, and some IDers have
    specifically stated that the intelligent designer(s) of their ID hypothesis
    could in principle be an alien species. Such scientists include the late
    Carl Sagan, who was a very much a mainstream scientist and evolutionist.

    Thus the claim that mainstream science rejects ID in nature because of a
    philosophical bias against intelligent causes can easily be seen to be
    nonsense. Mainstream science rejects ID in nature because there is no
    evidence for it.

    Richard Wein (Tich)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 09 2000 - 12:18:32 EDT