Bertvan:
>Some argue that science is merely methodological naturalism. In that case,
>science should remain silent on questions of teleology and origins. I agree
>with Johnson that in biology, science has tried to exceeded it's authority by
>declaring that evolution can be explained by purely naturalistic mechanisms -
>and Darwinism seems to be the best naturalistic explanation anyone has been
>able to come up with. . .
Scientists are constrained by the scientific method (see below)
religionists such as Johnson and Dembski are not. Scientists are
constrained by what can be observed or inferred from observations.
Religionists are not. That's why Dembski can sit in his office and come up
with is design filter and then be shocked when someone wants him to apply
it to the actual observable world. And be even more shocked and angry when
someone else tries to apply it the actual observable world, can't make it
work and has the nerve to point it out.
That's why I continue to call all IDists creationists and why ID is not
science. They have a conclusion that is not negotiable. The conclusion
cannot be altered by observations. The conclusion is sacrosanct and any
contradicting fact or observation must be dismissed or pounded to fit.
That's why ID is largely a propaganda campaign. They don't do science.
Anybody can hold any opinion that they want to, but if you wish people to
believe that your opinion has something to do with the world as it is, then
you are going to have to come up with some evidence that the world matches
your opinions. Evolutionists have been doing that for almost 200 years.
Creationists avoid doing that and and instead plead their case "to the
general public" just as you do.
A young Charles Darwin who knew nothing about common descent got on a boat
and went out into the world. He collected hundreds of crates of specimens.
He made thousands of observations which he carefully wrote down in his
notebooks. After a while all those observations started to make a pattern.
When IDists and other creationists start to do that and risk having their
sacrosanct conclusion contradicted, they will begin to have some respect in
the scientific community.
Susan
http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html
1.1: What is the "scientific method"?
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the
truth from
lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1.Observe some aspect of the universe.
2.Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
3.Use the theory to make predictions.
4.Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5.Modify the theory in the light of your results.
6.Go to step 3.
here is another explanation of the scientific method aimed at children:
http://school.discovery.com/sciencefaircentral/scifairstudio/handbook/scientific
method.html
----------
I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced
by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew
why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct
species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and
natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the
laws of ordinary reproduction.
---Charles Darwin
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 12:53:07 EDT