At 12:03 PM 3/8/00 -0800, Bert wrote:
[...]
>****************
>Hard to disagree with someone who agrees with me and let me compliment
>you on your wisdom to do so.
>
>I do believe the IC leads to a best explanation being a ID but I
>position this as a best explanation as opposed to a requirement.
>Indeed, MN is an insertion of philosophy into science and in that since
>I do agree with Johnson that MN intrudes where it ought not and prevails
>to the point where if a genetic code was translated to say JESUS SAVES
>it would be considered a statistical fluke.
Sorry :), but I can't help jumping in on this as this is a sore point for me.
Phil once gave the following definition of MN
"... the principle that science can study only the things that
are accessible to its instruments and techniques." --Phil Johnson
adding a little later:
"...I would not express the point that way today, but any seeming
inconsistency with the views stated in this paper is semantic rather than
substantive." -- Phil Johnson
Despite what he says, one does see a substantive difference in the way he now
discusses MN and the definition above. A recognition of the limitations imposed
on science by its "instruments and techniques" is not an insertion of
philosophy
into science but rather just a recognition that science is limited. The
limitation is
real whether recognized or not, so its best to recognize it.
>IC fairly understood leads to a scientific conclusion that there is no
>current scientific explanation. Nature and scientists hate a vacuum and
>as is well spoken in the history of science literature this is not
>allowable. How often have I heard "Well, what are going to believe,
>some kind of God thing." "Well, yes, and so should you."
Actually, I have seen several examples showing how IC can develop spontaneously
in nature. What are we going to believe? That there is no God? To me this
accentuates,
rather than detracts from, the wonder and beauty of the creation. Thus my
earlier
question, why the leap from no scientific explanation to ID?
[please note: my intention is not to be rude and unfriendly :).
Nevertheless, the issue
here is of fundamental importance (IMO), thus my bluntness. Please don't
take it
personally.]
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 08 2000 - 18:38:03 EST