Re: Kansas Closing arguments

Bob wrote:

> I think they want to convince the general public of their definition
> of science so that they will get a favorable hearing for their
> conception of a "theistic science" (against an "atheistic science"). 
> However, they need to come up with something more than a phrase.  Does
> anyone know if any of the ID people have offered a description of a
> "research program" for their "theistic science"?  (I know that Dembski
> has said that ID is a "research program," but I have yet to see a
> description of this program).  Keith, did any of the ID crew offer
> one at the show trial?

The answer to your questions is No. The closest anyone came was Ralph
Seelke who is working in experimental evolution in bacteria. His
objective is to define the capabilities and limitations of evolution in
experimental populations of bacteria. However, this research is not
uniquely driven by ID proposals, and his work follows the same
methodological standards as that of other researchers in the field.

I think that it is significant that in spite of the harsh rhetoric of
many ID advocates that "methodological naturalism" is equivalent to
philosophical naturalism, I have yet to encounter a single example of
research NOT conducted in a manner consistent with MN. What research
is done by ID advocates is indistinguishable in methodology from the
rest of the scientific community. Are they equivalent to atheists when
they do their research?

Keith
Received on Mon May 16 22:54:53 2005