From: Steven P Crawford <stevenpcrawford@juno.com>
[...]
>Thus, the real opposition to ID does indeed appear to be philosophical,
>not scientific. The status quo seems to be afraid that scientific
>undecidables would more easily fit into a theistic interpretation rather
>than an atheistic one. I don't expect all scientists of the future to
>become theists if ID supplants the present paradigm. That will hardly be
>the case. But I do think that they will no longer so easily assume that
>science "can" answer all natural, physical questions.
I disagree with your conclusion that the real opposition to ID is
philosophical, not scientific. I note that this conclusion seems to be based
on reading Lamoureux's book, which I haven't read but which, from your
description, appears to be primarily concerned with the
philosophical/theological issues.
The main reason why scientists reject ID is because it is bad
science. The scientific and mathematical arguments made in support of ID are
logically invalid. I suggest you read Dembski's book, The Design Inference,
and you will see what I mean.
As an atheist, I disagree with the philosophy of theistic evolutionists. As
a political liberal, I disagree with the philosophy of political
conservatives. Etc. But that has nothing to do with science, and proponents
of those philosophies do not claim a scientific basis for their
philosophies. The reason for the vociferous objection of many scientists to
ID is because its proponents *falsely* claim that their philosophy is
supported by science.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 26 2000 - 04:09:38 EDT