Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Eschewing Enthrallment in Science

William Dembski
November 8, 2005
Science
1
Categories
Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

As you read this riff on Kuhn, ask yourself why ID should or shouldn’t fit into this characterization of the scientific enterprise: http://www.the-scientist.com/2005/11/7/10/1.

Comments
Should or shouldn’t ID fit into [Jewitt’s] characterization of the scientific enterprise: Not as stated, no. 1) The important thing is whether or not Jewitt’s refinements would be instituted as part of a centralized bureaucracy. 2) ID has more pressing priorities. Regarding 1, Jewitt’s “strong-inference” and “strong-inference-plus” are introduced as methodological reforms within the context of a science establishment that is bureaucratized, orthodox and politically aggressive. It so happens that this establishment is hostile to ID. There is no reason to believe that the addition of further layers of methodology will change this. In fact, it is reasonable to suppose that accretions of new criteria will be used against ID. Jewitt tiptoes toward freedom but never pounces. He calls for more exploration and creativity but sees these as the effects of minor tweaking of (for example) the NIH grant process. I suggest Jewitt read Road to Serfdom. The Science Collective, the Science Borg needs a Hayek, not a Lorenz. NIH, NSF, NCSE goodbye. Federal science must be limited to defense and interstate issues. An average Podunk state has more science resources than all of 19th Century Europe. Decentralize all funding and administrative responsibility now. Much stupidity will follow, but even more exploration and creativity. 2) Regarding 2, ID needs political independence (decentralization) and a “killer app.” I believe the latter will tend to follow from the former.pmob1
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
jmcd "This would seem to imply that they had to be created at one time. This would have to be a supernatural event." Part of the vise strategy is demanding that Darwinists define what they mean by nature. Intelligent agency can create irreducibly complex objects. They do this through abstraction and planning. Nothing other than intelligent agency has been unequivocably demonstrated as capable of producing IC. Your definition of nature seems to imply that intelligent agency is not natural i.e. not a part of nature. Yet you insist that humans, which are indeed intelligent agents, arose through natural processes. How can intelligent agency be supernatural while at the same time arising through purely natural means? Non sequitur. The nature of nature includes intelligent agency! We are living proof of it! The only possible fallback is to claim that humans are unique and/or alone in nature as intelligent agents. This is an argument from ignorance and in total defiance of the Copernican Principle of Mediocrity which states that the earth and everything about it is "average" and that humans are not special observers. The notion that we are special observers is a religious concept. The notion that the earth is not a special creation is the concept which launched The Enlightenment for gawd's sake! The earth isn't the center of the universe and we aren't special in the universe. Therefore any real, honest scientist that isn't suffering from ancient religiphobia must concede at least the possibility that intelligent agency could be responsible for some aspects of life on the planet earth. It's then becomes a matter of refining the possibility. Dembski attempts to quantify what most of the rest of us honest, unafraid scientists and laypeople believe intuitively and that is that the known unguided processes identified in evolution are grossly insufficient at explaining everything about life's origin and diversity.DaveScot
November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT
jmcd: ID does not insist on supernatural explanations. It simply insists that design is evident in biological systems, and that RM+NS does not have sufficient explanatory power to explain the origin of new species. Newton observed an apple falling and inferred gravity. Design is observed, however, since evolution is an historical science, there isn't the luxury of confirming one's observations by experimental design. We're locked out from that. But that doesn't mean that ID can't make some kinds of predictions. It remains to be seen just how powerful the design inference is in analyzing biological forms versus the neo-Darwinist approach. My bet is on ID--just from a logical point of view; not because I happen to be a believer.PaV
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
Alright, I keep hearing that ID has nothing to do with the supernatural. I need someone to enlighten me on this. Irreducible complexity says that some systems must have had all their parts at the same time for them to ever function. This would seem to imply that they had to be created at one time. This would have to be a supernatural event. Dembski's arguments on design could be interpreted as saying that random change could not possibly account for the complexity we see so there must have at least been a guiding hand. This guiding hand would also be a supernatural force. How is ID not supernatural?jmcd
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
I actually posted in the other thread about this article that Romans 1 seems to disagree with Haught. Maybe he doesn't really read his Bible? :)dodgingcars
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
John Haught is at Georgetown, the hotbed of liberal, Jesuit thinking. He's thinking like a liberal Jesuit, not as a Catholic. I have no idea what he's talking about when he says this diminishes the mystery of God. So, I guess, when God becomes man (Jesus), I suppose that really diminished the "mystery" of God.PaV
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
okay, i totally apologize, but to further my last comment. funny, my google search of this Jjohn Haught shows a review of his book (God After Darwin) by Behe himself. http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_godafterdarwinreview.htm No wonder his quote made absolutely no sense in light of his Catholic faith which totally conflicts with his view that a designer God is somehow a bad thing. Okay...off topic over. :) Just found these interesting.jboze3131
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT
Srry, off topic again, but i had to share this as well: (from this article- http://www.stnews.org/guide-2140.htm)
But ID proponents find themselves swimming upstream against some rather vigorous scientific currents. Mainstream scientists say ID is not a scientific concept because it relies on supernatural causes. Invoking a “designer” of nature necessarily implies theology, something which science is not equipped to comment on. Mainstream theologians have also dismissed ID’s theological implications. “From the point of view of the most prominent theologians today, not only is ID poor science, it’s also poor theology,” said John Haught, a Catholic theologian at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. “To think of God as a designer is to diminish the divine mystery.” Though intelligent design theorists don’t specify God as the designer, ID proponents like Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe said they would simply like their ideas heard. “There is more than one way to view what science has discovered,” said Behe. “The more science knows about nature, the more strongly it seems to point beyond nature for an explanation,” he said.
1. ID does NOT say that life is designed and that that means a supernatural designer. ID says nothing of the designer, it infers merely the design...which is in no way supernatural. These scientists who attack ID need to actually get off their lazy butts and know what the theory is before the brush it aside as nonsense not worthy of their time. 2. What on earth is this Catholic theologian thinking? He says ID is bad theology, because to think of God as a designer is to diminish his mystery?!?! Any Catholics posting here?? Please tell me this isn't a common sentiment. It's scary that a theologian would complain that a designer God would be diminished somehow...I wonder how this guy fits his odd view of a non-designer God with the God of the bible. Maybe he's one of those weird Christians who claim to be Christian yet deny the bible. That quote was just too weird for me!jboze3131
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT
oops. forgot to paste the link http://www.stnews.org/commentary-1797.htmjboze3131
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT
off topic, but i saw this... note to self- dont believe a word paul gross says. ive seen articles totally debunking the lies of scott in the book she wrote with gross...and he also lies about ID in this article, claiming its "neo-creationism" and complains that ID "slanders" evolution. he claims ID has failed to provide any positive evidence (well, he keeps refering to ID as neo-creationism)... he claims evolution is the central organizing principle of biology, yet most biologists will tell you they never use ET in their work (a few articles have been written lately about the lack of ET being used much at all in biology)...he also complains:
"“Teach the controversy”— a slogan once used by postmodern-bedazzled, leftist academics — is the current form of the mostly rightist, creationist attack on science..."
like i said- dont trust a word paul gross says. if he cant be honest in this small article, theres very little chance hell be honest about anything else. he claims ID is an attack on science...yet what of his blatant lies on ID? clearly, THAT is the attack on science. sad.jboze3131
November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT
At the risk of sounding obvious: Yea.
1. Identify a scientifically interesting observation. 2. Enumerate all alternative hypotheses that can account for the observation, based on present knowledge. 3. Reject hypotheses by experimental observations until a single hypothesis remains that has survived an experimental test by which it could have been rejected. The remaining hypothesis is the currently held view of the cause of the observation.
How can a mindset that rejects design outright ever meet number two?Jon Jackson
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply