I have only very hastily skimmed Dembski's paper, and so possibly a closer
examination would answer the question that I have. Are the second #7 and
#28 consistent with each other? When I read #7, I thought he was linking
the whole concept of intelligent design to the validity of the irreducible
complexity argument. Then in #28 he says that Darwinian explanations won't
disprove intelligent design. This is more in accord with my view that
there is no way to prove lack of design.
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Jack Haas wrote:
> Greetings:
>
> Bill Dembski has been developing his 'intelligent design' ideas for a decade or so. During this period his work has been heavily discussed by the evangelical community and the broader scientific and educational world. PCSF and this list have had their chance to critique his ideas - often negatively.
>
> Bill's response to a recent U. C. Berkeley talk by National Center for Science Education director Eugenie Scott represents both a spirited defense of his thought and a chance to catch up with his current ideas. I
> would propose that the list read his paper (attached) and comment on it. If we get some thoughtful response I'd be willing to pull it together and place the article and a summary of responses on the ASA web page.
>
> Is he saying anything new these days? Has he learned anything from 'friendly' critics in the past? Has his critique of contemporary Darwinism gained ground? Where is lacking about ID for the working scientist? Where have his arguments gone right? Wrong? Etc., etc., etc.
>
> I have numbered the paragraphs for ease in making citations.
>
> Thanks
> Jack Haas
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 25 2001 - 16:48:46 EST