DT:
> - historical science is recognised as having a distinctive
> philosophy/methodology which can handle the concept of
> intelligent causation;
TM: "How is this different? Oh, we demand a higher standard to
invoke it, I guess."
No. It differs in these ways at least (apologies to those who
already have this in a post some months ago).
(a) Historical science is concerned primarily with causation:
sequences of past events, and explanatory links based on
causation.
Empirical science is concerned with natural laws and the way
nature operates, with explanations expressed primarily in terms
of natural law.
(b) Historical science uses a methodology of abductive inference
(analogous to detective work).
Empirical science uses a methodology of induction and
generalisation: inferring natural laws from observational data.
(c) Historical science works with incomplete data with the
scientist having relatively little control over the degree of
completeness.
Empirical science works with data that is, in principle, under
the control of the investigator - who designs the experimental
programme to gather the data which is relevant to the research
objectives.
(d) Historical science invokes unobservable entities in
explanations.
Empirical science invokes observable entities in explanations.
(e) Historical science tests explanations using indirect methods,
recognising the unique and unrepeatable character of past events.
Empirical science tests explanations using direct methods, often
utilising the repeatability of experiments.
It is acknowledged without reservation that many areas of science
require a combination of methodologies: both historical and
empirical aspects are present. It is also pointed out that
intelligent causation is a concept which can be handled without
strain within the historical sciences, whereas it is out of
context in the empirical sciences.
TM: "ID, in the form of YEC, certainly inhibited the study of
geology (my field) and indeed continues to do so."
I'm not sure that any of the pioneers of Geology had a position
which could be equated with ID. However, a number were people
who sought a harmony between biblical revelation and the findings
of geology. For example, Steno, who is known for his law of
superposition, and Woodward, who is known as someone making a
major contribution to recognising the true nature of fossils,
belong to this category. But in the next Century, few geological
writers sought this harmony, and in the 19th Century, references
to the "Diluvium" represent the summit of harmonisation you
continue to find. What are the evidences of inhibiting factors?
Was it really an issue in the Hutton/Werner controversy? The
minority who dissent do not inhibit a discipline.
DT:
> * "junk" DNA is misnamed (it has a function);
TM:"Oops, more IDer assumptions buried here. Why can't an IDer
make DNA with no function. Indeed, why can't the natural systems
really use "junk" DNA. Researchers are still looking into "junk"
DNA in anycase - no need to invoke ID to look."
Of course, everyone is theoretically ready to explore
alternatives. But in practice, these avenues are not explored!
Why was "Junk DNA" so named? (not by IDers!) Of course, there
is no need to invoke ID to look - but IDers appear to be more
highly motivated to look.
DT:
> * abiogenesis research will always reveal "gaps" in the chain
> of natural cause and effect
TM: "Of course, that doesn't disprove it. Nor does the
untestability of ID disprove that either. But at least
abiogenesis actually can be approached scientifically in the form
of organic geo-biochemistry."
You asked for a prediction, not a disproof. I fully accept that
abiogenesis research can be approached scientifically - this is
not the issue.
TM: "Now, what about the ID knowledge gaps? Please state the
exact method this IDer created anything. I predict the ID
knowledge gaps will also always exist.
So, what happens if the both always exist?"
Yes, there are ID knowledge gaps. There is no way that we can
know the "exact method" of creation if it is true that there is
a break in the chain of causality.
What happens? We seek to develop our differing perspectives and
explore ways of testing our hypotheses. This will produce a much
more healthy scholarly community - one less prone to deductive
speculations and more aware of alternatives.
DT:
> * developmental biology will remain largely ignorant about why
> one cell develops into an elephant and another cell develops
> into a mouse until it drops its reductionistic fantasy about
> the role of DNA.
TM: "of course, this line of science is more than just DNA"
Why is it then that there are a significant number of scholars
who complain about the blinkered approach of their colleagues?
Why is it that the Human Genome project is acclaimed with such
fervour? (Since Glenn M has posted on this, and since I'm away
tomorrow, I'll seek to respond further on this later in the
week).
DT:
> * an understanding of consciousness will elude us until we
> recognise that mankind can only be understood as being made in
> the image of God.
TM: "Oh, so now we have an assumption regarding the nature of the
IDer. Please demonstrate that these assumptions are accurate and
why others are not."
This brings us to the general point. I am going to maintain that
the foundations of all scholarly activity have a "religious"
character - taking this word in its broadest sense. For example,
naturalism is a philosophy with all the characteristics of a
religion. To my mind, a Christian philosophy of science is not
compartmentalised - divorced from revelation. So, any scholarly
study of man will be defective if God's revelation about image-
bearing is neglected. This is where the "consensus" which we
seek in science breaks down: there are too many other scholars
who distance themselves from these foundational principles for
there to be a united voice on such issues as consciousness.
DT:
> There is no way that scientific techniques (which belong to the
> physical world) can be used to explore the spirit world. If
> your "objective criteria for testing supernaturalism" demands
> this, then there is a fundamental misperception of the concept
> of the "supernatural".
TM: "Ah, now we're getting into it. How do you make the
assumptions about the IDer without invoking your personal
religious beliefs? And is there anything that can be found,
potentially at least, that would work against ID?"
As explained above, "religious" beliefs are present in all
scholarly activity. I want us to be open about it! What could
work against ID? I also start with a recognition of the
limitations of my own understanding - if I am certain of
anything, I am certain that in many areas I have got it wrong!
The comments I made above on the testability of hypotheses is a
way to "work against" current thinking. I think Christians
should not be troubled by the thought of being vulnerable here.
I hope this is true of naturalists and those who come from other
foundational perspectives.
TM: "Science isn't wholely reductionistic. I don't think I have
talked to anyone in a long time that subscribes to anything like
that. Nauralistic methodlogy does not equal reductionistic."
True - but it is a problem. Our "scientific" culture is not
strong once it gets beyond reductionism.
DT:
> Although I am an advocate of ID, I am not setting out to
> "demonstrate intentional design". I am recognising that God
> has designed and created the Cosmos, and that life is a special
> feature of his creation. That is a starting principle.
TM: "A religious one with clear religious bias."
Absolutely. I am not apologising for this. I look for a wider
recognition that all scholars come with similar religious
presuppositions - whether recognised or not.
TM: "Well, we know for a fact ID (i.e. religious influence on
science) has indeed caused impasses before, which eventually
broke down once that interferrence was broken. But as I pointed
out, "junk" DNA is still being researched. It might not be junk,
but people are still researching it. Abiogenesis too might be
impossible, but people are still reserching it. Should we give
up experiments regarding abiogenesis which has increased our
knowledge about biogeochemistry just because you have religious
beliefs? Should we stop research on "junk" DNA because someone
thinks it's junk? If your answer is "no" on both of these,
what's your problem? Research is doing just fine without ID."
My answer is "no" on both. I do not have a problem. I just
think there is a better way! I dispute the claim that research
is doing just fine without ID. Research directions should be
reconsidered, research methodologies need re-examination, "well-
founded" conclusions of previous research need to be reviewed,
....
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***