I had written:
"It MAY be argued that we have not yet found the right way to [handle
design issues], but this does not mean that design must be banished to
the realm of philosophy/theology and that we must proceed in our
science as though design has no relevance to our research questions."
KO'B: "If as you say we have not yet found the right way to address
design issues in scientific research, then how would you ask
researchers to proceed?"
"As you say" is not the emphasis I bring. I was allowing criticisms
of the Dembski approach to be considered valid, and was nevertheless
suggesting that the default position is that scientists should proceed
on the basis that design is a pervasive feature of our Cosmos.
Personally, I can find nothing logically wrong with Demski's
methodology: my concern is that this kind of design comes across as a
stopgap explanation.
KO'B: "Should they leave every scientific question open until we are
able to address design issues (which would have the result of
effectively halting all scientific research, since no explanations
could be developed until design issues could be properly addressed)?
Or should they simply do what they are doing now, developing what they
believe are the best explanations for scientific phenomena, then wait
to see if any better explanation comes along (even if that means as
you say banishing design the realm of philosophy/theology, at least
until the right way to apply it to scientific questions can be
developed)?
I don't like these "either - or" options. The issues are presented in
a way that the "correct" answer is a fait accompli!
explanations" are always naturalistic ones. I would not expect an
advocate of design to support this. I will give one example - which
is drawn from informal conversation many years ago with Professor
Verna Wright, a specialist in rheumatology. Many years ago, Professor
Wright was investigating a rheumatic problem with some knee tissue.
The conventional explanation, at the time, was that the tissue was
vestigial, and it performed no useful function in the body. Being a
Christian, and an advocate of design, Verna Wright decided to plan his
research on the basis that the tissue was not vestigial but had some
designed function. His research was successful, and practical
benefits ensued from the research.
The point I am making is that an openness to design can influence the
course of research. It opens up avenues of investigation which are
not apparent to those who have no design commitment.
KO'B: "I would be more than happy to begin applying design issues to
scientific questions. But until they can, I will not suspend my
research simply because I'm told I shouldn't rule out a concept that I
can't currently use as part of my scientific research."
It is not a matter of suspending research - more a matter of expanding
the research horizons. It has been commented before by others that
many scientists presume design unconsciously in planning research: it
is inferred that a purpose/function exists for an entity, and the
research is to find out what that purpose or function is. I want
this approach to be (a) more overt, and (b) scientifically
respectable.
Best wishes,
David J. Tyler.