Re: ID science (subtopic 2)

From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Wed Apr 09 2003 - 16:20:12 EDT

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: Benjamin Wiker on ID"

    Burgy,

    You and I earlier agreed (on thread: ID Science (subtopic 1)) on what MN
    (methodological naturalism) was:

    > ... if any scientific theory is going to be
    > formulated to account for some collection of observational data, then that
    > scientific theory will, because of the character of contemporary natural
    > science, deal with natural causes only. This approach, often labeled
    > methodological naturalism (MN), maintains a stance of agnosticism regarding
    > the reality of non-natural causes. For example, MN does not explicitly
    > reject or accept divine action -- whether of the supernatural (coercive) or
    > the non-coercive variety -- it simply excludes divine action (and any other
    > form of non-natural action) from scientific theorizing.

    I also said (re subtopic 2):

    > "ID advocates are free to advocate a theory that explicitly rejects MN, but
    > they should, I believe, label it with something other than the word
    > "science" alone. The label "ID science" would be one candid and honest way
    > to distinguish an ID theory from a normal scientific theory."

    You reply:

    > My observation is that they don't HAVE to reject MN to advocate the ID
    > premise. The intelligent agent need not be supernatural (unless one
    > considers human beings to be, in some sense, supernatural).

    It depends on what constitutes ID action. In what way, for instance, is ID
    action non-natural?

    Yes, ID proponents sometimes do suggest from time to time that there's no
    way to tell if the designer is a mere creature (member of the Creation) or
    the Creator. I think it is fair, however, to note that the ID movement is
    NOT really a champion of "Designer ET's." ID's favored Designer is NOT a
    mere creature. Dembski, in No Free Lunch, specifically argues for an
    unembodied Designer.

    Given that, I would suggest that the ID movement is not so much about the
    distinction between 'natural' and 'intelligent' causation (where, according
    to ID literature, intelligence = the ability to make purposeful choices) but
    more about the distinction between action by creatures (members of the
    Creation) and supernatural, form-conferring action by the Creator. In that
    case, ID does, it seems to me, need to reject MN in order to argue for its
    conclusion.

    Howard

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 09 2003 - 16:49:09 EDT