> >You can't tell if something is designed or not, so you have to >assume
it's
> >not. If it *is* designed then it's utterly idiosyncratic >to the designer
> >and unavailable to be understood. The assumption of >design stops science
> >in its tracks.
>
> I disagree with that first sentence. Should it not be "you can't tell if
> something is designed or not, so you have to say you can't tell"? Simply
> because you can't tell something, doesn't mean you have to assume its
> negation. If you took that stance (throwing in a bit of Cartesian ideas
> here) you can't tell you are actually awake and that life isn't a dream,
so
> you must assume you aren't awake. If my brain was working tonite I'd list
> other situations, but my general point is that science cannot make
> assertions either way about purely philosophical stances.
>
I doubt this will resolve the issue, but look at it like this. To prove or
disprove a claim in science you basically ask, "What would nature look like
if this claim were true," then you look at nature to see if it looks like
that or like something different. For better or worse, modern science says
that nature looks like it is not designed. As such, if someone claims that
nature is designed, the way to test that is to say what nature would look
like if it was designed, then see if nature looks like that. So far, the
only answer to this question offered by ID theorists is to say that nature
would look just like it does now. Since nature in fact looks undesigned, to
say that a designed universe looks like an undesigned one gets you nowhere,
so it is reasonable to simply say that the universe is what it looks like:
undesigned.
Another reason for saying the universe is undesigned is because to claim that
it really is designed raises the question, "Then why can we not detect that
design?" Again, so far ID theorists cannot answer that question. Until they
can, it is easier for science to assume that the universe is not designed
than to assume it is and have to explain why that design is not obvious.
>
> Not my point at all. The numbers don't change when new information comes
in,
> there are simply more of them.
>
Actually, there are times when the new numbers can refute old ones. For
example, let's say that you are trying to determine the molecular weight of a
protein. First you use gel electrophoresis to get a value of 20,000. Then
you use an HPLC with a size exclusion column to get a value of 25,000.
Finally you use an ultracentrifuge equipped with schlieren optics to get a
value of 27,000. You then sequence the protein and get a final value of
27,500. Each number obtained is equally valid for the method used, but
obviously the protein cannot simultaneously be 20,000 and 25,000 and 27,000
and 27,500. Since each method used is progressively more accurate, each new
number replaces the old as the best estimate of the molecular weight, even
though the old number is accepted as a valid result. The point is that,
despite the individual validity of each number, since there can be only one
true value, each more accurate value replaces the pervious less accurate
value. In other words, the best estimate changes as new information is
acquired.
>
> >things like the physics of isochron dating and fossil evidence are >only
> >disputed by creationists. Not all dispute is equal :-)
>
> Things like the existence of God are only disputed by atheists and
> agnostics. Not all dispute is equal indeed. :)
>
But the existence of God cannot be resolved by evidence, whereas the validity
of isochron dating physics and the fossil record can. Only creationists
dispute the evidence that validates isochron dating physics and the fossil
record. In the case of the existence of God, theists believe he exists and
atheists do not, but no one has any evidence one way or the other.
>
> >:-) there are hundreds of new graduate students every single year >who
want
> >to make a big splash with their Phd theses. If something's >wrong with
> >evolution or *any* portion of science, someone is going >to make their
> >reputation and get tenure for exposing it.
>
> So....? I don't entirely understand what this was included for.
>
You had suggested that evolutionists do not want to learn they are wrong;
Susan was trying to point out that if there was evidence that would prove
evolution wrong, or at least cast serious doubt on it, someone would be using
it to make their reputation with it.
Kevin L. O'Brien