RE: Where's the science?--AGAIN
John E. Rylander (rylander@prolexia.com)
Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:51:27 -0600> -----Original Message-----
> From: evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of MikeBGene@aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 9:42 AM
> To: evolution@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Where's the science?--AGAIN
>
>
> Chris:
>
> >In any case, this is an area for research. But it does not help
> that Jone's
> >and Behe pretend to have proved something when they've only just barely
> >*begun*.
>
> Steve:
>
> >No one is claiming that ID is "proved". It is a design *inference*. (as
> >the title of Dembski's book "The Design Inference" make clear).
>
> Indeed. But you must remember that almost all ID opponents adopt
> the extreme strategy of demanding either a near-absolute proof of
> design or
> a concession that design is not a justifiable or rational position.
> Thus, since by definition, any ID inference is not a "proof," they can
> claim ID is a failure and rant about it not be abandoned. The quest
> for certainty can be very handy if you selectively apply it against the
> beliefs you don't agree with.
>
> Mike
>
Your point is a good one (though inferences may be either
certain/demonstrated or uncertain -- neither "infer" nor "imply" imply
uncertainty). But ID proponents do have a persistent habit of overstating
their case, too. As I mentioned earlier, evolutionary proponents, theistic
and naturalistic, are often sloppy too (which is obvious, no? :^< ), but,
unfairly or not, they can and will get away with it because they're the
status quo, they're espousing the established paradigm which inevitably
receives the benefit of the doubt. ID proponents need to become more
careful with their claims if they're to be taken more seriously in
mainstream science. And ultimately what they need, if they wish to be taken
seriously qua science rather than philosophy (even the correct philosophy),
is empirically predictive results that surpass those of MN evolutionary
theory.