Posted on 09/13/2005 4:20:14 PM PDT by rob777
ALL these threads have significance PH ...
Whew...great post.
Perhaps -- but the real essence of my question is, can science detect "the presence of engineering" (for lack of a better term) in an observed phenomenon? Or is science instead hard-wired to assume only naturalistic causes?
By the standards you've laid out, it almost seems like you're saying that science cannot detect the "presence of engineering" in any case. But that doesn't seem right, as we can often recognize the difference between naturalistic and man-made causes.
As I mentioned before, in the case of biological development it's possible to test the capabilities of science in cases where we know for a fact that design was involved. The question is, can a scientific approach lead to the correct conclusion that design was involved?
If we find that science is incapable of recognizing the "presence of engineering" when we know it's there, then it suggests that science in its present state, is not a reliable method for explaining biological observations. If that's the case, then scientific proclamations against intelligent design are likewise unreliable. (It's ugly, but that's what a null result would imply.)
OTOH, if we find that scientific processes are capable of discerning the "presence of engineering," (as I suspect to be the case) then it is no longer possible for scientists to claim that ID is "not testable" and "unscientific."
Either way, it appears that there are some holes in the current scientific "party line" on the ID hypothesis.
The key point is that Intelligent Design is a valid hypothesis. It's valid, because we know not only that it occurs, but also have a pretty good sense of the methods by which it might be accomplished. Because of that we should be able to propose specific tests to detect those methods.
The question then becomes: is it scientifically valid to reject the ID hypothesis out of hand?
I don't think it is scientifically valid to do so, although as we see on these threads the "representatives of science" do precisely that.
How is that different from this statement:
If we find that science is incapable of recognizing the "presence of engineering" when we know it's there, then it suggests that science in its present state, is not a reliable method for explaining weather observations.
or this one:
If we find that science is incapable of recognizing the "presence of engineering" when we know it's there, then it suggests that science in its present state, is not a reliable method for explaining astronomical observations.
or this one:
If we find that science is incapable of recognizing the "presence of engineering" when we know it's there, then it suggests that science in its present state, is not a reliable method for explaining geological observations.
How could you disagree?
After having seen what public school teachers have done to math, English and the sciences, do you really want them teaching the Divine to impressionable youngsters?
C'mon now...think it through... ;o)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have thought it through, and you want these teachers actually teaching evolution? Like you said, C'mon now...think it through... ;-)
I would say yes, anything that follows the form of science we would call naturalistic. But that is terminological only. Consider the concept of energy or an electomagnetic field or a quantum state. We think of these things as naturalistic but they are pure inventions of the human mind. Just because we're so used to them doesn't make them real (phlogiston and aether come to mind as failed scientific inventions) but they are naturalistic.
Now I do not claim that it is impossible to construct a scientific theory of design. However I would say that, should some theory of design be wrestled into the necessary explanatory form, it will be a naturalistic theory. That would be a curious result, and I suspect that you will find it unsatisfying.
If we find that science is incapable of recognizing the "presence of engineering" when we know it's there, then it suggests that science in its present state, is not a reliable method for explaining biological observations.
Hmmm. It's the old "if it doesn't explain everything then it doesn't explain anything" ploy. Because Newton's theory of gravitation doesn't explain the observed precession of Mercury's orbit, it's not a reliable method of explaining gravitational phenomena. Right.
But that doesn't seem right, as we can often recognize the difference between naturalistic and man-made causes.
I think that's a little off topic; we're concerned with designed vs. not designed (and that's not the same thing as naturalistic).
Certainly we can, in certain limited domains, reliably infer human design. But how do we do it? Well, it's because of lots of experience. We "know" that these objects are intentionally created by people. But go outside these limited domains and the sense of human design becomes unreliable. AIDS is biowarfare against Africans doncha know. Trying to use this demonstrably unreliable sense outside of human design seems folly to me.
The key point is that Intelligent Design is a valid hypothesis.
No, the key point is that ID isn't a scientific theory. It isn't because it does not have the right form. If you IDists want it to be accepted as science, it is up to you to do the work to make it so.
Say I put up a picture of a house and a picture of a rock, and ask people which one do they think was designed. Obviously, most people will say that the house was designed because it was build by humans. The rock was formed naturally.
But along comes ID. ID says that both the house and the rock were designed. Both ultimately were created by the "great designer" based on the complexity of the atoms which form the house and the rock. So ID finds design in everything.
Which is why using techniques that hint at man-made design fail for detecting design in general. Suddenly everything is designed and you have solved nothing. It does not help as a comparsion tool because you get the same result no matter what you test.
Something tp remember is that once our public schools didn't do a bad job with math, English and the sciences. You know, why back when they started the day with a prayer and had Bibles in the classroom.
So how does "intelligent design" explain the way bacterial strains evolve resistance to antibiotics? Is God trying to kill us?
Our all wise Creator built into His creation the means for life to continue and proliferate through variation in the gene pool. He did not build into creation the ability for creatures to change from species to species. For instance a dog can be a tiny tea cup Chihuahua or a Great Pyrenees but they are both still dogs. A snake may be a tiny Thread Snake about the size of a worm or a 13 foot Boa Constrictor but they are both snakes. God is the ultimate creative force who loves variation as an expression of Himself, His awesome abilities and creativity. The ability for creatures to often survive because of variation within a specie's gene pool exhibits the care of the LORD for His creation.
Other than the fact that my question was general and yours are specific, there's not any particular difference.
The question is still the same: is "science" capable of discerning whether or not intelligent agents are responsible for a given phenomenon. In cases where we know the answer is "yes," it should be possible to test for that.
The problem with this angle is the presumption that only those things which can be explained or predicted by science are true. Any proposition that some things are, by their very nature, unpredictable or inexplicable is dismissed as religious quackery. Is the study of the operation of independent, intelligent decision definitively not science then?
Are "social sciences" summarily judged to be mislabeled precisely because they study the frequently unpredictable, often inexplicable behaviors of intelligent beings? Are anthropologists to be ejected from the sphere of serious science because they deal with the imprecise analysis of the evidence of historical human activity, deducing the activities and motivations of countless intelligent beings by analyzing the fruits of that intelligence?
Why then is the very notion of science being applied to the study of the fruits of a greater Intelligence so categorically repulsive? Is it so reprehensible to think of biology, astronomy, et al in the same terms as anthropology? Much can be learned while some may only be speculated. That's OK. The mere fact that parts of the puzzle are, by their very nature, unknowable shouldn't be such a crisis-inducing idea to scientists. As with other imprecise sciences, there is still much valuable knowledge to be gained with this approach.
And yet mutation (20 kinds are so) still occur, and new species arise, right in fornt of our eyes.
Try searching on "ring species" or polyploidy, or nylon eating bacteria.
Incidently, bacteria can adapt entirely through mutation. Do it all the time.
Actually, no it isn't possible to test for that. You are essentially trying to prove a negative, that something could not have happened.
Even worse, without knowing the history of an object, you don't know what steps were required to produce it, and without knowing the steps, you cannot do a meaningful probability calculation.
No one in science claims that any complex structure poofed into existence in one step, and no one in ID has found a structure that isn't comprised of simpler, functional structures.
Not really. But at the same time, if it turns out that science is manifestly incapable of giving a correct accounting of the origin of a given phenomenon (i.e., it cannot detect that somebody made it that way), it would obviously be an unreliable explanatory method for that class of phenomena. We could not trust a scientist who says "nobody made it," because the scientist by definition has no way to know that.
But again: I think that, as a general rule, science probably is capable of detecting the signature of intelligent agents on a given phenomena.
Certainly we can, in certain limited domains, reliably infer human design. But how do we do it? Well, it's because of lots of experience. We "know" that these objects are intentionally created by people. But go outside these limited domains and the sense of human design becomes unreliable. AIDS is biowarfare against Africans doncha know. Trying to use this demonstrably unreliable sense outside of human design seems folly to me.
Well, yes, but in rejecting a "design hypothesis" in biology, you're essentially making an argument from ignorance. But we know, for example, that humans do genetic engineering, and thus in some cases we know what to look for if we make a design hypothesis. There is no intrinsic barrier to gaining "lots of experience" in recognizing the hallmarks of design in biology. If that's the case, it would be folly for a scientist to reject a design hypothesis, especially in cases where know what to look for. Your example of "detecting biowarfare" is an excellent example: if confronted with that scenario wouldn't it be irresponsible for a scientist to reject a design hypothesis?
But consistent findings of simpler, functional structures isn't evidence against ID either.
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.