RE: design and the nature of science (was: Re: [asa] Re: Gingerich on TE and ID)

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Wed Jun 10 2009 - 11:06:06 EDT

Karl,
Would you kindly define what “standard biology” is? Is it experimental biology? If in evolutionary theory metaphysical assumptions are made that go beyond science, then evolutionary theory is not science and such assumptions have to be clearly stated. What are the metaphysical assumptions being made in evolutionary theory? Evolutionary theory is a historical science and one must discern very carefully the aspect of evolutionary theory that relies on experimental biology and those other aspects that may not.
Moorad
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of cmekve@aol.com [cmekve@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:35 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: design and the nature of science (was: Re: [asa] Re: Gingerich on TE and ID)

David makes a good point that I'd like to second. If ID can find folks to fund them (and they can), I doubt that anyone here would say "stop that". Personally, I think that there are very good scientific and theological reasons for thinking that they will never produce results of any substance. But clearly others can differ with me on this. What is most objectionable is that virtually from ID's birth some two decades ago, they have insisted that they are an alternative to standard biology. And all this without ever having produced any results -- as Behe essentially admitted under oath at Dover.

ID can do all the "research" they want, but let's have some results before shouting about 'teaching the controversy'.

Karl
*********************
Karl V. Evans
cmekve@aol.com<mailto:cmekve@aol.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 5:23 pm
Subject: Re: design and the nature of science (was: Re: [asa] Re: Gingerich on TE and ID)

> So the question arises why, if we can infer an intangible, invisible,
> massless thing like "gravity", without violating "methodological
> naturalism", why can't we infer something intangible, invisible and massless
> like "final cause" in nature? I am not arguing that we *should* make the
> inference that final causes operate in nature; I am only asking why such an
> inference is shut out of science *in principle*.

I can't think of a good reason that final cause would be, in
principle, excluded from science. However, I do not think it is
likely that final cause will be amenable to scientific investigation,
nor do I think that the methods for detecting such advocated by
Dembski, Behe, etc. actually work.

In other words, I would respond to the theoretical end of ID "go ahead
and try to find scientific evidence of design if you like, but I'm not
optimistic that you'll get anywhere."

--
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
________________________________
Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell's full line of laptops.<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222008777x1201444407/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215566094%3B37864358%3Bv>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 10 11:07:10 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 10 2009 - 11:07:10 EDT