Re: Fw: [asa] Expelled and ID

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Apr 23 2008 - 17:07:07 EDT

George C. said: Science is a realm to itself, one that is based on
objectivity.

I respond: This is surely overstated. The criterion of methodological
naturalism, for example, is not an "objective" one. It represents,
rather, a human judgment about the pragmatic bounds of the human enterprise
our culture labels "science." It may or may not be a reasonable demarcation
line for its own purposes, but it isn't an "objective" line. Which means
arguments over whether ID is "science" ultimately are meaningless. Who
cares, except for the culture warriors who want to fight about public school
curricula? The interesting question is whether anything ID says is "true."

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:54 PM, George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Natural re-arrangements of pre-existing material, versus non-natural
> re-arrangements. And their detractors are looking for the exactly that
> same criteria too. Except for one group: those who are driven by an
> ideology that says by definition there cannot be anything but natural
> phenomena because nothing else exists. The latter is a form of
> materialism.
>
>
> Science can not claim "nothing else exists", and doesn't. Science is
> a realm to itself, one that is based on objectivity. Science provides the
> specific pieces that allow more subjective model makers to design models
> that best represent reality as it is currently observable. These models (ie
> theories) must meet certain requirements to be legitimate scientific
> theories, including predicability and, usually, retrodictability.
>
> ID does not meet the definition of science. No scientific tests need to
> be conducted. Indeed, what scientific tests could be utilized? ID is a
> subjective idea, not objective.
>
>
> [But they dont do this based on science. If something by definition
> cannot be tested (cannot be evaluated by science) then how can someone use
> science to draw a conclusion? It is impossible, and thus it is illogical to
> claim that science was used to reach a viewpoint.]
>
>
> Science can determine if something is testable or not. This is a
> definitional test, not an experimental test. ID fails the definitional
> test.
>
>
> They rule out any possible explanation that is not "natural".
>
> And this, which is itself a both conclusion and a belief, was tested
> how? In the absence of testing it sounds like fideism or dogma. Neither of
> which is supposed to be a characteristic of science. Is it an "ultimate"
> sort of belief, affecting "ultimate questions"?
>
>
> Nope. By defnition, science excludes itself from purely supernatural
> determinations. Science can impact theology only when one of its subjective
> claim contains objective elements. For instance: Does the Earth have four
> corners?; Could a stone of certain mass be slingshotted and kill a giant?;
> Is the Earth the center of the universe?, etc.
>
> GeorgeA
>
>
> On the other hand, since science is allegedly "tentative", if (the ruling
> out ) is a "tentative belief" (and thus subject to change as new
> information becomes available) then that might be different. In a legal
> sense.
>
>
> > Sounds like they have already made up their minds.
>
> Maybe.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave (ASA member)
>
>
> >
> >
> > Don (ASA member)
> > ________________________________________
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf
> > Of David Clounch [david.clounch@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:15 PM
> > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled and ID
> >
> > skrogh,
> >
> > >"Since there is no lab test that can be used to tell what is designed
> > or what isn't"
> >
> > I think I actually agree with you somewhat here. I've been saying for
> > years that first we must be able to measure design. Then and only then
> > should we worry about what the implications might be if we obtained a result
> > from the measurement.
> >
> > But if someone is going to claim that something is all natural (ie, due
> > to all natural processes) shouldn't one first be able to measure the
> > difference between a natural phenomenon and a non-natural phenomenon? If
> > science cannot measure this then how can science reach a conclusion that
> > everything is natural?
> >
> > The answer is, science hasn't concluded.
> >
> > But there are design detectors. These exist between the ears of humans.
> > Now, if one is going to tell people that "science says they are wrong",
> > shouldn't one be able to at least have science objectively measure what is
> > designed and what isn't? If your premise is correct, then those making
> > this claim that "science says they are wrong", (or perhaps even that
> > believers in design are being irrational) have a serious credibility
> > problem with the public.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:44 PM, skrogh. <panterragroup@mindspring.com
> > <mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com>> wrote:
> > Thanks for the input, but that is not what we are really talking about
> > with my modicum of sarcasm. I am talking about Design in the ID movement in
> > trying to compete with legit sciences, not as in that 70's song "Master
> > Designer." Since there is no lab test that can be used to tell what is
> > designed or what isn't or nothing that can falsify it. Similar to trying to
> > falsify Omphalism. Hope that clears it up.
> >
> > =========================================
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com<mailto:
> > dopderbeck@gmail.com>]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 8:34 PM
> > To: panterragroup@mindspring.com<mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com>
> > Cc: D. F. Siemens, Jr.; asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled and ID
> >
> > Whatever you think if ID, "bad design" is a poor response if you believe
> > in a creator God at all. However God created, this is we He did, "bad"
> > designs and all. Unless you profess a God who isn't in control over
> > whatever procesess He used to create.
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 3:21 PM, skrogh. <panterragroup@mindspring.com
> > <mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Bad designs haven't seemed to gotten through the ID design detector.
> > =========================================
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>]On
> > Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
> > Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:35 PM
> > To: panterragroup@mindspring.com<mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com>
> > Cc: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled and ID
> >
> > I think there is one which does so in principle. It's opposite would
> > justify ID. If we have sequenced the genomes of all the species, or at least
> > all the species in one kingdom, and figured out exactly how all the various
> > parts work, if we discover some genes/control sequences/whatever else comes
> > up that cannot be derived from others earlier in the evolutionary
> > development, we presumably have evidence that they were introduced by the
> > deity or some superior power. This is sure evidence for ID. However, the
> > current indication is that we have sequences in genomes that simply preserve
> > stuff from the past, which is clear evidence against ID. Things are too
> > sloppy to be designed, unless the designer intends to mislead us.
> >
> > Generally, given the state of human knowledge, proof and falsification
> > are claims too strong to be supported.
> > Dave (ASA)
> >
> > On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:46:02 -0500 "skrogh." <
> > panterragroup@mindspring.com<mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com>>
> > writes:
> > Also, can one conceive of a potential observation that would falsify ID?
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>]On
> > Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
> > Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 5:39 PM
> > To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> > Subject: RE: [asa] Expelled and ID
> >
> >
> > ID is saying it is "science" so it can be more serious. To make it
> > science, you have to bear on scientific things, such as math (statistics)
> > and biology. So they are appealing to the hard sciences to bring it into
> > the scientific realm.
> >
> >
> >
> > However, they have no scientific hypothesis. "God made it" is not a
> > hypothesis, since it can't be tested. By definition, the scientific method
> > requires a hypothesis that can be tested. You also can't test evolution per
> > "origin of life," but there are other parts of evolution which are testable…
> > ID has nothing testable. They think by disproving known naturalistic
> > methods, God is then the default answer—but it isn't.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>]
> > On Behalf Of Mountainwoman
> > Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 2:10 PM
> > To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> > Subject: [asa] Expelled and ID
> >
> >
> >
> > Having just seen Ben Stein's "Expelled," one thought that occurred to me
> > is the following:
> >
> >
> >
> > Is Intelligent Design a modern incarnation of the classic teleological
> > argument for the existence of God and therefore belongs in the philosophy
> > and/or theology departments of universities rather than in the science
> > departments?
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul Bruggink (ASA Member)
> >
> > Clarington, PA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David W. Opderbeck
> > Associate Professor of Law
> > Seton Hall University Law School
> > Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Apr 23 17:08:24 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 23 2008 - 17:08:24 EDT