But it isn’t science …

_{William Dembski

February 2, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

When critics of ID try to define it out of existence by calling it religion or pseudoscience, it’s worth remembering that to this day scientists and philosophers have yet to settle on what is science and what isn’t. Critics who try to use such “demarcation” arguments against ID invariably end up excluding not only ID but also other things that they would like to count as science. Steve Meyer has written cogently on this very point. These articles by him have been out for a while, but they are well worth reviewing periodically:

www.discovery.org/a/2834

www.discovery.org/a/3524

www.discovery.org/a/1696

Comments

In other words, it's only science if *we* say it's science.Barb_{February 3, 2009
February
02
Feb
3
03
2009
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PST}

. . .nothing drives me quite as nuts as how people like to define science in a way that makes anything but hard naturalism “science.” They aren't doing it to protect a means to pursue truth. They are doing it as propaganda.tribune7_{February 3, 2009
February
02
Feb
3
03
2009
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PST}

Yes, this is one of my biggest pet peeves. It’s the biggest science stopper of them all. And it’s dangerous, as y'all point out. It anoints an amoral priesthood that knows no limits. We must constantly remind ourselves and others that---though there is a continuum between experimental science and philosophy---there is no clear cut demarcation. Every ID proponent should read and cite these articles by Steve Meyer.Rude_{February 3, 2009
February
02
Feb
3
03
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PST}

No kidding - nothing drives me quite as nuts as how people like to define science in a way that makes anything but hard naturalism "science." It seems to me that the goal of science is to uncover the truth about the way things are. But if we automatically exclude anything that is not part of this metaphysical naturalistic approach, then we very well may be excluding what is true. So in reality, defining science in such limited terms ends up limiting our ability to discover truth. The ironic part about that is how this works against the very claim the skeptics want to use; i.e. that by allowing anything beyond the natural, we muffle science. We muffle science by denying the possibility of things we don't like.Leslie_{February 3, 2009
February
02
Feb
3
03
2009
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PST}

If Intelligent Design is a religion then bald is a hair color. THAT is the best way to answer those morons. And if they still don't "get it" then ask them to tell you the who, what, when, where, why and how that ID says about worship and giving service.Joseph_{February 3, 2009
February
02
Feb
3
03
2009
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PST}

But Gil, don't ID theorists claim to offer assurance of certitude? No, they claim to make an inference to the best explanation, based on what is known. I'm glad you asked that question.GilDodgen_{February 2, 2009
February
02
Feb
2
02
2009
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PST}

Not only is there no hard definition of "science," this non-definition has be deified in our culture. If the word "science" is attached to anything, especially in the popular media, the evidence and conclusions of the "scientists" are not to be questioned, because this would be unscientific by definition. This represents a contemporary priestcraft. Unfortunately, the history of "science" is filled with assurances of certitude that turned out to be dead wrong (e.g., the steady-state, eternal universe which represented the scientific consensus until Hubble discovered the red shift and Penzias and Wilson discovered the microwave background radiation, which put the final nail in the coffin of this particular assurance of certitude which people were told should not be questioned because it was "scientific").GilDodgen_{February 2, 2009
February
02
Feb
2
02
2009
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PST}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply