Posted on 04/13/2006 6:51:19 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Neither can any other system of knowledge. And your original claim is nonsense. Science is the only system of acquiring knowledge by testing theories against observational evidence. You kind of skipped over showing how religion or philosophy accomplishes this without using the methods of science.
This statement will sound quaint when the current Big Bang model is replaced by another model.
If the Big Bang is replaced, it will be replace by more inclusive theory that leaves the broad features of Big Bang untouched, just as general relativity replaced Newtonian gravity without changing the way we think about falling objects in our daily lives.
That said, I can certainly conceive of other models that are not based on Darwin's theory and yet explain the diversity of species on earth.
Feel free to jump right in. That pool is unoccupied at the moment.
ID does not have a model. It has not hypothesis regarding the characteristics of the designer, the methods by which implementation took place, the time, the location -- in short, ID is completely vacuous. If it had a model we would be testing it already.
I beg to differ. The Lucas electrics in every British magic-mobile ever made are clearly influenced by the supernatural (at oddly regular intervals, I might add). And the plumbing in my garage is a perpetual happy hour for pixies, gremlins, and supernatural hairballs.
True, Like the DaVinci Code, or Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion explains many things that didnt really happen.. and a few that did... with a few twists..
An old adage:
"Q. Why do the British drink warm beer?"
"A. Because their refrigerators are built by Lucas..."
And don't forget that long before Ozzy Ozbourne arrived on the scene, Lucas Electrics was known as the "The Prince of Darkness" ....
Sounds like I agree more than disagree with you as to what the nature of science actually is, but a couple finer points of difference regarding 'intelligent design':
Where they differ is on how to explain the evidence—what model to use.
Have ID proponents offered any model at all? I don't see one at all - only statements of belief as to the adequacy or inadequacy of existing models to explain what is still unknown. What's more, they dump the burden of 'proof' on others, instead of offering any positive evidence of their own position.
The ID people believe that the natural selection model is inadequate to explain the available evidence. I do not know whether they are right; however, I think it would be unwise to dismiss them out of hand.
I might be inclined to agree here if the ID movement had ever been anything other than disingenuous from the get-go (i.e. the Wedge Project). The ID movement, as it is now known, is not an attempt to expand scientific knowledge, but rather, to sabotage it.
Of course evolutionary theory still has a lot of work to do (just about all theories in science do) - and healthy skepticism is an important part of science, but institutions like the Discovery Institute and other promoters of ID are only trying to use the gaps in our knowledge to break down people's confidence in the veracity of all scientific knowledge, even where there is little to no doubt - a very unsettling trend indeed; and I don't think groups like the Royal Society are out of line to take a position on this.
Time to roll out the new word, endarkening.
There has been opposition to science for as long as there has been science, and always for the same reason, using the same arguments.
Already on the list, right above "unknowledge"....
;-)
In general I wouldn't qualify engineers as scientists. A Ph.D. in science is a course of training and aprrenticeship in research. If lack that training, you lack a qualification.
I find it significant that so any anti-evos are engineers or programmers, and so few are actual scientists.
A few evos are too.
Please give an example of how 'normative, supernatural, and teleological explanations' can be checked against observational evidence.
Science cannot address questions regarding the existence or nature of such a Being, and cannot therefore evaluate religious explanations for the development of life.
Science can certainly show that said hypothetical being is superfluous to the complete explanations of large classes of phenomena. It can rule out specific claimed interventions of that being. So it while it certainly can't address a completely hidden variable, it can delineate under which circumstances said hidden variable can and cannot be observed.
In their zeal to discredit creationism, the authors neglect to mention that science is itself based on faith—not religious faith, to be sure, but faith nonetheless.
Nonsense.
Dawkins is as entitled to promote his metaphysical beliefs as any Baptist preacher.
True. I'm not slamming engineers (my dad was and engineer and two brothers are engineers). But I have noticed quite a few seem to go over to the dark side.
In general, I would not either. However, a Ph.D. in engineering (such as I hold) may also involve a "course of training and an apprenticeship in research." And many Ph.D. engineers are engaged in research that differs not at all from what their colleagues in the pure sciences do.
I find it significant that so any anti-evos are engineers or programmers, and so few are actual scientists.
Well, I have not done a survey of "anit-evos" to know whether this is true or not. Either way, this criticism does not apply to me because I am not an "anti-evo."
I think it was Arthur Clarke who wrote a story about the endarkening bulb that cancelled light. Obviously the work of an engineer.
I could be confusing this with his story about the noise cancelling device. I wonder if Bose is paying him royalties on their headphones.
Intelligent design is the model with which science operates. Is it scientifically useful to test for the author of a book? Perhaps. But it is ludicrous to suggest a book exists apart from an author.
Fine. Science is doing what you want it to do. Now go away.
Really? Have the data in the latter two works been checked and verified by literally thousands of qualified individuals? Probably not, considering that once qualified individuals started looking into them the works were shown to be the bunk they are.
We are still reading the book, and you are an annoying pest looking over our shoulder. Buy your own copy.
The approach you are pushing suggests absolutely no changes to the current way of doing science. If you have suggestions for some specific research, send an email to the Discovery Institute. They could use a clue.
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.