Yes, you're talking about "god-of-the-gaps" thinking, which is how all
religious and supernatural thinking got started by our pattern-seeking
explanation-hungry species in the first place.  Happily it led eventually to
science, so now we need not make the same mistakes in reasoning as our
ancestors. 

When you think about it, we used to know everything -- how the world was
created, why we are here, what lies in the future.  Then along came science
and now we hardly know anything!  With each new answer, many more questions
are generated -- the realm of the unknown is expanding exponentially.  I'm
always amused by those who deride science as "having an answer for
everything," as if the all the wonder, awe, and mystery are squeezed out in
the process.  In fact, it was (and is) religion that proposes to have an
answer for everything -- that leaves no gap godless.


On 1/31/05 10:40 AM, Steven Allison-Bunnell's electrons arrived as:

> 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.

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