Re: paleonet Re: suitable discussion

[Frank Holterhoff <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Phil Bock wrote:

> Very simply: the argument from (about) design is a Theological argument 

For sure - there's no supporting or refuting scientific evidence that I 
know of.

> with a long history of progressive rebuttal.

How can one rebut something about which there is no supporting or 
refuting evidence?  One can certainly say as a judgement that ID is 
far-fetched, but that's not the same thing.

> ID has failed to demonstrate that it is value in any education in Science.

No quarrel there.  In fact, ID, as I define it, wouldn't even try to 
assert that there's any support for it to be found in Science.  To me, 
using Science to validate or explain ID (if it exists) would be like 
using the physical laws of the universe to hypothesize 
about/define/explain what's outside the universe.

> My bookshelf is overflowing with books on religion/science issues: 
> however three authors stand out as indispensable. If you haven't 
> encountered these, then you have been deprived:
> Mary Midgley
> Charles Birch
> Chet Raymo

Thanks Phil, I am unfamiliar with any of them - I will check them out.

F

-- 
Frank K. Holterhoff         MATRICuS Inc.
Physical Design Engineer    570 South Edmonds Lane, Suite 101
972-221-1614 ext. 18        Lewisville, Texas   75067
fax: 972-420-6895           USA
frank@matricus.com          www.matricus.com