Re: RATE Vol. II

Randy Isaac wrote:

> George Murphy wrote:
>
>> IMO we've reached a point with the age of the earth at which ASA's
>> position of not taking an official stance on disputed matters no
>> longer applies.
>> There is no scientific dispute about the order of magnitude of the
>> age of the earth. The ASA should take the stance - & take it
>> forcefully - that the earth is billions of years old, and that
>> supposedly scientific claims to the contrary are without merit. Of
>> course this does not mean that a position would be taken on
>> biological evolution.
>
>
>
> I'm not convinced that we need to take any stand on a scientific
> result. Once we start, where does it end? Do we also need to endorse
> quantum mechanics? Newton's laws? plate tectonics? anything else that
> isn't disputed in science but is disputed by some religious organization?
>
> Rather, I think it is incumbent upon us to aggressively insist on a
> "commitment to integrity in science." That means we need to take a
> stand against the dishonesty of representing that science has shown
> the validity of a young earth when, in fact, the opposite is true.
> We'll look for an appropriate way to do that. And then, where will
> this lead us? We must also stand against the dishonesty of
> representing that evolution has shown the validity of atheism.
>
> Randy

Indeed, claims that science can show the validity of atheism or
Christianity are all based on logical fallacies. Atheism however has the
'advantage' that the success of science shows that natural processes so
far do quite well in explaining the world around us. Dembski worried in
the past that this would make a designer superfluous (scientifically at
least) via the Occam razor.

<quote>FALSIFIABILITY: Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism
falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent
design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and
irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent
design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that
biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully
complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual
Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent
design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke
intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case
Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.</quote>

Ignoring for the moment Dembski's confusion as to what is falsifiable...

<quote> Design theorists find the "theism" in theistic evolution
superfluous. Theistic evolution at best includes God as an unnecessary
rider in an otherwise purely naturalistic account of life. As such,
theistic evolution violates Occam's razor. Occam's razor is a regulative
principle for how scientists are supposed to do their science. According
to this principle, superfluous entities are to be rigorously excised
from science. Thus, since God is an unnecessary rider in our
understanding of the natural world, theistic evolution ought to dispense
with all talk of God outright and get rid of the useless adjective
"theistic."</quote>
Received on Sun May 21 15:40:07 2006