Re: [asa] Innate design detector?

> I guess it's a matter of who has the burden of proof: show evidence of exactly how natural processes met each criterion step by step, or show evidence that natural processes could not have met those criteria. Take the inverse of that: what are the implications of not being able to show how natural processes met each criterion. What are the implications of not being able to show that natural processes could not have met those criteria?

> It seems to me that unless you can clearly show that natural processes could not possibly have met those criteria, there's no case.

To me, the burden of proof is somewhat dependent on the exact claim.

Claiming that perceived gaps prove that evolution is inadequate and a
designer must have been involved puts the burden of proof strongly on
the ID advocate.

Claiming that there are absolutely no gaps in evolution and no
intervention-style design could possibly have occurred puts the burden
strongly on the anti-ID advocate.

Claiming that there are no convincing examples of gaps or no
convincing evolutionary explanations is a somewhat weaker claim,
earning less burden of proof (especially if it is claimed that the
speaker, rather than all compenent observers, are unconvinced).

A problem here comes from the popularization, which tends to
exaggerate claims and neglect caveats. E.g., Behe is much more
careful in his claims than Johnson.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.