Foundations of ID

Then we're in agreement. We shouldn't teach it in science class and it should not be considered science.And when I started reading this thread I was thinking it was going to be another thread claiming ID was science.

What we now know about our world evolved from philosophy and particularly from philosophical study in the past. However, that does not somehow make philosophy the same as science.Socrates, Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle were part of times that were rich in philosophy. They were considering things about our world that were new and exciting. The key, however, is they observed the world around them and constructed ideas. In some cases they were right on target or helped develop the understand for future sciences; Sometimes we found later in more modern science that the facts didn't fit. In either case it was clearly brilliant forward thinking.I don't know if you can compare that time to our scientific study today (someone might disagree, if so I'd love to hear your opinion).Unlike philosophy, the scientific method is a cautious means of building a supportable, evidenced understanding. A lot of scientific theory begins in philosophy -- I wouldn't dream of arguing that it doesn't, I am very much a believer that philosophy is a huge part of science and greater free thinking -- but nothing is actually a scientific theory without observations, hypotheses, and deductions. Actually, the rules of the scientific method predate Karl Popper.The Edwin Smith Papyrus (surgical textbook from ca 1600BC) clearly explains the examination (observations), diagnosis (hypotheses), treatment (experiments), and prognosis (deductions).Later, around the 13th century, Roger Bacon defined an actual "method" for scientific study which was "observation, hypothesis, experimentation and back" (repeating, and could repeat endlessly if you so desired or if others refuted your evidence). He also suggested that there needs to be "independent verification."Finally, Rene' Descartes wrote the (unfinished) Rules for the Direction of the Mind which outlines the proper method for scientific thinking and philosophy that leads to science. This was in 1619.Karl Popper suggested a criterion that he called "falsifiability" and as such, that empirical falsifiablitiy would be the standard by which scientific theory by separated from junk science. Popper's concern with "falsifiability" helps differentiate between theories that are empirically testable and those that aren't.The scientific method is still universally applicable and is used to distinguish science from "other stuff" (philosophy, pseudo-science, etc.).EDIT: I suppose I should add to be clear. My point is Intelligent Design doesn't hold up to the methods and although ID dates back, the Scientific Method wouldn't have supported it ever.This message has been edited by dsv, Thursday, April 28, 2005 12:48 AM

Wow, hefty post/article you have there. It was a good read though, and well written. (Although I had to read it twice, but I think that's my fault.) I found it very interesting and it really provoked a lot of thought for me. I have a few questions for you, if you would allow.If the "supreme observer" is in effect changing -- at least in our perception -- the fabric of reality as we know in reference to particles at the quantum level, that would mean everything we know to be reality would be effected. What is to say my laptop that I'm typing on right now is not actually a laptop? It is just "something" -- an article of the fabric of space and time -- but according to the supreme observer and my observation in my personal consciousness, it "becomes" a laptop in the reality which I am in.If our observations are based on an intelligent designer, how would we ever arrive at a falsifiable conclusion? It seems as though the theory has almost set itself up to be neither falsifiable nor infalsifiable. How do you see us getting around that?Just as M Theory is amazing, provocative and thought provoking, if it can't be proven right and can't be proven wrong, where does that leave us? Is it your opinion that such theories that are rooted in both science and philosophy should be taught as alternatives to purely scientific theory or.. I don't know, honestly. What do you suggest happen to such theories?

Because it's God and he knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake (and when you're observing, even with utilities). I assume the consciousness we have for the experiments constitutes observation, even if it's not direct.

Under the fridge of science.