I would disagree. I have observed both sides of this debate for years and watched each side misrepresent the other. Each seems to think that the other has a hidden agenda while they themselves are simply trying to "do their job."
As I see it, the crux of the matter at present is two scientific paradigms duking it out. Evolutionists are no more excited to see any idea that challenges the basic structure of current theory, than "creationists" are to see Evolution trumpeted as the only possible answer. Yes, Evolution (my definition in use here is the molecules-to-man version.) is assumed the only explanation possible. If that were not the case then there would be no issue with presenting other ideas even ideas that are deemed "unscientific" by the establishment. If they are unscientific, present the concept along side those which are deemed scientific. Show how these ideas are should not be accepted. As long as each side tries to use one-sided debates and does not openly discuss definitions and concepts they we are all locked into our little box.
I hope I have made it clear that, in my mind, the Evolution camp has been just as disinterested in seeking and questioning as are others. If one were to read ID literature, which I doubt most have, one will quickly see that IDer's are not coping out. They attempt to challenge the reigning paradigm where they feel its explanatory power is weakest. They are putting forward not just criticisms, but working hypotheses that test for the presents of Design in a living system. They hope to show that in some cases, where the current explanations are weakest, the Design paradigm at least presents a more plausible answer.
Respectfully submitted, Josh
Steven Allison-Bunnell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
This is a good point about the operation of "real" science.
However, I think the think that makes ID not science is that it is
essentially a cop-out. ID'ers say, "We can't imagine there being a process
that could give rise to complex life forms. Therefore they must have been
created by a designer." Real science continues to ask questions and look for
answers. A hypothesis may be introduced on the basis of theory alone
(expected/predicted results). But immediately people commence to try testing
it. It is assumed to be testable.
ID is not trying to keep asking questions. It assumes there's the answer
there. It is the end of questioning rather than the beginning of it. That's
what makes it unscientific.
One of the main proponents of ID is a biochemist who has studied the
function of the molecular basis of the rotation of the flagellum in cells.
He says he's convinced of ID because he can't think of any other
explanation. That's not a testimony to an intelligent designer, it's a
testimony to the limitations of human thinking. Just because he has given up
doesn't mean other scientists would.
Biology would grind to a halt, since there would be no more questions and
the answer would be the same: "We don't get it, so it must have been
designed."
This is not my own argument. It was propounded by a researcher at the Howard
Hughes Medical Center, and published in their magazine a while back. I'm
very sorry that I didn't keep the article because I thought it was very
compelling.
On 1/31/05 11:17 AM, "Heather-Marie Wells" wrote:
> "As presented, it's not a testible hypothesis and thus not a scientific
> hypothesis."
>
> There have been MANY scientific hypotheses that were not testible and that
> did/does not make them any less scientific. Just because our human brains
> cannot come up with a way to test something at the present time does not
> mean its not scientific.
>
> I'm pretty sure I'm correct that it was about 14 years before Relativity was
> testible.
> Atomic Theory
> A round Earth vs. flat
> The rotation of plants, etc.
> The Big Bang
>
> Just because something isn't testable doesn't make it unscientific.
> Likewise, testability doesn't make something scientific, either, in my
> opinion. Perhaps that's a point to keep in mind when looking at an
> hypothesis. There's a big difference between saying "Ok, I understand this
> hypothesis but at the present it is not testible so for now I must have to
> reject it" and saying "This hypothesis isn't testible so its rejected and
> will always be rejected."
>
> If that was the attitude that all scientists took we would all be living in
> a world where we believed it was flat and the Sun revolved around us.
>
--
_____________________________________________________________
Steven Allison-Bunnell, PhD [log in to unmask]
Senior Producer & Writer
Educational Web Adventures http://www.eduweb.com
Award-winning learning interactives about art, history, science & technology
_____________________________________________________________
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
Josh Steffen
Longwood Graduate Program
126 Townsend Hall
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716-2106
Tel: 302.831.2517
Fax: 302.831.3651
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
