Re: [asa] Timaeus- ID isn't "God of the gaps"

Quoting John Burgeson (ASA member) ---who I think was quoting Randy below...

> "ID" is a strong form of "id." Advocates of ID claim that the design
> can, at least possibly, be detected (I can go along with this much --
> note the word "possibly"). Many (most?) ID advocates go beyond this,
> however, claiming that the word "possibly" has been falsified (IOW
> intelligent design HAS been detected). Advocates also (usually) want
> to call ID "science" and not "metaphysics." Many ID advocates are
> members of the DISCOVERY Institute which promotes these views. Some
> ASA members are ID supporters.

If I may knit-pick at a logic issue in choice of terms above: actually
"possibly" is not falsified in the event that ID is shown. It is strengthened.
 To falsify it is to demonstrate the *impossibility* of proving ID. Many
(most?) of us doubters don't go there either --we just fail to be convinced of
the positive argument. IDists go the other way where "possibly" graduates to
"probably", and from there to "certainly", and finally to the claim that "it HAS
already been done." --all of which remain logically consistent with "possibly".

These statements seem helpful to me as well --thanks for re-posting them, John,
as I must have missed them on the first go-around.

(the geometry teacher in me)
--Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 7 13:08:27 2008