RE: [asa] FYI: Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of

From: Peter Loose <peterwloose@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu Aug 16 2007 - 04:36:02 EDT

I see words used in discussion to condemn ID pretty well out of hand as if
somehow the statement below "ID as not truly science" just dismisses the
whole field of thought that has now become a world-wide intellectual
movement.

Isn't it less than rational to claim that academics who have impeccable
credentials can be so lightly dismissed? If they can be so easily
dismissed, then so can those who wish to dismiss them. The whole of academia
tends to be discredited.

It might be helpful if a careful discussion was had that leads to an
understanding of what we mean by "science". What qualifies as "science"? Who
says so?

For example, what was understood by the notion of 'science' in the founding
days of the Royal Society? Can we compare and contrast the historical and
the contemporary understanding? What are the reasons for the changes, if
any?

Let's establish some clear foundational definitions of what we mean by
"science" before we move on.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of PvM
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 3:14 AM
To: David Campbell
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] FYI: Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is
the new enemy of

 
On 8/15/07, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >I do not have a high regard of the British press
>
> The arguments about the definition of science and ID as not truly
> science do seem off the mark and often motivated philosophically
> rather than scientifically. In reality, the reason ID doesn't belong
> in science classes is because as currently practiced it is usually
> scientifically wrong.

That's because it lacks a scientific foundation. Have you read Ryan
Nichols' paper on this topic?
Ryan Nichols, Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of
Intelligent Design theory The American Catholic philosophical
quarterly, 2003 ,vol. 77 ,no 4 ,pp. 591 - 611

<quote>
In my argument against Intelligent Design Theory I will not contend
that it is not falsifiable or that it implies contradictions. I'll
argue that Intelligent Design Theory doesn't imply anything at all,
i.e. it has no content. By 'content' I refer to a body of determinate
principles and propositions entailed by those principles. By
'principle' I refer to a proposition of central importance to the
theory at issue. By 'determinate principle' I refer to a proposition
of central importance to the theory at issue in which the extensions
of its terms are clearly defined.
I'll evaluate the work of William Dembski because he specifies his
methodology in detail, thinks Intelligent Design Theory is contentful
and thinks Intelligent Design Theory (hereafter 'IDT') grounds an
empirical research program.1 Later in the paper I assess a recent
trend in which IDT is allegedly found a better home as a
metascientific hypothesis, which serves as a paradigm that catalyzes
research. I'll conclude that, whether IDT is construed as a scientific
or metascientific hypothesis, IDT lacks content.
</quote>

See also my thoughts on this matter at
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/inference1.cfm

Dr Nichols Homepage http://hss.fullerton.edu/philosophy/Nichols.htm

Christine asks a very good question

<quote>Given this understanding, how is it that "natural
selection" gives rise to life, rather than acting upon
it? Isn't an existing life form inherent in the
definition?</quote>

Not really, imperfect replication is all that is really needed, and
some form of selective pressures.
Interview http://thesciphishow.com/darwinordesign/?page_id=18

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.19/953 - Release Date: 14/08/2007
17:19
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 16 04:38:00 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 16 2007 - 04:38:00 EDT