John:
>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.
I agree entirely. But I think this is because many ID proponents all
to easily rise to the bait provided by their foes. Ever since Darwin,
the non-ID position has been simply to claim things are possible.
That's a terribly weak claim that ought not be taken seriously.
But the anti-ID approach has successfully turned possible explanations
into serious explanations by propping them up with MN. Thus, the
argument is essentially that any *possible* naturalistic explanation
(including citing a naturalistic unknown) is better than any ID explanation
(unless we have something vaguely referred to as "extraordinary evidence").
ID proponents take the bait and try to prove things are impossible, because
only in doing so (they've been told, thus think) will the stranglehold of MN
(which has not always been a defining part of science) be loosened enough
to consider ID. So they usually get far ahead of themselves claiming this or
that
is impossible, playing right into the hands of their foes who need
only rely on imaginary and a vague speculations about natural
history to argue something is possible. IDers keep looking for the
promised land; a land defined, described and guarded by their foes.
>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.
I think you are correct, but don't think that even a careful, tentative
argument for ID will result in it being taken more seriously. My experience
with people is that if they don't like what you're saying, and can't find
easy reasons to dismiss what you're saying, they begin not liking you.
There are always exceptions, but I see no evidence to think such
exceptional people characterize and define those skeptical of ID.
[Consider just one factor that comes into play. If ID ever becomes
seriously considered in science, that means we'll have to teach it
seriously in the public schools. Now just how many people (among those
opposed to ID) can really think about ID in science without thinking
about ID in the public schools? As I see it, the status quo of scientific
belief is not completely separate from the status quo of general
culture.]
So I agree that ID proponents should be very careful and
frame their positions in tentative language (any time I speak
of ID, you will find that I do exactly this), but I don't think
this is the obstacle preventing it from being taken seriously.
>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.
I think using ID to come up with predictive results about the world
is easy. After all, when I can take a shower and, while thinking along the
lines of ID, come up with the prediction that transcription should
be proofread, only to find shortly after (after doing a literature
search) that transcription is proofread, the predictive potential
is actualized (there's nothing like good old experience to trump
assertions). But as for those that "surpass" those of MN evolutionary
theory, I'm not sure what objective mind is going to decide that.
It's comforting to think such minds exist, but I confess that I
have never been able to match a face and name to such a mind.
Thus, instead of worrying about how we will ever determine
what surpasses what, I tend to favor the view that ID need only
generate understanding about the world. If it does a good
job at this, often asking and answering questions not imagined by
MN evolutionary theory (which would, of course, attempt
to absorb ID findings into its flexible self), the rest will take
care of itself.
Mike