View Single Post
  #435   Report Post  
Morris Dovey
 
Posts: n/a
Default Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?

Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| Morris Dovey wrote:
|
|| Tim Daneliuk (in
) said:
||
||| Renata wrote:
|||
|||| While the origin of the universe may matter to science, ID as the
|||| explanation fails to follow the scientific method and thus, fails
|||| to be in the realm science. (simply put)
|||
||| Go back and read the rest of the thread. ID fails only to follow
||| the scope of science *as currently defined*. ID is trying to
||| get traction (in part) by arguing that the first propositions
||| of science are in incorrect (i.e. philosophical materialism).
||
|| This is like saying: "If I had some meatballs I could have
|| spaghetti and meatballs - if I had some spaghetti."
||
|| If you let me re-write the constitution I could be king - if I
|| could write. :-)
||
|| If you want to play "science", then you have to play by "science"
|| rules as currently defined.
||
|| If you aren't playing by "science" rules, you're playing some other
|| game - and if you take the rules for "science" and make arbitrary
|| changes, then you've created a new game which may resemble
|| "science" (or not) but that new game isn't "science".
|
| If you take this position (which you are free to do), you are
| essentially saying the the epistemology of science is settled for
| all time and can not/ ought not to ever be revisited. I sort of
| have a problem with that ...

And so do I. What I'm saying is that if you want to make it an issue
of "science" then you'll need to make that point in the terms that the
community can understand and you'll need to offer evidence that the
community can accept as indisputably true.

Failing that, you'll be likened to the mystic coming down from the
mountain top proclaiming that "the end is near" - because no matter
how true the pronouncement may be, it'll have no credibility.

Worse, the more assiduously you present the message without meeting
the community's credibility criteria, the less your chances for
success. If you continue overlong, you consign yourself to being
considered irrelevant "background noise".

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html