SJ: This is simply false. Sciences like archaeology, forensic science, and
exobiology study the *effects* of intelligent design on the natural world.
And why does it work ? Because we have standards for the designers. How do we recognize
"supernatural" design? Or design by a completely foreign origin?
CC>It's like trying to see with your
>ears, or experience sex by means of mathematical calculations. It may be
>possible to apply mathematical concepts to sex, but it is not possible (for
>a human, at least) to EXPERIENCE sex by making mathematical calculations.
SJ: There is an element of truth in this, in that materialist-naturalists first need
to admit that there can be intelligent design before they can "see" it:
"...if people wilfully close their eyes...they will not see" (Grasse P.-P.,
"Evolution of Living Organisms," 1977, p218).
Of course that applies to all sides. Some people are so focused on what they believe they see that they are unwilling to admit that it is just an illusion.
CC>Secondly, there is still the issues of burden of proof, coherency,
>cognitivity, and so forth for non-materialist (or at least, non-NATURALIST)
>claims. We naturalists are still waiting for a sound explanation of and
>cognitive basis for such concepts and claims, with even a fraction of the
>cognitive basis that naturalism has.
SJ: Materialist-naturalists will be "waiting" *forever* until they admit that
there can be Intelligent Design. To admit Intelligent Design, they need
to (at least temporarily) suspend their faith in materialism-naturalism.
And accept a religious faith.
SJ: "In the 1950s, for instance, Fred Hoyle discovered that the step-by-step
build-up of heavy elements inside stars depends on a series of spectacular
coincidences. Only if the nuclei of beryllium-8, carbon-12 and oxygen-16
exist in particular energy states can hydrogen be built up into the elements
of life such as calcium, magnesium and iron. This fine-tuning has two
possible explanations. Either the Universe was designed specifically for us
by a creator or there is a multitude of universes--a `multiverse'" (Chown
M., "Anything Goes," New Scientist, 6 June 1998, Vol. 158, No. 2137,
pp26-30. http://www.newscientist.com/ns/980606/features.html)
Of course there is also the alternative that the fine tuning is merely coincidental. We exist and are finely tuned to the nature around us rather than the other way around.
CC>I will take a look at the cited piece by Johnson, but I'm prepared not to be
>impressed; in the past, he has struggled mightily to evade the whole burden
>of proof issue with respect to his basic claim that naturalism and
>non-naturalist theories should be given equal initial credence, expecting us
>to take it seriously as a reasonable "alternative" to naturalism.
SJ: Again note that Chris puts "alternative" in quotes. This again supports my
thesis that it is impossible for a materialist-naturalist to conceieve that
there could be a real alternative to naturalism.
Well, there could but Johnson surely has not made a case that there is. At least not at the level of science.
SJ: Actually one of the major themes of Phil's writings is that he does *not* expect
materialist-naturalists to take "seriously" Intelligent design "as a reasonable
alternative" to naturalism. His aim is to persuade the 95% of the public
who are not philosophical materialist-naturalists, that what we call modern
science has been taken over by the 5% who are.
ROTFL. You are kidding....?
SJ: There is nothing in this "test" that is necessarily "materialism." The outlines
of the fossil record were well-known and developed by *theists* a century before
Darwin's materialistic "theory about evolution." Indeed, Darwin's materialistic
"theory about evolution" did not pass an "empirical test" of the fossil record,
as Darwin himself admitted:
Darwin pointed out the (expected) poorness of transitionals. Over time more and more transitionals have been found.
SJ: What I wanted was exact *details* of a *specific* fossil prediction that is an
"epirical test" of materialism to the exclusion of the "Divine foot".
Nothing can exclude a "divine foot" since divinity is not testable. Which is also why ID has failed. It does
not provide us with tools to 1) distinguish between apparant and actual 'design' 2) it does not allow us to support supernatural design in a scientific manner. Which probably explains why Johnson is using rethoric rather than science to support ID.