DIYbanter - View Single Post

wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Steve Peterson wrote:

SNIP

So give us your words. How about the first 20 sentences a teacher should
use to introduce the idea that evolution, or some other scientific theory,
has met an impasse, and cannot advance without invoking an intelligent
designer? How about the first lecture of an 8 week section? I still wait
with bated breath. You still the one that wants ID taught in school? How
about giving those poor teachers a little help?

OK:

Science, in its current form, is unable to address the question of
"First Cause" - that is, Science is mute on the question of how the
Universe came into being in the first place. It is mute on the question
precisely because Science (in its current form) has chosen to take a
purely mechanical/materialist/reductionist view of the Universe.

Here I disagree. Can you tell us about ANY philosophical construct
that can, in a meaningful way, address 'the queston of First Cause'?

Any philosophical system that begins with a first proposition
specifically about First Cause. That would include most forms
of Theism/Deism, some Mystical Schools, and some schools of Magic,
but not Science as understood today.

ISTM the closest any come to that are 'turtles, all the down',
essentially a recursive restatement of the question.

Go back and read my very first post in this whole thread 3 or
so weeks ago that suggests an inductive closure to the problem.

SNIP

- The Universe is a magical place and its origins cannot ever be
known or apprehended. This position is held by a number of mystical
religious and philosophical traditions.

I do not see how being magical would put th eoriigns of the universe
beyond conmprehension.

Not the point. There are schools of epistemological "magic" that
say some or even all things are not knowable. Good examples include
Christian Science and New Age religions as well (to some degree)
traditional Eastern mysticism.

- The Universe had a "designer" - an intelligent force that brought it into being
by an intentional act of creation.

I do not see how this is any more compreehnsible, or any
less magical than the previous case. In short, I see the
two as a classic example of distinction witout a difference.
Certainly it is a dichotomy without an observable (e.g.
materialistic) difference.

You are missing the point. We are talking about the first propositions
of systems that are *assumed*. In the case of ID, it assumes a desginer
because of what appears to its adherents as "common sense" that the
universe exhibits design. In the case of traditional Science, it assumes
reductionism as sufficient because of the previous utility value
demonstrated by said reductionism.

It is enjoying
a resurgence in the 21st Century as serious questions about the
sufficiency of the materialist/reductionist assumptions of Science have
been raised. There is great resistence to this idea in traditional
Science.

Here we disagree. It is enjoying a resurgence as part of a
campaign by a small group of religious leaders, (who really
are 'High Priests') who are trying to regain some of the power
they lost over the latter half of the 20th century.

You are being paranoid. They are not trying to "regain power". To the
extent that ID has specific religious adherents, they are primarily in
the domain of Protestant Christianity which has no single church
hierarchy or power system. (Behe as a Roman Catholic appears as a
Scientist, but he is not sponsored by the RC church in yet another power
grabbing exercise.) The vast majority of people in the ID camp - as far
as I can tell - are in it as a way to harmonize Science with their
religious beliefs in a manner they believe to be honorable to both
disciplines. Notice that I am NOT saying that ID itself is that
harmonization (it isn't) rather that the people involved in supporting
ID see it as a component in finding that harmony. You may disagree with
them, but assuming power as their motive is largely specious.

There is great resistance to this process because it appears
to be backsliding into the Dark Ages. Upon further reflection
it STILL appears to be backsliding into the Dark Ages.

As noted before, you do not seem to be a particularly naive
person. Why not explore that hypothesis a bit?

Because it is paranoia unfounded in Reality. As a practical matter,
the exposure of ID in the educational world would have no significant
effect on the practice of Science. To the extent that ID makes
claims of Science they could be treated like any other Scientific
claim. To the extent that it is philosophy, it could be debated
as such. The turf protection currently demonstrated by the science
establishment (and don't give me the "we have no high priests" crap -
as a sociological/funding matter, Science absolutely has a pecking order)
is just bizarre and without any real merit. There is no "backsliding"
(a religious term if I ever heard one). There is a stubborn refusal
to consider the foundations of Science and open the dicussion to
other possibilities.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/