Re: fruitfulness of a research paradigm
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Wed, 01 Apr 1998 13:13:50 -0500 (EST)At 12:47 PM 3/27/98 -0600, Pattle Pun wrote:
>In the current discussion of MN, I wonder whether one aspect of the
>research program may have been left out: its fruitfulness in explaining
>obervations and predict outcomes. In the past, Newton and others have been
>successful in explaining the observations he made by using the ID
>paradigm.(as quoted by Paul Nelson below). Evolution replaced it during
>Darwin's time and led to a paradigmatic shift. But ID and Evolution are
>basically two alternative paradigms. When enough anamolies have
>accumulated in one paradigm, it may be about time for another paradigmatic
>shift. I submit that the hurdles faced by the evolutionists in explaining
>the origin of life and evolution of the regulatory units (such as the
>"irreducible complexities") have reached such a proportion to warrant a
>paradigmatic shift. The current ID movement, IMHO, is an attempt to look
>for an alterntive program which can be as fruitful if not more fruitful in
>the scientific adventure. What remains to be done is to define this
>research program and to show its fruitfulness. Even some non-Christian
>scientists, i.e. James Shapiro, U.Chicago, are open to let the ID movement
>test the water. I wish more Christians of the theistic evolutionist'
>persuasion are willing to give this movement a chance.
>-------------------------------------
>Dr. Pattle Pun
>Professor of Biology
>Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 60187
>eMail: Pattle.P.Pun@wheaton.edu
>Phone: (630)752-5303
>FAX: (630)752-5996
I believe that Newton's theological views allowed him the freedom the study
nature without the intellectual baggage of his age. Nature for him was
created by God and worthy of study. However, once modern science was
developed, then there was no need to invoke Deity for a physical description
of part of nature. I believe that the hurdles faced by evolutionary ideas
are unsurmountable. They are just to wrong premise to use to describe what
happened in the past. I do not think the ID mentality will provide anything
for the physical description of nature. Witness ideas like the bootstrap
idea in particles physics which, albeit, very appealing were dead end ideas.
More recently the anthropic principle which is also devoid of any predictive
power. I always believed that theistic evolutionism is a hodgepodge of ideas
used to reconcile a wrong physical theory, which is supposed to explain the
question of origins, with the Christian faith.
Moorad Alexanian
Professor of Physics
University of North Carolina at Wilmington.