RE: Design as a Research Program (was clearest presentation of the reasons that scientists...)

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:03:03 -0700

SJ: Ironically, the wheel has turned full-circle since Darwin's day. It is now
the designists who are the radicals embarking on the pursuit of an exciting
new research program, and the anti-designists who are the reactionaries,
trying to stop the investigation of design because they think they already
know the answers!

Steven, you're once again wrong. ID people are not interested in new research programs. Why should they? All they have to do is say ID and no further inquiry is required. Flagella ? IC and ID, therefor no more investiation is needed. It's obvious from the "Wedge" that all that they are interested in is sneaking God into science. Not a pretty sight indeed.

All that ID is interested in is finding a method to support their faith. Dembski's design interference was an attempt which failed. Behe's IC was an attempt which failed.

SJ: 1. Detectability Problem --- How is design detected?

How is apparant design detected from real design?
Dembski and Behe tried and failed. Why do you believe that there will be a scientific ID ?

ID has nothing to contribute to science. .