>Susan:
>I want to know what an
>immaterialist scientist would do to discover how lightening works. I want
>to know what would be different.
>Let's assume that you, Johnson and Stephen all get your wish and science is
>no longer conducted with a materialist-naturalist bias. I want to know how
>a scientist would then go about discovering what causes lightening. Any of
>you other ID theorists can jump in here and help Bervan out. What would
>non-materialist science look like?
Bertvan:
A scientist who assumes the universe is designed would do science the same
way a materialist would.
I suspect many scientists now work under such an assumption. They merely
include "why" as a question that might be answered. They expect everything
in nature to have a purpose. Margulis and Lovelock are two who come to
mind. The Gaia concept would never have been formulated by a materialist.
Indeed, I believe most resident materialists on this board have declared it
to be "Hogwash". Other people are finding it useful.
Susan,
>I think you would prefer jackbooted
>thugs pounding on your door to simply being wrong.
Bertvan;
. I have been wrong many times in my life, Susan. I once regarded Darwinism
as a profound insight.
Susan:
>"materialists" don't care about "why"--other than in the sense of "why does
>lightning seem to always occur when there are clouds"--the "why" I assume
>you are talking about is a religious, not a scientific question. Answers to
>the religious "whys" cannot be verified in any way. They can only be
>believed or not, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Bertvan:
There are probably many "why" questions that can be answered scientifically,
and I agree they won't be investigated by materialists. Materialists,
believing nature to be the result of random processes, without plan, purpose
or design are content to label parts of nature as "random", accidental or
serving no purpose. As you point out, materialists are not interested in why.
Bertvan:
>>Science should be an attempt to describe
>>reality. Whether reality consists of nothing but materialism -- or whether
>>reality includes design are two different descriptions. I would not wish to
>>exclude either from the science classroom.
Susan:
So astrology should be taught in astronomy class? Feng Shui should be
taught in geology class? Those are supernatural-immaterial sciences. I'm
sure they describe reality too.
Bertvan:
No one has suggested teaching astronomy and you know it. (Although of
someone did, I doubt geologists or astronomers would get as hysterical about
it as biologists do.) As the complexity of nature is revealed, more and
more scientists will probably work under an assumption of design, with or
without your permission. They will do science the same way everyone else
does, but they will ask more questions. "Random mutations and natural
selection" appears inadequate as an explanation to more and more people.
Darwinists have recently suggested the Hox genes "do it". Until we know
exactly how, WHY and when the hox genes "do it", that explanation is no
different than saying "God does it". Will Darwinists be content to declare
that whatever the hox genes do a random process? That the hox genes "do it"
any old time and for no particular reason?
Susan
>And the agenda of creationists is hardly a secret! No need to shield
>evolution from criticism--if the criticism is actually of the actual
>science, which most creationist criticisms are not. Or if the criticisms
>are valid, which most creationist criticisms are not. Evolution has
>undergone over 130 years of rigorous criticism and investigation and has
>emerged virtually intact. Evolution is quite used to criticism.
Bertvan:
"Random mutation and natural selection has been around, practically unchanged
for 130 years. Other sciences such as physics, astronomy and micro biology
have made progress, but the theory of evolution flounders exactly where it
was 130 years ago. Not everyone who believes the universe to be the result
of a rational design is a creationist, Susan. I assume it is a waste of
breath to tell you again.
Susan:
> ID is not immune from critique either,
>however. And criticising ID is not the same thing as "wanting to wipe it
>out."
Bertvan
If you are only indulging in friendly criticism of ID, why are you so
determined to get it banished from the classroom? And why do you care so
much that some people regard the universe as designed? I don't care how many
people believe random mutation and natural selection is the explanation of
macro evolution.
I merely urge that people be allowed to express alternative views.
>Susan:
>>you are assuming that evolution has something to do with religion. It
>>doesn't. "Materialistic-naturalism" is required for science. There's no way
>>to conduct science without that assumption. Or, at least, neither you nor
>>Johnson has come up with any viable suggestions as to how one would go
>>about conducting science without that assumption.
>
Bertvan:
Again, I respectfully disagree. An assumption of "materialistic-naturalism"
is not required. One does science under the same rules, whether working
under the assumption that nature is the result of rational design -- or
assuming it to be the result of random processes. As long as everyone does
science by the same rules, why do you get so exorcised about their
philosophical assumptions?
Susan;
>again, I ask: exactly how would you conduct science with the assumption of
>design? What would such a science look like? What does
>immaterialistic-supernatural science look like?
Bertvan:
Again,I answer: ID science looks like any other science, except they might
try to answer some "why" questions. If you don't like the answers, you don't
have to accept them. Most people mounting this protest over ID seem
paranoid about religion. (I'm sure that isn't true of you.) I doubt most
actual scientists fear religion that much. I suspect many of them already do
science under an assumption that nature is the result of a rational design.
Margulis and Lovelock obviously did.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 04 2000 - 19:52:50 EDT