Adkins-Luskin exchange in American Chronicle

        Intelligent Design Proponents Distance Themselves from ...
<http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=478
0>

        
(http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=478
0)

Intelligent Design Not Disingenuous
<http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=490
0>

        
(http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=490
0)

Intelligent Design Proponents Are Disingenuous
<http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=492
4>

        
(http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=492
4)

Where I disagree with Luskin is in whether one can apply the same
methods used to detect human-created designs to the detection of designs
created by a designer whose species is not only unidentified, but
potentially divine (and therefore possibly infinite, omniscient,
omnipotent, and thus untestable). Also, I simply disagree with Luskin's
claim that what we see when we look at DNA and cells is so similar to
computer code and nanotech machines. Yes, the analogies drawn between
natural things and human-created things are illuminating, but they are
still merely analogies. If one really gets into the biological details,
the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, but the "evidence" is
equivocal (at best) regarding design.
 
Where I disagree with Adkins is in chiding Luskin for claiming that his
religious views and scientific views are separate issues. In my opinion,
distinctions between the two can and should be made, so I don't fault
Luskin for doing so.
Received on Wed Jan 18 11:51:06 2006