Re: AU complaint as filed

"Common descent itself is not the topic of any serious debate." - Keith Miller
   
  G. Arago responds, 'Really?' If true, maybe this is why Paul Nelson's book 'On Common Descent' hasn't yet been published. Is the debate being squashed?
   
  C. Luskin reports: "Intelligent design is not a theory about the age of the earth."

  I wonder if a scholar or scientist actually befits their title if they do not hold a firm opinion on the age of the earth. Or perhaps to a geologist, cosmologist or paleoanthropologist one must hold a firm view, since that is their topic of study, but to other scientists and scholars who don't require a dated earth to continue their research, a firm opinion isn't required? Could ID be considered unscientific solely for the reason that it 'is not a theory about the age of the earth'? (Curious also to hear if anyone knows about what percentage of scientists work in the field of OoL.)
   
  Keith Miller says: "It is entirely reasonable given our current state of knowledge (both positive and negative) that a very plausible solution will be found to the origin of life."
   
  It seems there are some issues cropping up here about privileged perspectives and whose science is the best (and) for what purpose(s). Such confidence in one's scientific capabilities is surely not the same across the board. What discipline(s) is best to solve destiny of life (the opposite of origin of life) questions?
   
  This California 'philosophy of design' course seems to signal a move toward fragmentation among the IDM big tent given that a more coherent definition or explanation of what ID is and isn't is likely to come of it. Perhaps the same can still be asked in good faith about evolution; i.e. what it is and what it isn't, where it belongs and where it doesn't.
   
   
  Gregory
   
  
Keith Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu> wrote:
    For those interested:

Below is a new press release from the DI on the CA high school
"Philosophy of Design" course.

Keith

  ~~
Luskin explains why intelligent design is not the same
as creationism: "Intelligent design is different from creationism
because intelligent design is based upon empirical data, rather than
religious scripture, and also because intelligent design is not a
theory about the age of the earth. Moreover, unlike creationism,
intelligent design does not try to inject itself into religious
discussions about the identity of the intelligence responsible for
life. Creationism, in contrast, always postulates a supernatural or
divine creator."

                
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
Received on Wed Jan 11 23:12:50 2006