An educational angle we all could live with? (Philosophy of Science)

And why is what someone with a PhD in Germanic languages has to say on the subject germaine? I think this goes toa point raised in another thread, since there is just so much stuff on the web published by anyone who can write in html, or not in many cases, just linking to a web site is not really support for a position.Why should Dr. Martin's pronouncements be given any more weight than my own or Ned's? As the dearly departed Jerry Don Bauer would surely recognise, this is one of the oldest arguments from analogy in the book.They laughed at Galileo, and he was right.
They laugh at me.
Therefore, I am right. So how does that site in anyway address the point that the church impeded and persecuted Galileo for his research? It is in fact impressive that it fails ro mention the church once, simply characterising those who opposed Galileo as "educated, intelligent men defending the scientific status quo."In fact that piece seems to be positioning itself to argue that those researching ID should be given 2000 years of grace twiddling their thumbs until the 'patented design detector' is invented and the supporters of ID are vindicated.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-18-2005 06:13 AM

Todd is obviously plainly wrong. If he stipulated a supernatural designer he might have a case, but intelligent design itself does not neccessarily require supernatural intervention.Once again, beware the Raelians.TTFN,WK

If you like. I'm not sure why you think anyone would consider it controversial. The fundamental concepts of ID do not require supernatural intervention. Many of the proponents of ID clearly do favour a supernatural Designer however, a very specific one in many cases. And there is much evidence to suggest that many proponents are making use of the ID movement in order to intoduce the supernatural into science.As I have pointed out several times there are other movements, like the Raelians, that believe that the intelligent design we see was the work of scientifically advanced extraterrestrial life forms. An alien designer could be entirely consistent with many ID scenarios and does not require any supernatural or immatterial entities whatsoever. ID can be an entirely naturalistic science, but it is not presented that way in a significant or coherent manner, i.e. a lack of mechanisms and explanatory value and an over reliance on some rather dodgy inferences.I'm also not sure why you think quoting me is any more sensible a tactic than quoting a Germanic languages scholar, but its your call.TTFN,WK

It rather depends on how you 'piece together the evidence'. Biochemists and others who research these issues don't just sit in armchairs thinking up possible mechanisms. Instead they investigate what mechanisms might work in order to determine if they are tenable. Determining the exact origin of life and the exact mechansim by which it came about is, as you say, historical. But determining possible mechanisms of abiognesis is fully experimental, and when there are a number of plausible well experimentally supported putative natural mechanisms for abiogenesis why should one opt for a totally unsupported supernatural mechanism.We may never confidently know the historical origins of life on Earth but we can certainly come up with scientifically compelling scenarios which show that it is not the impossibility many creationists, or ID proponents, would have us believe.TTFN,WK

Well there is a specific branch of philosophy which is 'philosophy of science', but how relevant the connection between that and actual science in the lab is is arguable. I certainly know very few scientists who are liable to spend their lab meetings discussing Baconian Vs. Popperian models of science or the true significance of Kuhnian paradigm shifts.TTFN,WK

But the mainstream interpretation of science is not "There is no God", so why does the issue arise?ID is not another interpretation of the facts, it is a paper thin hypothesis which relies on specific areas of the unknown within an otherwise fairly well understood body of knowledge.The entire process of science is arguably to determine which intepretations are favoured by the actual data rather than the experimenter, it is the reticence of the ID camp to actually produce any relevant data that keeps them out of the 'game'.TTFN,WK