Richard Wein wrote:
>There's one major logical flaw in Johnson's position which I haven't yet
>seen mentioned, though it's fairly obvious. He claims that science rules out
>ID because it excludes the supernatural by definition. But this is a non
>sequitur, since he also insists (though he didn't mention it in this
>particular interview) that the ID which is demonstrated by ID proponents is
>not necessarily supernatural. So, Johnson's favourite argument falls at the
>first hurdle!
Could you elucidate this? I have no problem at all with the claim that
science rules out the supernatural; I don't think anyone from either
side would challenge this. Now how does this conflict with the claim
that ID is not necessarily supernatural? AFAIK ID advocates have
left open the possibility of intervention by aliens, rather than by
deities. Of course, this must be some kind of ploy, since they really
don't seem all that interested in aliens; but you can't bust them for
pretending to be scientific until they actually overstep the bounds
of science, which ID theory tries not to do.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ 415-648-0208 ~ cliff@cab.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 29 2000 - 13:52:11 EDT