Piggybacking...
>On Mon, 08 May 2000 16:05:35 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
>
>[...continued]
>
>[...]
>
>>>SB>It's tremendously more vague than "Creation science" which actually
made
>>>>some scientific claims that could be tested (and were then immediatly
>>>>proved false).
>
>>SJ>I have no argument with the latter. But ID, being a more general theory
or
>>>paradigm is no more "vague" than its opposite: anti-ID.
>
>SB>there is no "anti-ID" Science is unable to address ID. It's religion.
I must disgree with you here, Susan. Science is not *in principle* unable to
address ID. Suppose we discovered, encoded in our DNA, a complex message of
the sort received by SETI in the book/film "Contact". I would consider that
to be compelling scientific evidence of ID.
Nevertheless, I consider the present ID movement to be religiously-motivated
(in most cases) pseudo-science, because its proponents
falsely claim to have found evidence of ID in nature when they haven't,
and give their claims the trappings (but not the substance) of science.
I also think it's extremely unlikely that they will find such evidence in
the future, not just because I don't believe that nature is designed, but
because, even if it is, it's clear that the designer has been extremely
careful to avoid leaving behind any evidence. I suppose it's conceivable
that the designer acted in such a way as to ensure we wouldn't detect his
involvement until we reached a certain level of scientific advancement. But
why should we think that we've reached that level now?
Richard Wein (Tich)
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. I have
never used any other, and I trust I never shall." -- Thomas Paine, "Age of
Reason"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 13 2000 - 08:49:02 EDT