Dembski has 'responded' and he seems to suggest that Ted may have
missed the mark considering ID. I would probably never occur to
Dembski that his critics may be right. But so far Dembski has yet to
explain what is scientific about ID. He argues that ID has identified
fundamental conceptual flaws and evidential lacunae (ironic isn't it
that ID accuses science of lacking evidence) but even if this were
correct and nothing ID has done suggests that it has come even close
to this, then it still does not address the fact that ID is
scientifically without content.
It's appeal to intelligence is poorly captured by the design inference
which has turned design detection in to a flawed and unreliable
concept, especially for the rarefied form of design
But somehow these are concepts ID, and Dembski seem to be unwilling to
address. Ironic isn't it
Pim
Ted Davis — "The Theistic Evolutionists' Theistic Evolutionist" —
Rising above the fray
William Dembski
Ted Davis, a historian of science at Messiah College, used to be part
of a list I moderate. He has some good insights into the history of
science (especially into the work of Robert Boyle), but he
consistently misses the mark concerning ID. Here is a nice synopsis of
his view of ID (also with a jab at UD). It is written to Pim van
Meurs, as a mentor would write to his disciple. The short of his view
is that ID is a reaction to the scientific materialism of Richard
Dawkins, which it tries to displace by setting up a new science, which
is really just a disguised form of religion. His counsel is to rise
above the fray and realize that both are ideologically motivated.
Ideological motivation is all fine and well, but has ID identified
fundamental conceptual flaws and evidential lacunae in the
conventional materialistic understanding of biological origins and is
its appeal to intelligence conceptually sound and empirically
supported? I have yet to see Ted address that question.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 3 00:51:58 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 03 2007 - 00:51:58 EDT