RE: [asa] Atheist finds God thru Behe's books....

RE:
"What do you make of Douglas Axe? (http://biologicinstitute.org/people/)"

FYI, a critical article on Axe's ID work:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html

...Bernie

________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Gregory Arago
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 3:13 PM
To: Rich Blinne
Cc: Cameron Wybrow; asa
Subject: Re: [asa] Atheist finds God thru Behe's books....

Hi Rich,

What do you make of Douglas Axe? (http://biologicinstitute.org/people/)

Also, when was the most recent peer-reviewed paper you personally have published, perhaps in your field of electrical engineering?

Of course, I'm not suggesting that if you haven't published anything in quite some time that this in some way invalidates your work.

By the way, have you ever heard of Pitirim Sorokin's coined term 'testomania'?

You seem to be very sure that your position (read: interpretation of 'reality') is a testable and verifiable one. Perhaps in 'sciences' other than yours this is not *always* the case...

Thanks in advance for your answers,
Gregory
p.s. the term 'screaming' - a bit too strong.

________________________________
From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
To: Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu>
Cc: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>; Cameron Wybrow <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>; asa <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 11:45:20 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Atheist finds God thru Behe's books....

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu<mailto:TDavis@messiah.edu>> wrote:
The hypothetico-deductive method gets a lot of its power from abduction--though (as I am sure you will point out) the hypotheses need to make testable predictions before they can be accepted (I'm told that part of Meyer's book is devoted to just this).

I believe you are referring to the appendix where Meyer makes some specific predictions, which since this is the first time I'm aware of should be commended. But everything is in the future and ID has not gone to much effort of actually testing their predictions. Wells is looking at centrioles in the lab and his hypothesis may be confirmed IN THE FUTURE. Even here Meyer admits "The outcome of his work won't directly confirm or disconfirm intelligent design..." Again, making predictions is not testing. The paper that came out in IEEE Transactions didn't go to the effort of actually writing the search algorithms. ID proponents keep screaming for Dawkins to produce his weasel program. To show how "difficult" this is to produce see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evercat/weasel.c Note that there is no locking in this program. We're decades into ID but we've yet to get any real research program. It's like reading Jean Dixon every New Year's Day.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

________________________________
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!<http://www.flickr.com/gift/>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 15 11:43:22 2009