LARRY BLANCHARD wrote:

In article ,
says...

Agreed that this is philosophy. But there is no proof one way or the other. That's why
I say the only rational answer is "I don't know."


Just a fine point: There is no "proof" in Science either. Science at best
can only propose more and more likely explanations for observed
phenomena. "Proof" is an idea pretty much limited to formal mathematical
logic, and then only because of the way axiom-based systems work.



OK, technically you're right. But when repeating a set of actions based
on a set of rules and the result comes out the same every time, I call
that pretty good (although maybe incomplete) proof.

Philosophically, you don't know that it "comes out the same every time".
You merely assume this - and mostly for utilitarian reasons.
Scientifically, a lot of work is done by induction and modeling wherein
you cannot show definitively that your hypothesis is right (via
experimental duplication). There is no such thing as "proof" in Science.
There is only repetition and consistency - which for many/most practical
(utilitarian) purposes is good enough. The central issue here though, is
that ID is attacking the knowlege system of science not to falsify it,
but to argue that today's basic scientific assumption (materialism) is
inadequate to explain all observed phenomena. In this claim, the IDers
are no different than orthodox scientists who claim is *is* good enough
- neither side can definitively prove they are right. The arguments,
therefore, can only be utilitarian (what works best to explain the most)
or secondary (what are the consequences of taking each system to its
logical conclusion). The point is that todays scientific orthodoxy does
not have some obvious, slam-dunk advantage over the IDers claims,
despite the various ad hominem attacks on the ID people you'll hear from
the "objective" voice of the science establishment.



Since "intelligent design" is based only on someones opinion, I don't
think it qualifies. We certainly can't repeat the experiment :-).

ID is *not* baed just on "someone's opinions" anymore than any other
knowledge system is. It is rooted in a claim that today's science
fails to adequately account for all observed data and proposes
and alternative. *Neither* system is provable, which is why I believe
there should be a thorough and rigorous discussion on the matter not
the copout "it's not science so we don't have to" argument. ID
is *not* "Science" as currently constructed - it denies the efficacy
of materialist philosophy. But the exact argument in question is
whether or not it *ought to become* a part of science. As I have
said over and over, this reluctance by the science establishment
smacks of turf protection, ideological defense (by atheists), and
undermines the claims of the objectivity of the establishment
scientific community. If it's baloney demonstrate it, otherwise
engage and have a meaningful conversation on the matter ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/