[Phys-L] Re: ID defenders

[ajm at CSUPOMONA.EDU (John Mallinckrodt)]

Anthony Lapinski writes:

> I also like the quote by Carl Sagan regarding UFO's: "Extraordinary
> claims require extraordinary evidence." There is no "evidence" of ID.

While I generally agree with almost all of what Anthony wrote, I take
serious issue with this statement for reasons similar to those that
Ron McDermott eloquently gave voice to earlier.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory because it rules
NOTHING out and is, therefore, invulnerable to evidence.  Period.

That is all we have to say.  That is all we CAN say.  To attack ID
any further on the basis of lack of evidence or to suggest that we
have any evidence against ID is both a) to suggest that ID IS in fact
science and b) to risk our credibility as scientists.

Lots of people--probably most people--will look at the awesome beauty
and complexity of nature and see in it abundant evidence for ID.  ID
may even be "true."  But none of that alters the fact that it isn't
science.

It is because I concur completely with John Denker's assessment of
the motives of ID advocates and the very real dangers that they pose,
that I believe it is essential that we rigidly police our critiques
and stick to the facts.

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona