----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Petermann" <SteveGP@email.msn.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2000 11:45 PM
> I suppose it would depend on what is expected from the test. A lot of
times
> in engineering or science it is not possible to do actually definitive
> tests. Instead models have to be theorized based on probability theory
and
> whatever data is available. Then those model "tests" are run. The
problem
> with ID is that it is not possible to run any validating tests beyond the
> models. Since most of their goal is to prove a negative
ssertion( natural
> selection on variation is not adequate to explain complex systems ) then
> they can never achieve a level of certainty beyond the accuracy of their
> assumptions. Then since their point that it is difficult to explain the
> genesis of complex biochemical processes through random mutations
> seems valid, how would one go about approaching this problem?
> If a scientist were to dispassionately seek to evaluate their theories,
> how would one go about that? Any one have any suggestions?
The problem is that the ID folk tell the christian community that they are
creating a theistic science. The laity believe them, give them money but the
ID folk can't do what they say they can do. Here is a post from Burgy from a
couple of years ago. He wrote:
Return-Path: owner-asa@udomo.calvin.edu
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:47:44 -0500
From: "John W. Burgeson" <burgy@compuserve.com>
Subject: Phil's closing remarks at NTSE
To: EVOLUTION Reflector <evolution@ursa.calvin.edu>
Cc: ASA Reflector <asa@ursa.calvin.edu>
Sender: owner-asa@udomo.calvin.edu
X-UIDL: 94a57358abf0a42c97c7f14b31e7f360
There has been some dialog about what Phil Johnson actually said at the
closing NTSE session. This was a very minor part of an hour & 1/2
free-for-all dialog among many of us -- to some people it "stood out." I
asked Phil for a reading on it -- here is his response last night:
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
From: Phillip Johnson
TO: John W. Burgeson
DATE: 2/26/97 10:49 PM
You have it basically right. I said that in 1998 we would be moving on from
the debate over whether it is legitimate to investigate intelligent design
at all -- the rule-making and definition-asserting debate -- and go on to
the merits of the issue on the evidence. Of course there will still be
theistic evolutionists around.
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
From: John W. Burgeson
TO: Phillip Johnson
DATE: 2/26/97 10:06 AM
Phil -- I've had a couple queries and there has been some discussion on the
evolution forum about what, exactly, you said at one point in your closing
remarks. Here is a copy of what I posted to the reflector on this. Did I get
it right?
----------
Joel wrote, in part: " I understood him (Johnson) to mean that within a
year from now virtually nobody would hold to what he called theistic
evolution, which I take/took to mean any postition who holds that theism and
evolution could both be true."
Joel & I were both there; I heard something quite different, specifically,
that within a year the debate over whether (or not) theistic
science/intelligent design was a proper part of science would be settled. To
suggest that within a year all theistic evolutionists would be "converted"
seems to be an outrageous and wholly unbelievable claim; had he made this
claim, I'd think someone might have called him down on it.
I also heard Plantigna suggest, in his Thursday Veritas presentation, that
it was the COMBINATION of naturalism & evolution that was the problem, not
either one by itself, and that, indeed, some sort of evolution might,
indeed, be true.
-----------------
The ID movement, with their non-scientist leader--is offering the
impossible. As the debates at the conference showed very plainly, they can't
tell anyone what should be done differently in a theistic science vs.
science as it is currently done. Shoot they can't even tell us what should
be predicted from their non-existent scenario for earth history. (see
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/wacoconf.htm
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 20:39:26 EDT