The best way to understand something is to know what it is and what it is
not. ID states that the whole thing did not come without the aid of a BIG
BRAIN! It is the role of science to incorporate that knowledge into their
tool box. At least that would avoid a lot of nonsense being said about how
the universe and man came into being. That is already an important
contribution, even if it were to be the sole contribution.
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: glenn morton <mortongr@flash.net>
To: James Mahaffy <mahaffy@mtcnet.net>; asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Monday, March 20, 2000 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: Possible impact of ID
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "James Mahaffy" <mahaffy@mtcnet.net> wrote:
>>But to have a strong impact ID would have to undermine
>> the mechanism/materialism to the degree that it causes a shift to
>> another paradigm. But I fear that at the most, ID in our pluralistic
>> postmodern era may be seen as another minor and perhaps legitimate way
>> of doing science. That in itself is a step forward, but unless that ID
>> science shows itself as a better science program producing better
>> science, I am not sure why the mainstream science will leave its
>> mechanistic world for one that allows a designer.
>>
>> So I guess I am asking for the farsighted seers to suggest how ID could
>> be attractive to the mainstream scientists as a program that would allow
>> him to do better science or if someone sees it being able to offer a
>> critique like Kuhn, that made scientists see that their science is not
>> entirely rational and should be replaced by ID or a paradigm influenced
>> by ID. I am not interested in this degenerating into a pro/anti ID
>> discussion but what may be the impact of ID and why it could have that
>> impact.
>
>In order for ID to make an impact on modern science they simply are going
to
>have to actually offer a scenario for what happened. They can't hide from
>the Big Ogre, that eats all scientist wanna-be's and
>pretenders --observation. I feel the ID movement is basically a bunch of
>people playing pretend science. What they offer has no observational
>support, makes no predictions and takes no risks. It also can't be
>falsified in any way shape or form. So until they grow up, and take the
same
>risks that all other scientists do, how on earth do they expect to make an
>impact. I would suggest that their real target is not science, it is the
>non-scientific laity as you suggested.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 08:56:22 EST