Hi, John.
jchardy writes:
I would only ask that each of us entertain the other’s ideas, hypotheses and data sets in a respectful light, at least in the beginning.
Okay, we can agree here. I wasn't quite sure what your meaning was before, but this makes perfect sense. I certainly agree that people's ideas shouldn't be dismissed offhandedly: the accumulation of new hypotheses --- however bizarre they may be --- is an important part of the scientific process, and dreaming up new answers to old questions is the way to maintain the vibrancy of a field of science.
In the specific example of Intelligent Design, however, I think "the beginning" is long past, isn't it? It has been over 200 years since the debate over evolution began. The premise of teleology, on which both creation and Intelligent Design are based, has been rejected as an explanation for the origins and history of life.
You are proposing what you call a new hypothesis. However, this hypothesis is still based on the rejected notion of teleology. So, really, all we see is that you are proposing teleology again.
By parallel, the gun replaced the bow a long time ago because of its superior performance. The "bow" concept has been essentially rejected. You may have a new kind of bow that works better than any previous bow, but the army still isn't going to trade in its machine guns to buy it.
Or, most countries now have democratic governments. The "absolute monarchy" concept has been rejected. You may have a candidate who would make a wonderful absolute monarch, but the country still isn't going to give up its democracy in favor of a king.
jchardy writes:
What is it about the concept of faith that is so absolutely unshakable. So immutable in the minds of those that cling to it? What is the value, if it’s all just bunk. And if there is NO value to faith, (and certainly no validity to it --- according to many) — why does it then endure.
I hesitate to go too far into this, because it will drag us off-topic. However, I should like to point out that the mere fact that faith endures doesn't mean that it does what people think it does. My faith in God (such as it is) has never demonstrated any particular utility in leading me to the truth, as it is widely acclaimed to do; but, it has helped maintain the unity and sociability within my family and helped me bond with Mormon communities everywhere I go.
jchardy writes:
I would submit the hill — so far as some of us are concerned — is at least bimodal. If IDists (particularly the teleologists) have a hill to climb --- (when they already KNOW they cannot really reach the top or ultimately convince anyone with solid scientific proof); then so do Darwinists and many Cosmologists; biologists; geologists etc.etc. -- if they want to convince us that all we see evolved sequentially and logically out of initial conditions, without perturbation from an outside influence, via chaos and fractals; strange attractors; following laws of universe which we really barely understand in detail — then I think we are both on even ground.
Therefore, if we are to advance at all, we must get our boots off each other’s throats and allow the free transfer of information --- no matter how dumb or blasphemous the other thinks that information might be.
I hope I don't sound arrogant at this point, we are not being so smothered by the boot at our throat as you are by the boot at your throat. Evolutionary biology, cosmology and geology all appear to be advancing very well without being open-minded toward Intelligent Design.
And, I have to be honest and say that I do not feel that ID would offer much of value if such a free transfer of information were to be pursued.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2
