Science - What is science and science stoppers
Stephen Meyer has a good overview of what science is and how that relates to Intelligent Design. Meyer responds specifically to the idea that science must exclude a designer and highlights several problems with the idea.
One problem is that it ignores areas of scientific investigation where intelligent design is a necessary explanatory concept. The Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is one example.
A second problem with limiting science to blind, natural regularities is that it confuses laws with explanations--an error that philosopher of science William Alston calls "a 'category mistake' of the most flagrant sort." Laws and explanations are often two different things.
In addition to confusing laws with explanations, it assumes a cookie-cutter view of science, in which all disciplines ask similar questions and use the same "scientific method." This belies the rich diversity of methods that scientists use to understand the natural world.It is well worth reading the whole thing.
Tech Central station also has an article up on the Intelligent Design (ID) controversy, with the usual ID = religion = ignorance rubbish that continues to come out of evolutionist evangelists. Yet one thing that the author said caught my attention.
Natural selection has two steps, in evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr's description (What Evolution Is). First is the largely random variation of genes within a population. Second is the largely non-random reproductive success of individuals whose generations of offspring survive to keep particular genes (and thus traits) in the population.Curiously enough, evolutionists and materialists often try to claim that to appeal to a supernatural cause is a science stopper. That you no longer need to investigate the world because 'God did it' that way. Whilst I don't think this accurately portrays the situation, I did find it interesting that evolutionists have their own science stopper. Did you notice in the definition above?
What is it? Randomness. Think about it for a second. If something is random, it cannot be predicted by natural law. As such, it logically stops investigation. You might be able to study what causes random mutations to happen, but not what mutation will happen where. All you can really say is that it just happened.
So if scientists already appeal to a science stopper concept such as randomess, why do they object to something else they see as doing the same?
Nice post - so true, a classic case of double standards re: randomness as compared to invoking a creator. ID makes no profession as to the nature of the intelligence - it is humble in objective ... simply to determine whether a system is the product of natural law/chance, or intelligence. This is not a dichotomy, but rather a continuum. The contention of Dembski and the like is that the greater the spcification of the system, and its complexity, especially when no known natural laws produce this arrangement, the more confident we can be in proclamation of that system being the result of an intelligence. Clearly science cannot reveal the nature of the creator, yet as with forensic science, we can measure and study the effect of his/her/its decisions (just as forensics can't establish the motive or appearance of a gunman, but can establish the trajectory of the bullet once fired). The fact that so many people are up in arms over this issue reveals the primary concern is not with science, but rather with authority and reputation - it's a power struggle, and one ideologically driven. Lay both theories out on the table, exclude the ad hominem attacks and name-calling, cut away layers of pride in credentials, and I think all will find that it is only the presupposition of anti-supernaturalism that places a creator and science at loggerheads.Post a Comment