Nothing can threaten science.
I certainly agree! If that's the case, then why is there a propaganda campaign to undermine ID in order to "save science?" Its very obvious that there is a sense of fear.
However - science education is under threat. That leads to the scientific dominance of America being under threat. Scientists are passionate about science and education - they have generally spent a lot of time in education about science - so when the education system is threatened, they speak out. It is entirely rational.
Education isn't being threatened by the introduction of another variable. Drawing the inference that life is intentional or unintentional does NOTHING to threaten science. That's just more of the pernicious lies being perpetrated against ID'ists.
And evo's have waged a war over much-ado-about-nothing. They've responded with a scientific excommunication. If people started asserting that there is no such thing as DNA, and that we really get our looks from God, then you'd have a legitimate claim. But the [b]re
It is probably trivial to say that something is philosophical. It is nothing to do with atheism, however. It is about rational thought and the rejection of dogma.
Evolution is itself a strong dogma.
As above - the aversion is to the politicization of ID, of its undermining scientific education.
Politicization? Meaning what?
Interestingly, the vast majority of evolutionary biologists simply ignore ID, yet a great majority (if not all) ID and creation scientists have a highly vocal opposition to evolution. Do you apply the insidious mind theory to them equally?
Because they are objecting to evolution on the basis of its misuse of science. Pointing out that most evolutionists have used evolution to advance atheism only adds to it the element of hypocrisy. In other words, let the students decide for themselves whether or not there is sufficient evidence that life is intentional or unintentional.
Actually, there is a growing sentiment that dogmatic belief should be equally challenged. Whether it be dogmatic nationalism or dogmatic belief in the FSM.
believing in the FSM is a belief totally separate from science, and so is belief in God. I have no way of unmasking who or what the Designer is. For all we know, Gaia could be the Designer. Direct or Indirect Panspermia could be the delivery method for how life was first seeded on earth. But simply recognizing that life has all the markings of intent, who are we to try and dismiss by inventing clever reasons why it cannot be so. Both options should be allowed to be examined.
The principle that we shouldn't invoke unknown and unnecessary entities to explain something? We can see this simply with three propositions.
P1: The universe self exists.
P2: The universe was created by God. God self exists.
P3: The universe was created by God. God was created by the Invisible Pink Uniform. The Invisible Pink Unicorn self exists.
Which one do you propose is more parsimonious?
All three are acceptable answers, save the first, because it is supported scientifically that the universe has a definite beginning. Speaking about God or Pink Unicorns is a theological debate, which is why ID does not attempt to invoke God. And if God is mentioned, it used in the same way that Hawking uses the term God, or Einstein's Spinoza's God-- which is a way to give meaning to the universe and its power in a totality. If you only allow Hawking to mention God if it is supplied in an abstract definition because he doesn't 'actually' believe in God. But if a theist, who has every right to believe in whatever they want, is ruled out of bounds. Thus, you would validate my argument that this whole thing is philosophically inspired, not on the grounds of "protecting true science."
Its pointless in a scientific setting to simply assume that it was God who created this or that. That doesn't mean that we can't recognize if something couldn't possibly have derived via successive mutations. Without that, we are all inexplicably driven to a latter alternative-- that chance plays no part in it. And if not by chance, then it must surely have been intentional. If it was intentional, then that bespeaks of a cognizant mind capable of bringing it about. The rest is a theological argument because science can't go any further.
The secular argument is. There may be a God, or djinn, or domovoi. We should be highly skeptical of claims of intentional acts that precede known entities that can demonstrate intent. Demand actual evidence of this entities existence before entertaining that this entity might be behind phenomenon x.
That's absurd! Demand evidence before the fact when its the evidence that will lead you there!? Think about it. We theorized, based off initial evidence, that Black Holes existed. We didn't know for sure. We theorized based off initial findings. With your logic, you demand that we must first have seen Black Holes before you will allow the evidence that would lead to their discovery as an a priori. That's absurd. No, you follow the evidence until it is either falsified by other evidence to the contrary, or until your theory is validated.
I'm saying that you should be very careful, as a scientist, to avoid the biases that are the result of being human.
Of course. And no scientist is immune to these things, whether theists or atheists. We always have presuppositions in mind, but it is better to set those aside and simply follow where the evidence leads.
Inferring someone smarter than you is behind some difficult puzzle you are working, is perfectly natural. However, we have solid evidence to demonstrate that such an inferrence frequently turns out to be an illusion. It looked real at the time, but looking back it is nought but a shadow.
Agreed. An idiot savant would be a prime example. They may be musical geniuses, and yet, are incapable of composing a coherent sentence.
That insolvable problems only appear as such is my entire point. Because there may be no satisfying natural explanation for something does not lead to the conclusion that it must have a supernatural explanation.
Which is why the debate about God will rage on until the end of the world or will trek on for all eternity. So, really, trying to undermine ID won't take away the God-factor for anyone. So, instead of either side invoking the name of God, maybe we should focus on whether something could have come about by capriciousness or intent.
Unfortunately, the investigation methods are dramatically different. I know 'all that ID' is saying. But let's not forget the biggest message they are pushing:- That evolution cannot account for it. Indeed - that is essentially all they are saying.
I agree. That's the thrust of the argument, not about God.
Science is not a democracy. You are free to say what you like - but you are not free from criticism for what you say. It is an imperfect meritocracy.
Science should be a meritocracy in all cases. Which is why ID'ists do not agree with the current paradigm.
Let us remember, then, that modern ID concentrates on biology. We should warn students that trying to explain biological life is difficult, but they should not settle on a design inferrence.
You know, I really don't want anyone to settle on it. I would much rather that people be given a host of options. I just want ID to have a platform. That's all. If people think its bunk, then that's up to them.
It might be that positive evidence emergences for a designer, supernatural or otherwise. However, the reasoning 'There is no way I can see how this could have happened without intelligent intervention...therefore it was by intelligent intervention.' should be utterly rejected.
To leave it simply at that would emasculate scientific inquiry. Indeed, they'd be out of a job-- including proponents of ID. Neither wants that. I think they'd be content on examining evolution and work from there.
"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-
™ Version 4.2
