Duane Bozarth wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Duane Bozarth wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
Would you be OK with ID if it were taught as a possible augmentation
to the *philsosophy* of science rather than science proper?
Depends on what you then meant by ID...it would have to quit pretending
to be science-based and admit it is simply discussing something about
what is outside the realm of science--but then, there are many schools
of philosophy dealing w/ those issues already. What would distinguish
it as ID vis a vis some other?
Because it uses existing science as a feedback mechanism to propose
a modification to the current first propositions of science.
That's where we disagree prfoundly--science doesn't have a "first
proposition" in the sense you have one. Science works backwards to
discover that first proposition and discovers whatever it discovers on
the way...
Dead Wrong. Science - like every other system of knowledge acquisition -
has one (or more) starting propositions (aka axioms). These foundational
axioms are *assumed* and cannot be proven or disproven. In the case of
science, several axioms are obvious:
1) Reason combined with Sensory Input is a reliable way to learn new
things (when guided by the Scientific Method to minimize/elmininate
individual bias).
2) The Universe can be understood in purely material-mechanical terms.
That is, there is no need to understand or acknowledge an intelligent
First and/or Sustaining Cause in order to get meaningful information
about the Universe.
3) 2) above is *sufficient* to know everything (in principle) that we can
know about the Universe.
And so on ... Note that Science *proceeds from* (begins with) these
assumptions. Note also that these are neither provable nor falsifiable,
they are just assumed starting points.
This is not a remarkable thing. As I said, all systems of epistemology
have this property. You start with one or more unprovable propositions
and see where they take you. *However*, thoughtful people stop now and
then and ask, "Given where my system of thought has taken me thus far,
are some changes in my starting propositions justified?"
*This* is where the heart of the debate between the IDers and today's
Establishment Science lies. The IDers argue that, as we look at where
*Science* has taken us over the past several hundred years, proposition
2) above should be reconsidered. The High Priests of Science don't like
it - partly because they see it as being a dangerous throwback to an
anti-rational religion (it isn't inherently) and partly because, as a
matter of personal practice, many of the High Priests are atheists (who
cannot bear the thought that they are not the highest form of
intelligence).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/