Posted on 09/19/2005 6:01:22 PM PDT by gobucks
Okay...
Mere assertion does not "establish" science. Science is, mostly, a method of inquiry, and certainly not a collection of assertions. What science does require, on a prima facie basis, is that objectivity and empiricism prevail.
This entire debate suffers from myopia.
"Mere assertion does not "establish" science. Science is, mostly, a method of inquiry, and certainly not a collection of assertions. What science does require, on a prima facie basis, is that objectivity and empiricism prevail."
Okay.
Yes an assertion does need to be backed up with evidence and or logical reasoning. ID does quite well with that. Again, read Johnson's book. Evolustionists typically dismiss ID without giving it much thought....now that isn't scientific thinking either...its just ignorance.
Trust me, we're not worried about that
"Science is, mostly, a method of inquiry..."
In simpler terms, wouldn't it be better to say:
"Science is, mostly, a search for causes ..."
After all, ToE folks have found the 'cause', natural selection, which 'caused' the first living thing to end up as our common ancestor....
ID folks look for causes too....;
I do not see any (empirical) "evidence" from the ID community. And "logical reasoning," while seductive, is not the foundation of a science---data are.
"ID folks look for causes too..."
And when they come up with material, non-supernatural ones they can take part in a scientific discussion.
How?
I disagree with the idea that just because Kuhn is quoted by Discovery Inst folks, that must mean w/ buy into post modern methods of rhetorical fighting in order to win...
ID folks in my experience (and I'm not really a hard core ID type myself) do indeed strictly adhere to accepted scientific practices, and approach the problems of 'how' differently than do the scientists which presuppose a philosophic faith position they refuse to discuss: that 'natural' forces are the 'exclusive' cause of what we observe. It is the denial of that presupposition that is the issue w/ so many ID types, and me too.
That all said, I don't agree w/ the argument we're simply engaging in paradigm warfare, and thus validating the idea truth is merely relative to those who have the power to make it so.
ID folks, like the science folks in general, do indeed believe in a standard of absolute truth....
They just can't get it together about the origin of the standard.
I, and the other evolutionist-scientists here at FR, have been consistent in positing the view of this quoted paragraph for quite some time now---namely, that the ID "movement" could: (1.) undermine science and (2.) undermine conservatism (because of its association with ID as portrayed by the MSM.)
I'd just like to add to '(2.)undermine conservatism ' and destroy the currently governing conservative coalition.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
And so, instead of a weapon which helps them, it becomes to them a sword of damocles...; maybe that metaphor is a stretch...
Both creationism and creationism-lite are essentitally equivalent to postmoderndeconstructionism. Their political goals are identical, invalidation of scientific inquiry as a means of gaining knowledge.
I like Robert Heinlein myself.
Well, I'm glad you didn't resort to the---"it all just can't be random" critique.
I'm a life scientist (physiology/endocrinology). I admit that in my journeys I've encountered a few (2 or 3) who conduct their research as if they are trying to prove the ToE. The rest, however, are simply seeking data which may shed some light on how a particular phenomenon works. The problem is, because of the requirements of most grant-funding agencies, is that---in the research proposal itself and in the published, discussion section---some form of "relevance to society" must be stated.
Basic science has no preconceived relevance to anything except curiosity, and most scientists are forced to stretch to write such required inclusions. Thus, the "conjecture" part of science (thanks also to the MSM) receives the most attention.
And whatever would be the substitute is a quick journey back to the dark ages.
And whatever would be the substitute is a quick journey back to the dark ages.
To Talibanland.
I knew the article said something. If only they had used fewer words, and better.
So easy to win the debate when you create strawmen - this statement couldn't be further from the truth if he had actually tried!
Creationists reject science. If you think otherwise, please explain.
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.