RE: Evolution & Identity of the ID designer

From: Alexanian, Moorad (alexanian@uncw.edu)
Date: Sat Nov 30 2002 - 17:20:58 EST

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: Evolution & Identity of the ID designer"

    The difficulty with the notion of ’Äúevolutionary theory’Äù is that
    one really does not know how encompassing its proponents claim the
    ideas to be. It may be good phenomenology to constantly add to it
    hoping to eventually have a theory on the par of theories in physics.
    Of course, the proponents of evolutionary theory have a right to
    claim that the questions they raise are purely scientific questions.
    However, the latter is not at all obvious when one deals with the
    origin of life itself and more so with the fundamental question of
    origins. It is clear that pure phenomenology can never be falsified
    but only theories that make precise predications that can prove the
    theory to disagree with future data. Moorad

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Walter Hicks [mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com]
            Sent: Sat 11/30/2002 3:31 PM
            To: george murphy
            Cc: John Burgeson; asa@calvin.edu
            Subject: Evolution & Identity of the ID designer

            george murphy wrote:

    > What I find objectionable is that, when the issue is whether or not

    > ID should be included in science curricula in public
    schools & in some other
    > venues, they try to play the "nobody here but us
    scientists and philosophers"
    > game.
    > I think this latest attempt to present some version of
    > theistic creation
    > as a scientific alternative to evolution is dangerous both for
    > science education
    > and for the mission of the Christian church (for somewhat
    different reasons).
    > It need to be confronted by scientifically knowledgeable Christians
    >for what it
    > actually is, a religiously based cultural and political
    movement which makes
    > scientfic claims.

            I have raised this issue before and nobody seems to be willing to
            back up the claim
            that evolution is a real scientific theory. If is is, then it can be
            simply stated
            and then have a definite set of conditions under which it can be
            falsified. If it
            is not a falsifiable theory which can be invalidated somehow, then it
            is no more a
            scientific theory than ID is!

            In my opinion, the evolutionary THEORY, not the "FACT", (excuse the
            capitals) is
            just a set of shifting sand that is adamantly supported by scientists
            who refuse to
            yield any ground at all in their quest for absolute
    scientific naturalism ---
            proven or not. Slapping Band-Aids year after year on Darwin's first
            notions hardly
            makes for an acceptable theory by most scientific standards
    in other fields.

            IMO

            Walt

            ===================================
            Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>

            In any consistent theory, there must
            exist true but not provable statements.
            (Godel's Theorem)

            You can only find the truth with logic
            If you have already found the truth
            without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
            ===================================



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 30 2002 - 17:37:40 EST