Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/12/04 6:37pm
In reply to:
Duane
's message, "The Problem with Intelligent Design" on 08/15/04 5:33am
>Ever noticed that you never hear an affirmative
>definition of Intelligent Design Theory (ID)?
I'm not sure what you mean by "affirmative definition," but here's a definition: life on earth was artificially created.
>I think this is the reason why. For any positive
>statement of a theory, you first state the assumptions
>required for that theory. For much of mainstream
>science, these assumptions are often taken for
>granted, such as:
>
>1) We can perceive the universe through our limited
>senses, using direct and indirect methods of
>measurement and observation.
>
>2) These observations and measurements are things that
>are reproducible, or repeatably observable.
>
>3) Things that we cannot observe or measure, we cannot
>know about.
We cannot observe quarks, yet we can "know" about them. (Perhaps you meant observe nor measure, though.)
>The problem with ID is that we, as curious humans, are
>prone to asking questions about our assumptions. In
>fact, this questioning of assumptions is a neccesary
>part of "sanity checking" the assumptions we've made
>about any given theory.
How is this intrinsically problematic?
>If a scientific theory cannot allow a rigorous
>discussion of its assumptions, and why they are
>reasonable and valid, then it is not a scienfitic
>theory.
Careful, a lot of people have set themselves on tenuous ground when it comes to defining a "theory" especially in matters like these.
In any case, there's no reason why we can't discuss the "assumptions" of ID theory. This seems like more of an aspect of its adherents than the theory itself.
>And this leads us to the crux of the problem with ID.
>What, exactly, are the assumptions of ID? I challenge
>(dare) anyone to unambiguously state the assumptions
>required for ID theory, and then to allow open
>discussion of those assumptions.
>
>You cannot, as the proponent of a theory, state the
>theory, state it's assumptions, and then forbid
>discussion of those assumptions.
Well, let's discuss them.
The "assumptions" aren't much different from mainstream science, depending on the philosophy of science used (in this case, let's assume realism). In that case, it has all the assumptions of realism. There is also the explanatory filter and the assumption (justified or not) that it is at least in principle rational, and of course the assumption that intelligent design can at least in principle be rationally detectable and inferred from the data even if we can't identify the designer.
Those are all the assumptions I can think of at the moment.
>Here's a hint to anyone that might attempt to respond
>to this:
>
>Intelligent Design Theory assumes the existence of a
>sentient being or beings who may or may not exist
>presently, that, through unknown means, created
>specific biological systems in either exactly, or
>close approximation to, the forms in which they exist
>today.
I don't see how that's an assumption of ID theory. Certainly the notion that a designer exists is part of the theory, however.
>Yep. ID assumes that. I've heard (read) ID
>proponents hedging and dodging discussion of this
>assumption, with statments like, "Woah, now... I
>never said ANYthing about the designer itself! Did
>you hear me say 'GOD?' I didn't think so! ID says
>nothing about the designer, so we can't talk about
>that."
>
>Only we can, and must, if ID hopes to become a
>competing theory, instead of being regarded as a
>half-baked psuedo-intellectual knee-jerk reaction to
>the fact that current science has killed the very
>imaginary super-friend that so many people seem to
>depend upon for happiness.
Killed what super-friend? God? If so, are you aware that the founding fathers of science were themselves theists? Did they think of themselves as killing God? No, they thought of as revealing him (rational order existing in the world etc.). Do you have any idea how inaccurate that statement "science killed God" is?
ID does not contain much in the way of assumptions as to what the designer is. In its current scientific form, it assumes we can rationally determine if something is designed even if we can't identify the designer.
>So, ID proponents, my direct challenge is this:
>
>State, unambiguously the assumption(s) of ID theory,
>and allow us to discuss the reasonableness of them in
>open forum. Allow us to compare them in complexity
>and ennumeration to the assumptions required by
>current evolutionary theory.
>Let us really see the foundation of ID. I, and many,
>many others believe it's a deceptive religio-political
>agenda.
I never though you'd be this paranoid. Look, there are a lot of people who don't have any religious or political agendas here (such as myself). Behe was a Roman Catholic, and only "converted" to ID theory as a result of the evidence (as he perceived it). That's true for most in the ID movement. Most are perfectly willing to modify their religious views if the evidence demands it (some common examples: the age of the earth and the big bang theory). But as they see it, an ID is rationally necessary. The new “upper-tier” movement is showing some considerable differences over the “lower-tier” movement (ICR and the rest).
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 