I'm no quantum physicist, but from the little I understand of it, it
sounds a lot like quantum physics is getting at some concept of a
godlike observers/choosers of endless possibilities. Not in the vein
that most Americans probably think of god, but from an outside
perspective, it sounds a lot like some kind of god to me.

I thought the whole point of the process of science is that you don't
know where it leads ultimately (if there is any ultimate)? You just know
where you are at any given point of understanding. Personally, I think
it's highly unlikely that science leads to god in the sense that most
humans conceive of it, but I don't KNOW that. I'm content to follow the
science and see what happens. 

My understanding of scientific process seems to be that scientists
constantly make guesses and assumptions which they then devise
experiments to test. I believe many of them have goals in sight; they're
not just following pure process. What's wrong with having the goal of
proving/disproving god as your goal as Eric seems to suggest? Again, it
seems like folks are placing their emotional/intellectual reaction to ID
itself ahead of actually hearing/understanding what someone is trying to
say on this thread.

From a metaphysical standpoint, science is like any other religion in
that it is how some humans understand their reality. I'd argue it's the
best process humans have devised to date for objectively understanding
our reality, but I'd argue it is still flawed like many of humans'
different metaphysical theories. One of those flaws is a propensity for
dogmatic adherence to preconceived notions and a general disinclination
to consider other ideas. Many of our now celebrated scientists learned
this the hard way in their own times when they became proponents for
ideas radical to their contemporary science.

Is the concept of ID in this same line of radical idea that will one day
be a commonly held scientific "fact"? I seriously doubt it, but I think
slamming the door on any exploration of finding anything of value with
it is bad practice. Not so much for the potential loss of anything
coming from ID but for creating the habit of not considering different
ideas.

For what it's worth,

tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Stephen Nowlin
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 3:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MUSEUM-L] For those interested in evolution AND
Intelligent Design . . .

On 6/29/05 9:55 AM, Eric Johnson's electrons arrived as:

> Or is there room for a serious scientific study of the possibility of
> intelligent design in nature?  Is ID that study?  If it isn't (because
it is
> flawed in some form), should others--"hard" scientists, perhaps--take
up the
> banner?

What banner?  On the subject of cosmic and human origins, science does
not
lead to god.  Other disciplines of thought lead to god, but not science.
The banner belongs to those disciplines, not to science.

Science is a process, not a tool.  It isn't some sort of Good
Housekeeping
Seal of Approval that is applied retroactively to various notions forged
outside the boundaries of its methodology.  Its conclusions follow the
evidence, not the other way around.  Since the conclusion of Intelligent
Design has not resulted from the process of science, it makes no better
sense to suggest "hard" scientists would spend time studying ID than
they
would any other non-scientific idea.


_____________________________________
S t e p h e n    N o w l i n

http://xrl.us/stephennowlin

Vice President,Director,
Alyce de Roulet Williamson Gallery
Art Center College of Design
1700 Lida Street
Pasadena, CA 91103
626.396.2397
[log in to unmask]

http://www.williamsongallery.net
http://www.artandscience.us
http://www.pasadena-culture.net
_____________________________________

=========================================================
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).