Intelligent Design

From: Bertvan@aol.com
Date: Wed May 03 2000 - 15:21:18 EDT

  • Next message: Tedd Hadley: "Re: Morality"

    Steve C:
    Hi Betvan
    >n your earlier quote, you said that "Science is the process of observation
    >and accurate measurements." When questioned whether this was sufficient to
    >define science you altered your definition and said that science is "an
    >attempt to describe reality". In the first case your definition is based
    >on method and in the second it is based on subject matter (reality).

    Bertvan:
    Hi Steve,
    We might be able to agree on a definition of science, but I'm not sure we'd
    get everyone to agree. I'm not committed to any particular definition. I
    rarely use the word evolution because what I specifically question is "random
    mutation and natural selection as an explanation of macro evolution."
    Awkward, but I do all I can to make my position clear.

    Steve:
    >Let's explore your second definition My question here is similar to the
    >one I posed earlier. Is your second definition an adequate definition of
    >science? If so, please explain whether you think that literature, art,
    >philosophy, theology and metaphysics are science (don't they each attempt
    >to describe reality?).

    Bertvan:
    Sure, I agree literature, art, etc., are attempts to describe reality. I
    doubt you'd find many materialists who wouldn't insist the "truth" of such
    descriptions are a level of several magnitudes less than science as they
    define it.

    Steve:
    >As you will see from these questions, the demarcation between science and
    >nonscience is tricky to describe. But this point of demarcation keeps
    >coming up in the debate over evolution and ID. I think that it is
    >important to clearly understand this issue and what one means by
    >"science". It is interesting that many people here want to strictly define
    >evolution before proceeding in the debate. I believe that it is more
    >important to define science before proceeding.

    Bertvan:
    That would be one sure way to silence critics -- insist that they agree upon
    a list of definitions before they are allowed to express skepticism. As I
    have stated repeatedly, I am skeptical of "random mutation and natural
    selection as an explanation of nature's complexity" - Darwinism!!! - no
    matter how you define anything. And I heartily applaud physics for
    attempting to move beyond materialism.

    Bertvan

    http://members.aol.com/bertvan



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 03 2000 - 15:21:53 EDT