From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 09:51:38 EDT
Howard J. Van Till wrote:
>
> Michael had asked:
>
> >> Can anyone give me one example where ID has been fruitful in science? I
> >> cannot think of one example.
>
> Steve answered:
>
> > Sure. It has forced Darwinists to look a lot work harder at how
> > microbiological evolution works. Any challenge to current theory in science
> > creates an impetus for new creativity.
>
> Two comments:
>
> 1. That's a remarkably generous way of scoring this game. Your are saying,
> in effect, that even the nuttiest of proposals may be given credit for
> stimulating responsible scientists to do better science. True, perhaps, but
> that doesn't make the nutty proposal any less nutty, does it?
>
> 2. I don't think you actually answered Michael's question. I think his
> question was, Can anyone give me an instance in which ID-based research
> produced a uniquely ID-grounded explanation that could be held up as a
> better scientific explanation than those contributed by conventional
> science?
A distinction needs to be made between the criticisms of "conventional"
evolutionary theories by ID proponents & their own ID proposal as an answer to problems.
It's helpful to point out things that current theories haven't explained adequately, &
to the extent that Behe & Dembski have done that (& I'm making no commitment about how
valid their criticisms are), they make the sort of contribution that Steve points out.
But Howard is right - that's quite different from saying that their distoinctive ID
proposal has been fruitful. To put it simply, it hasn't been.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 25 2003 - 10:00:11 EDT