Re: [asa] Innate design detector?

So let me repeat this. The following 'argument' is flawed because
science does not rely on negative arguments like ID to infer common
descent. Yes, we may see design where there is none but the risk of
such is alleviated by a coherent theory with predictions, mechanisms
etc. This is also the major difference between science and ID.
Perhaps this may be a common argument against the coherence of
evolutionary theory but it misses the point by miles.

On Nov 2, 2006, at 8:51 AM, David Opderbeck wrote:

> We shouldn't expect that "false positives" would enhance survival
> value, unless we buy into the argument that evolution leaves us
> with no reason to trust our sense information -- an obviously self-
> defeating proposition, because then we wouldn't be able to trust
> the sense information that leads us to believe in common descent.
> This is, of course, a common argument against the coherence of
> evolutionary theory.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 2 12:13:35 2006