----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:41:09 -0700
From: "Chris Cogan" <ccogan@sfo.com>
Subject: Re: RE:_science_can_study_the_effect_of_an_Intelligent_Designer_on_the_natural_world
>Pim:
>>Yep. I also gave an example. We see something that appears to be designed,
>>how do we know it truely was designed?
>
> Hi Pim,
>
>If it looked designed, I'd assume it was --until I had evidence it was the
>result of random processes. True, rocks and mountains sometimes appear to
>resemble something unrelated, and common sense tells us the resemblance was
>accidental. However random processes can rarely be proved. I assume
>everything which looked was designed. Perhaps your "common sense" tells
you
>anything not manufactured by humans is not designed. My "common sense"
tells
>me differently. Does your "common sense" have some sort of priority?
Chris
What I want to know is how to SCIENTIFICALLY distinguish design from
non-design, outside of human (and possibly animal) design. If you look at
something in Nature and think that it's designed, what not-yet-visible fact
does that imply that would distinguish it from non-designed if that fact
turns out to be the case? What TEST(s) of design can you offer that, if
successful, would support design but support not non-design alternative
theories?
It's not a matter of one person's "common sense" competing with other
people's "common sense." It's a question of presumption and burden of proof.
Obviously, claiming that something is designed is a stronger claim than the
assumption that it is the result of natural causal processes, because it
requires an additional entity, the designer, and additional causal
processes.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 13:59:32 EDT
From: Bertvan@aol.com
Subject: science_can_study_the_effect_of_an_Intelligent_Designer_on_the_natural_world
Chris
>What I want to know is how to SCIENTIFICALLY distinguish design from
>non-design, outside of human (and possibly animal) design. If you look at
>something in Nature and think that it's designed, what not-yet-visible fact
>does that imply that would distinguish it from non-designed if that fact
>turns out to be the case? What TEST(s) of design can you offer that, if
>successful, would support design but support not non-design alternative
>theories?
>It's not a matter of one person's "common sense" competing with other
>people's "common sense." It's a question of presumption and burden of proof.
>Obviously, claiming that something is designed is a stronger claim than the
>assumption that it is the result of natural causal processes, because it
>requires an additional entity, the designer, and additional causal
>processes.
Bertvan:
Hi Chris,
There may not be a way to "prove scientifically" that nature is the result of
rational design, rather than random processes. I could suggest the "burden
of proof" lies with those who claim obvious appearances are really an
illusion. However I see no reason to challenge anyone to prove the
unprovable. I imagine what will happen is scientists of both view points
will continue repeatable, measurable, scientific investigations. Those
believing in random processes are probably satisfied with "random mutation
and natural selection". Those believing in rational design will look for
other mechanisms. The Gaia concept is an example. I can think of no way
Gaia could have evolved by "random mutation and natural selection". (There
is only one Gaia, right?) I have no idea of Lynn Margulis views on design,
and in today's confrontational climate over design, she might be reluctant to
say, but she has been critical of "Darwinism". There are probably still
scientists skeptical of the Gaia concept, and maybe you are one of them.
Again I see no need to demand anyone prove it's validity or lack of validity.
The philosophical concept under which a scientist works influences where he
will look for answers, but the nuts and bolts of doing science is the same
for all scientists. Can you live with the possibility that some scientists
believe nature is the result of rational design, and judge their results
scientifically--regardless of their philosophical beliefs?
Bertvan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:03:29 -0700
From: "Chris Cogan" <ccogan@sfo.com>
Subject: Re: science_can_study_the_effect_of_an_Intelligent_Designer_on_the_natural_world
>Chris
>>What I want to know is how to SCIENTIFICALLY distinguish design from
>>non-design, outside of human (and possibly animal) design. If you look at
>>something in Nature and think that it's designed, what not-yet-visible
fact
>>does that imply that would distinguish it from non-designed if that fact
>>turns out to be the case? What TEST(s) of design can you offer that, if
>>successful, would support design but support not non-design alternative
>>theories?
>
>>It's not a matter of one person's "common sense" competing with other
>>people's "common sense." It's a question of presumption and burden of
proof.
>>Obviously, claiming that something is designed is a stronger claim than
the
>>assumption that it is the result of natural causal processes, because it
>>requires an additional entity, the designer, and additional causal
>>processes.
>
>Bertvan:
>Hi Chris,
>There may not be a way to "prove scientifically" that nature is the result
of
>rational design, rather than random processes. I could suggest the "burden
>of proof" lies with those who claim obvious appearances are really an
>illusion.
Chris
You could suggest it, but since we're talking science and not subjective
opinions, it wouldn't wash. Could you AT LEAST tell us how things would have
to be if they're NOT designed? How would things either HAVE to be different,
or how would you EXPECT things to be different, and on the basis of WHAT
assumptions?
Bertvan
>However I see no reason to challenge anyone to prove the
>unprovable. I imagine what will happen is scientists of both view points
>will continue repeatable, measurable, scientific investigations. Those
>believing in random processes are probably satisfied with "random mutation
>and natural selection". Those believing in rational design will look for
>other mechanisms. The Gaia concept is an example. I can think of no way
>Gaia could have evolved by "random mutation and natural selection". (There
>is only one Gaia, right?)
Chris
Well, is there even ONE? If I understand the concept correctly, I'd say
there's not even one Gaia. However, if you mean overall evolution of life on
Earth, gradually filling all available niches, etc., then that's to be
expected on the basis of the basic principles of evolution: Variation and
culling.
Bertvan
>I have no idea of Lynn Margulis views on design,
>and in today's confrontational climate over design, she might be reluctant
to
>say, but she has been critical of "Darwinism". There are probably still
>scientists skeptical of the Gaia concept, and maybe you are one of them.
>Again I see no need to demand anyone prove it's validity or lack of
validity.
> The philosophical concept under which a scientist works influences where
he
>will look for answers, but the nuts and bolts of doing science is the same
>for all scientists. Can you live with the possibility that some scientists
>believe nature is the result of rational design, and judge their results
>scientifically--regardless of their philosophical beliefs?
Chris
I already DO live with that. :-)
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1505
********************************