Joshua,
That brings up several of the many problems with the concept. First, ID is
not a scientific paradigm, and can not be compared favorably to scientific
fields of study. A good scientific theory seeks to prove itself wrong in
order to determine its validity and to redefine itself where necessary. ID
assumes it is right and attacks other ideas on that basis rather than
examining itself. The blithe assumption that something was intelligently
designed(and presumably implemented) because you are not capable of a
better explanation will never be more plausible than the alternate
scientific explanation. Unless, of course, your faith tells you it is so.
Just because science does not yet have a complete answer is also not
evidence in favor of ID.
Second, attacking evolution at its weakest explanatory point will serve no
purpose. Attacking science with faith will not further weaken the weak
point. That point will also strengthen with further research, forcing ID to
move to another point.
I do not think either side hides their agenda at all. I have spent quite a
few of my off hours since this thread began perusing the ID websites, of
which there are many, and so far I have found nothing but the cop-out. No
testable hypotheses, no research, no studies. Just supposition and badly
flawed logic, as well as lots of other links to fundamentalist sites.
To be honest, evolution is not the only alternative, which is part of the
purpose. It seeks to improve its completeness and point of view
continuously. That includes contact with ideas like ID.The crux would be
that ID seeks to go ahead and answer the question now, from the top down,
while evolution(ists) seeks to answer the question from the bottom up, over
time. Perhaps they will come to the same conclusion in the end?
Mark Janzen
Registrar/Collections Manager
Edwin A. Ulrich Museum of Art
Martin H. Bush Outdoor Sculpture Collection
Wichita State University
(316)978-5850
Joshua Steffen
<raincaller7@YAHO
O.COM> To
Sent by: Museum [log in to unmask]
discussion list cc
<[log in to unmask]
SE.LSOFT.COM> Subject
Re: what's really the matter with
Intelligent Design
01/31/2005 01:18
PM
Please respond to
Museum discussion
list
<[log in to unmask]
SE.LSOFT.COM>
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 flagell um 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 messa ge 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).
=========================================================
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).
|
