Posted on 09/17/2004 7:09:02 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
Molodyets.
Ping
Seems to me to be one of 2 important issues. The other being that peer review is simply a gateway. Now the rest of the field gets to chime in with their objections. That appears to be proceeding.
There is a difference between objecting to the science and objecting to the publishing an article from a controversial perspective.
"We aren't sure HOW the genetic matieral came to be, or what EXACTLY caused the frog to leave the ocean, but we KNOW IT WASN'T GOD!"
Of course it's faulty science. Either ID is a euphamism for divine creationism, in which case it's outside the realm of science, or it has the problem of who designed the intelligent designer. Either way, while it may possibly be true, it isn't science. What observation can you make that would lead you to conclusively say that something is NOT designed? If there is no such observation, then ID is not falsifiable and is thus not science.
Dembski:
Indeed, who sets the rules of science? The very demand that science explain in terms of natural rather than intelligent causes is itself applied selectively. Whole branches of science already presuppose that features of the natural world can display unequivocal marks of intelligence causation, thereby clearly signaling the activity of an intelligent designer (cf. anthropology, archeology, and forensic science). Nor need the intelligences inferred in this way necessarily all be human or even earthbound. Consider, for instance, NASA's SETI program (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) in which certain radio signals from outer space would with full confidence be interpreted as signaling the presence of an extra-terrestrial intelligence. There are reliable criteria for inferring intelligent causes. Certain special sciences already admit as much. Why then refuse their admission into biology?
Ping.
I would settle for just knowing where all the nothing came from.
The Darwinists are Dan Rather. Their "outing" is in progress.
It's been published. How in heck can it be "censored"? If this person got something published, and now the larger scientific community is shredding his work, TOUGH. IDers are beginning to whine more than Libertarians.
I hope you're not referring to the people at the P-Thumb as the "larger scientific community."
Of course, Meyer is wrong (either from ignorance or mendacity) here. ID isn't published (much) in peer-reviewed journals because it isn't science. Meyer's article in PBSW is a good example; the critiques of this article show why it isn't science but rather polemics sans foundation. If Meyer can't stand the criticism, he should leave the kitchen.
"Entrenched evolutionary thinking???" More like hidebound ideological commitments!
ID isn't averse to evolution. ID scientists just suspect there's more to it than "matter in motion" and blind, random chance. Which seems eminently sensible to me, FWIW.
Thanks for this (aggravating!!!) post, M-M!
Creationists seem to think that critiquing an article is the same as censoring it.
Yes. You'll notice MA did not address that question at all in his response.
The answer should be obvious. Scientists (and philosophers of science) set the rules for what is science. This is as it should be. Consider if someone presented a text in Hebrew and claimed it as a previously unknown book of the Bible, who would decide if this claim is true? Who would decide if it were really the Word of God or not? Certainly not scientists, but rather clergymen and theologians. Defining science should be done by people who study it. The difference between accepting intellegence in things like SETI and in biology is that in the biology case, by accepting intelligence you are assuming the very phenomenon you are trying to explain. You are saying that intelligent human beings exist because of the design of some other intelligent being. This then begs the question of where did the other intelligent being come from. You either get an ad infinitum regression, ie. some other intelligent being number 3 designed intelligent being number 2, and intelligent being number 4 designed number 3, etc., or you arrive at God. The first case is absurd and the second is not science. Science, by definition of its methods, seeks testable physical explanations for physical phenomena. God certainly is not a testable, physical explanation. Indeed, that's what faith is all about, believing in God despite the fact that there's no physical evidence for such a belief. I am NOT arguing that intelligent design cannot possibly be true. Not all truth comes from science. I am simply arguing that ID does not belong in a science journal (or a science classroom for that matter).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.