Hi Charles,
Thanks for trying to kick things off. I wanted to respond to just this part in order to reclarify one thing:
Charles Knight writes:
The nearest thing I can find to an overview is this:
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/...HarrisCalvert.pdf
It states that:
quote:
The central claim of ID theory is that design is empirically detectable. For most people, design detection is an intuitive process that occurs without any thoughtful deliberation.
—pg12
The ground rules I set in
Message 3 rule out arguments for ID of this type because they are not based upon evidence.
I can understand that some might object to
a priori ruling out arguments of this type as being inherently unscientific, but before I could make concessions on this the point would have to be made successfully in the [forum=-11] forum.
ID cannot point to any scientific field where the fundamental tenet was arrived at by "an intuitive process...without any thoughtful deliberation." ID must fulfill its claim to be science by the same standards used for all science, and not by making up special rules for itself.
-- | Percy |
| EvC Forum Director |