On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:56:15 -0700, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
>>>CC>No, it's a scientific method requirement, because the scientific method
>>>is not applicable to fairies or Gods. Metaphysical non-naturalism is a
>>>PHILOSOPHICAL position, and it is basically not subject to scientific
>>>method, that's all, except when it makes predictive claims about empirical
>>>facts not yet empirically determined.
>SJ>Again this is just materialist philosophical dogmatism. There is no reason
>>why the scientific method is not applicable to the work of an Intelligent
>>Designer. The scientific method is applicable to the work of human
>>intelligent designers (eg. archaeology, forensic science) and even alien
>>intelligent designers (eg. SETI).
>CC>That's only IF the designer you claim behvaves in a way that lets his design
>efforts be scientifically tested.
Chris contradicts himself. He has elsewhere ruled out Intelligent Design (ID)
in advance from science. Now he proposes that ID be "scientifically tested".
When he makes up his mind that ID is in principle scientific, then we
can move on to tests of ID.
>CC>This would mean that design theorists
>should be proposing experiments and investigations to locate the kinds of
>facts that they claim are specific to their designer. For example, it might
>be possible to create two sub-populations of an organism, put them into
>different environments, and make systematic counts of the various kinds of
>variations that occur. If the designer is active, then there should be
>violations of the rates of variations that would be predicted on the basis
>of even a very nearly PERFECT knowledge of chemistry and of the chemical
>environment in which DNA replication takes place.
See above. Chris proposes a test of ID before he acknowledges that ID is
scientific! This shows his claim that ID is outside of science has no
basis. If ID can *in principle* be tested, then how can it be maintained
that ID is outside of science?
As for Chris' example, this is not a real test of ID, but is an attempt
to set up a straw man and knock ID down right away. One wonders why
materialist-naturalists are so frightened of ID? ID theory does not make
any specific claims about variations in present populations of organisms.
ID is more interested in explaining the origin of the evident *design*
of living organisms, which even Dawkins admits is how they appear to
be:
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker,"
1991, p1)
And why should ID predict "violations of the rates of variations"? If
there are "rates of variations" are a consequence of the general laws of
the physical and biological worlds, then ID would maintain that the
Intelligent Designer is ultimately *responsible* for those laws and
hence the "rates of variations"! See again my first post to the
Reflector:
"In my world view, all natural forces and events are fully contingent
on the free choice of the sovereign God." (Wilcox D.L., in Buell J. &
Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?" 1994, p215).
[...]
CC>I look forward to design-theory supporters jumping on this opportunity to
>empirically support their case.
The only interesting thing about Chris' case is that he has (whether he
likes it or not) accepted that Intelligent Design is *in principle*
empirically testable, and hence scientific!
CC>Obviously, my exclusionary remarks only pertain to alleged "hidden"
>designers, designers who DON'T (in any reasonably systematic way that we can
>currently detect) interfere with what "should" happen, given a strictly
>naturalistic theory of evolution.
Chris does not realise that if there is an Intelligent Designer, then
He would be ultimately be responsible for "*all* natural forces and events"
as Wilcox points out. If there is an Intelligent Designer, then there is
*no* "naturalistic theory of evolution"! Just as Darwin proposed his
"naturalistic theory of evolution" as a complete replacement of the
then century Intelligent Design theory of Paley, so modern ID theory aims
to update Paley and return the complement to Darwin, and be a complete
replacement of Darwin's "naturalistic theory of evolution", as Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe realise:
"The speculations of the Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as
we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts
throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific
world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance
of being the ultimate winner." (Hoyle F. & Wickramasinghe C., "Evolution
from Space," 1981, pp96-97)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"...it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulate
fashion to the experimental method of science itself...It is surely one of the
curious paradoxes of history that science which professionally has little to
do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be
rationally interpreted, and that science today-is sustained by that
assumption." (Eiseley L., "Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who
Discovered It," [1958], Anchor Books: Doubleday & Co: Garden City NY,
1961, reprint, p62)
--------------------------------------------------------------------