Nucacids wrote:
[...]
NA> All that is needed is this: if the debate shifts from
NA>evolution to mechanism, if teleology works, and if the
NA>future undermines the Darwinian template's reason for
NA>existence, along with introducing a template that
NA>introduces a teleological inertia, once again, ID is in the
NA>cards.
[...]
All that is required is that ID work. Given the rosy picture
painted by various DI CRSC fellows of the scientific vistas
that ID and especially Dembski's DI will enable when adopted,
surely this cannot be doubted as the rockbottom test of ID's
value. If molecular biologists are able to convert ID into
theories into data into patents and licensable technologies,
all the argument over battling philosophies will be *over*.
It won't matter a bit whether Darwinian explanations are valid
or invalid, true or false, for ID to gain general acceptance
in the scientific community, so long as those adopting ID are
producing *results*. Not arguments that results may at some
future point be possible given this that and the other thing,
but actual honest-to-goodness research results. Who knows?
It could even happen. That's not the way I would bet at the
moment, but then again if some people actually make things
happen research-wise with ID, I don't think that it will
matter that I didn't happen to be a proponent at the outset.
In the scientific community, results speak for themselves,
and we have the tyranny of what works.
On the other hand, if ID continues as it is currently proposed
and advanced, I don't see a shift of any significance in
science based upon the sorts of philosophical and political
arguments that so far pass current for ID thought. It might
do something for theology, but that's about it. Back in 1997
at the NTSE conference, the question kept getting asked, "How
about an example of a scientific theory derived from ID
principles?" The answer was then, and appears to still be,
that such require further development. Whether materialists
or theists, scientists tend to be pragmatists when it comes to
taking a research approach. They are going to go for what
works. So far, ID has not proved itself to be a working
methodology to the general scientific community. In fact, it
appears that very little effort, relatively speaking, goes
into making a case for ID to the scientific community. As
long as that is the case, don't hold your breath for the
paradigm shift promised by Dembski in "Intelligent Design".
Wesley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 01:48:14 EDT