Re: major logical flaw

From: Richard Wein (rwein@lineone.net)
Date: Sat Jul 29 2000 - 15:32:26 EDT

  • Next message: Stephen E. Jones: "Re: Scopes in reverse"

    From: Cliff Lundberg <cliff@cab.com>

    >Richard Wein wrote:
    >
    >>There's one major logical flaw in Johnson's position which I haven't yet
    >>seen mentioned, though it's fairly obvious. He claims that science rules
    out
    >>ID because it excludes the supernatural by definition. But this is a non
    >>sequitur, since he also insists (though he didn't mention it in this
    >>particular interview) that the ID which is demonstrated by ID proponents
    is
    >>not necessarily supernatural. So, Johnson's favourite argument falls at
    the
    >>first hurdle!
    >
    >Could you elucidate this? I have no problem at all with the claim that
    >science rules out the supernatural; I don't think anyone from either
    >side would challenge this.

    Well, I might do so. As I've mentioned recently, I've yet to see an adequate
    definition of "supernatural". However, that doesn't matter here. For the
    sake of the current argument, I'm accepting this claim.

    >Now how does this conflict with the claim
    >that ID is not necessarily supernatural? AFAIK ID advocates have
    >left open the possibility of intervention by aliens, rather than by
    >deities. Of course, this must be some kind of ploy, since they really
    >don't seem all that interested in aliens; but you can't bust them for
    >pretending to be scientific until they actually overstep the bounds
    >of science, which ID theory tries not to do.

    You're right that it's a ploy (to avoid the problem of the constitutional
    separation of church and state that keeps creationism out of schools), and
    you're right that, even though it's a ploy, that doesn't in itself detract
    from their argument.

    In case it was unclear, when I said "He claims that science rules out ID", I
    meant "He claims that MAINSTREAM science rules out ID". Obviously he doesn't
    claim that his "theistic science" rules out ID.

    Johnson makes this claim so that he can dismiss all the arguments of
    mainstream scientists, claiming that they're obliged to reject ID on
    principle regardless of the evidence.

    The problem is this. How does Johnson get from the premise that mainstream
    science rules out the supernatural to the conclusion that mainstream science
    rules out ID? The answer is that he can't, because, according to his own
    assertions, ID could be non-supernatural.

    In other words, mainstream scientists do *not* rule out ID as a
    matter of principle. If the evidence pointed to ID, mainstream
    scientists would be willing to accept that proposition. It would have to be
    strong evidence, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary
    evidence. But the proposition would not be ruled out on principle. Even
    Dembski recognizes this! He gives the following example:

    "To see this, consider what would happen if microscopic examination revealed
    that every cell was inscribed with the phrase "Made by Yahweh." Of course
    cells donāt have "Made by Yahweh" inscribed on them, but thatās not the
    point. The point is that we wouldnāt know this unless we actually looked at
    cells under the microscope. And if they were so inscribed, one would have to
    entertain the thought, as a scientist, that they actually were made by
    Yaweh. So even those who do not believe in it tacitly admit that design
    always remains a live option in biology. A priori prohibitions against
    design are philosophically unsophisticated and easily countered.
    Nonetheless, once we admit that design cannot be excluded from science
    without argument, a weightier question remains: Why should we want to admit
    design into science?" (http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html)

    A better example (of my own) would be the discovery of alien relics in a
    pre-Cambrian stratum. We could even throw in (as this is a thought
    experiment) the discovery of records showing how the aliens tampered with
    life on Earth.

    Richard Wein (Tich)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 29 2000 - 15:31:42 EDT