Comment #2
[Ted said] "I chalk this up to having a "tent" large enough to include
someone like Dean Kenyon, whose ideas were highly influential in the
founding of ID and who does reject the general validity of historical
sciences; Paul Nelson's views are similar to Kenyon's. One also finds folks
like Cornelius Hunter and Nancy Pearcey, who seem content with a blissful
(or willful?) agnosticism about the earth's age--an agnosticism that allows
them to take firm stances on why "Darwinism" is bad science (as they see it)
but somehow gives them a pass when it comes to making similar comments about
YEC. Well, if the science supporting an "old" earth and universe isn't good
enough for them, what does count as good science? Apparently nothing in the
historical realm does, but only what we can see and verify directly, right
now, as it happens in front of us."
Correct!
This is why ID actually has nothing valid to say about the role of
"inference" in science. If IDM cannot try to develop metrics of confidence
in historical events then they don't have any valid alternative to any
scientific theory that does. Of course the anti-ID people also often deny
inference in science as well. The point is "The Design Inference" is sort
of core, and if IDers throw it out with the bathwater they have self
destructed.
Lets keep in mind this is a philosophical difference about science. Is it a
purely secular one? Could be.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 20 12:38:11 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 20 2009 - 12:38:11 EDT