----- Original Message -----
From: "James Mahaffy" <mahaffy@mtcnet.net> wrote:
>But to have a strong impact ID would have to undermine
> the mechanism/materialism to the degree that it causes a shift to
> another paradigm. But I fear that at the most, ID in our pluralistic
> postmodern era may be seen as another minor and perhaps legitimate way
> of doing science. That in itself is a step forward, but unless that ID
> science shows itself as a better science program producing better
> science, I am not sure why the mainstream science will leave its
> mechanistic world for one that allows a designer.
>
> So I guess I am asking for the farsighted seers to suggest how ID could
> be attractive to the mainstream scientists as a program that would allow
> him to do better science or if someone sees it being able to offer a
> critique like Kuhn, that made scientists see that their science is not
> entirely rational and should be replaced by ID or a paradigm influenced
> by ID. I am not interested in this degenerating into a pro/anti ID
> discussion but what may be the impact of ID and why it could have that
> impact.
In order for ID to make an impact on modern science they simply are going to
have to actually offer a scenario for what happened. They can't hide from
the Big Ogre, that eats all scientist wanna-be's and
pretenders --observation. I feel the ID movement is basically a bunch of
people playing pretend science. What they offer has no observational
support, makes no predictions and takes no risks. It also can't be
falsified in any way shape or form. So until they grow up, and take the same
risks that all other scientists do, how on earth do they expect to make an
impact. I would suggest that their real target is not science, it is the
non-scientific laity as you suggested.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 20 2000 - 21:15:09 EST