Does this sound familiar? Richard Dawkins: Or how about this: Cambridge Paleontologist Simon Conway Morris: Del Ratzsch says: A productive, rational strategy for doing what? Proving design? No. He's talking about using the design inference as a guide for generating hypotheses that help us better understand biotic reality. For example, the cell can be viewed as something strung together by an irrational tinkerer or it can be viewed as the result of nanotechnology. Which perspective will prove to be the more fruitful research paradigm? Time will tell. We already know that the Darwinian perspective was not any help at all in guiding scientists away from the simplistic view of the cell as a bag of solution to recognizing it as an information processing system, employing software control.
Zeleologist doesn't understand what you are talking about and feels no need to figure it out. All information is received. To counter any argument, one simply needs to state its opposite formulation, as Zeleologist is so fond of doing.
For awhile, there was at least an impression of a dialogue. Now even that pretense is removed. I wonder how z10 reads the Bible...
According to the National Academy of Sciencesâ publication, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, science is âa particular way of knowing about the world.â And ID is a slant of that "particular way." ID is firmly rooted in science, but it is not itself a theory. Of course, IDers study science and some are scientists. But ID in itself is an epistemology--a body of thought that studies the nature of knowledge, its conjectures, foundations and its scope and validity. Teleology, like methodological naturalism is a scaffold for theories and hypotheses. If science is âa particular way of knowing about the world," Then ID is certainly science. ID isn't anti-evolution. ID is a philosophy of science that is an alternative to philosophical materialism. Intelligent Design is not truly a theory. I think of ID as a competing philosophy of Science, which omits mainstream Scienceâs non-teleological assumption. And thatâs it. Other things that make Science science, the scientific method, empiricism, are preserved. I don't think ID needs any sort of broad coverage in high school. I just think it should be made clear that some "conclusions" of science are based upon the underpinnings of materialistic philosophy. And that there are some serious thinkers that question this assumption and are trying to evaluate whether design might be inferred. Without this slim inclusion, you're teaching materialistic philosophy to impressionable youth, and I think this is wrong. ID is an investigation of possible teleology behind evolution; it is epistemology. You wouldnât call SETI - SETI theory, would you? ... the largest part of ID now is simply the fight for epistemology, without attachment to any hypothesis. Obviously, science is not officially neutral on the issue of metaphysical implications because it âacceptsâ an arbitrarily attached and highly corrosive metaphysical assertion right out of the definitional starting gate - the assertion that methodological naturalism proceeds upon an a priori assumption of ateleology. There is no reason why a methodology that doesn't a priori reject teleology cannot employ an experimental, inductive approach to the world. It is merely an alternative view (viewing things from a different perspective). It is capable of exploring and interpreting scientific data (thus it can use science) and it can also guide science. ID is a theoretical framework within which to hypothesize specific and testable mechanisms, processes and pathways describing the nature of life on earth and its evolution over time without an a priori assumption of ateleology. ID is naturalistic not supernaturalistic. Neither intelligence nor teleology are unnatural. Design advocate Micah Sparacio says: We should teach students not to close their minds and not to think dogmatically about Science. Theories shouldn't be "believed"; they should be advanced or demoted. Science shouldn't be taught as if theories and hypotheses are facts. Scientists themselves typically don't think that way. They are open to new ideas, and do not believe Science dogmatically; they accept provisionally. All a priori assumptions of ateleology taped haphazardly to scientific methodology should be removed and put in their proper place - the ideological trash can.
ID and empiricism are mutually exclusive. BTW, SETI is not science (looking for the aboriginals in the Amazons is not science). Anyone who tells you otherwise is pulling your legs.
James Bond 3rd: Only someone ignorant about ID would say that. James Bond 3rd: I never said SETI was science. Do you want any mention of SETI to be banned from the science classroom?
philosophy class then, it's not science. If Teleology is a scaffold, it has only one pole lost behind the toilets in a builders yard somewhere in another galaxy. Of little use here on earth.
Ignorant chance is philosophy. There is no way to test for its opposite value, no means of falsification, and that is hardly scientific. Yet, the philosophy of non design, which runs counter to the natural non indoctrinated empiricism's native conclusion that life is appearing to be by design, is taught dogmatically as "science." Somewhere along the line, the ruling opinions of the majority of scientists replaced the most basic and common sense values of real science. Argument A: Life appears designed. A designer has not be found, but also not ruled out on the basis of evidence found that rules out a designer, but rather a lack of evidence is the foundation of non design theory. Therefore life must be a product of non design. The argument A above is 100% an argument from ignorance and incompleteness... Yet it is offered up as a scientific "proof" of non design? This is how far we have fallen. We are teaching children to base their theories on ignorance, unfalsifiable assumptions, and opinion...telling them them to close their mind to anything but such fallacy born dogma as it is approved by scientists. Truly then it is no wonder that the dogmatic atheistic non design believers are so terrified of having children graduate school with a mind that is still open...