Tim Daneliuk wrote:
charlie b wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

charlie b wrote:


If the scientific method is taught in religion and philosophy
classes and applied in class, maybe then "intelligent design"
might be discussed in science classes.

It *is* taught in religion and philosophy classes. Logic is formally a
part of Philosophy, not Mathematics. The Scientific Method is a
discipline rooted in logic and philosophical empiricism (also taught in
religion and philosophy classes). I say this having been educated in one
secular state university, one 'fundamentalist' private college, and
another Catholic private college. The theory of how science acquires
knowlege is of considerable interest to theologians and philosophers ...
at least the ones who taught me.



I'm betting you were taught by Jesuits right?

No. I am not Catholic nor do I have much patience
for the RC church on lots of different levels
(social, philosophical, political ...)

No surprise to me, having had a bit of Catholic education
myself.



One of the arguements the ID folks present is
"this organism is extremely complex, too complex
to merely just happen by accident. therefore
it had to be designed by some intelligent entity".

That is their *conclusion*, but they claim they
have a Scientific case to make to support that
conclusion. We may well never know, because
the Science Establishment today it putting huge
resistance up (dare I say, with "religious" fervor)
to avoid having this debate.

Astrologers claim they have a scientific case to make
that planetary motions affect human behaviour. I submit
that it is not at all inapropriate to deny them space
in Astronomy and Psychology Journals even though some
Astorlogers, unlike ALL IDers deny that there is any
metaphysical component or conclusion in their work.

Scientifically, ID is a nonstarter because it presumes,
invokes, or draws conclusions about a metaphysical influence.
Science by its very nature purposefully excludes metaphysical
considerations. Science is a search for physical explanations
for natural phenomena.




They overlook the billions of years of trial and
error that went into how that complexity developed.
If there was intelligent designer there wouldn't
be a need for multiple iterations of a design to
meet a specific environment/set of conditions.

You don't know that. It is entirely possible that
an intelligent designer incorporated evolutionary
processes into the development of the Universe.
It is possible that multiple iterations were
"created" to make the resulting system "adaptive"
so that best design wins - a sort of genetic
algorithm approach.

But that is cetainly NOT what is at issue with the ID.

Any number of scientists who are adherants of religions
that include creation mythology regard natural law as
having been written by God's hand. None-the-less they
recognize that science is the search for understanding of
those laws, not the identification of the author.

....


But even with 5 billion years of R&D, we
(males) still don't have hair that'll last
a lifetime , at least not me.

That's because we modern humans have the bad
manners to live long beyond the duration needed
to reproduce. A truly counter-evolutionary
behavior.


Not so fast. When grandparents assist in the raising of
their grandchildren the parents who are in the prime of life
are freed to expend more of their time on other matters
important to the survival of the species. Thus there
is an evolutionary advantage to long life which may outweigh
the cost in additional resources used to sustain that long
life.

--

FF