In a message dated 9/12/2000 9:26:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Bertvan@aol.com writes:
<< If anyone believes the creation stories proposed by various religions, I
wouldn't argue. If anyone believes the creation stories proposed by Darwin,
I wouldn't ague. However those creation stories no long appear plausible to
some of us. Darwinists express fear that science will be damaged by an
assumption of design. Fear not. Science will continue as it has in the
past, with or without an assumption of design.
>>
Probably since it has fared well with and without such assumptions. Of course
ID goes beyond this and claims to have reliable detectors of such design in
the biological world based on absence of an identified evolutionary pathway.
That sounds like God of the Gaps to me, of course ID'ers are careful not to
use the word God. But that also makes their thesis irrelevant: If you cannot
exclude natural designers since ID does not claim anything about design, then
ID has nothing to offer other than: It's designed and the designer could have
been natural or not.
But we already knew this. Does this mean that we need to presume an
intelligent designer just because of this evidence? I doubt it.
Evolution is strongly based in supporting evidence, ID is so far supported by
absence of evidence. Not to mention unsupported claims about the reliability
of the capability to detect design, the inability to eliminate a natural
designer, the fact that natural pathways leading to IC systems have been
shown etc....
If ID wants to become a useful paradigm in science it will have to get its
act together.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 13 2000 - 00:15:47 EDT