Re: [asa] How big a deal is homology?

> Science therefore can't distinguish between TE and progressive creation,
> unless "distinguish" means "assume there is no God...." (or unless
> "progressive creation" means radical discontinuity between "kinds" -- not
> something more sophisticated ID / progressive creationists would necessarily
> hold).

Many of the popular versions of ID/PC affirm exactly that. For
example, it's popular to claim that non-miraculous processes
(including human action) cannot create new species. This is simply
wrong-many new species have been observed being made in lab and in the
wild.

The issue of apologetic value comes to play again. Much of the appeal
of creation science and ID are the claims to prove Christianity based
on science. (The fact that science is seen as the best source of
proof by such ID and YEC advocates has implications for their
accusations that TE puts too much weight on science.)

If you advocate a version of PC or ID that is not detectable based on
the physical evidence, then science can't test the claim. Rather, its
evaluation lies in the philosophical realm. (One might invoke
science's use of Occam's razor. However, science seeks multiple
minima-a single all-encompassing law is seen as better than several
more specific formulas or an unexplained data set, even though the
formulas and the broader law represent additional explanatory layers.
Also, precision is more valued than an all-encompassing law that can
give the desired result with enough tweaking/fudging. Thus Occam
could only rule out such a model if the underlying philosophical
considerations are not included.)

-- 
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.