SJ: This is simply false. Sciences like archaeology, forensic science, and
exobiology study the *effects* of intelligent design on the natural world.
Pim
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:
CC
Actually, the first step is to define intelligent design in an unambiguous
way and with sufficient rigor that it CAN be distinguished from naturalistic
processes. Then, of course, assuming that we can agree that it is
sufficiently rigorous as to make meaningful tests possible, then such tests
could be made (in fact, I have already proposed one, based on the hypothesis
that the designer is not trying or not able to hide his activities in
skewing the frequency of adaptive variations).
"...if people wilfully close their eyes...they will not see" (Grasse P.-P.,
"Evolution of Living Organisms," 1977, p218).
SJ
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.
CC
Since materialism is logically minimalist, it is hardly FAITH to accept it.
Pim(?)
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)
Pim
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.
Pim
Well, there could but Johnson surely has not made a case that there is. At
least not at the level of science.
Chris
I would add that SJ ignores the entire content of the paragraph prior to my
using the word "alternative" in quotes. And that is STILL the big problem.
At present, ID, especially of the kind with the stronger (i.e., theological)
claims, is merely a fantasy.
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.
Chris
I said nothing about his expectations, only about his aims and claims. You,
like Johnson, are still ignoring the burden-of-proof requirements for any
theory that goes beyond naturalism, as most variants of design theory do.
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".
Pim
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.
Chris
I, personally, would LOVE to see an ID theory specified sufficiently well
that it could be tested AND tested in such a way that the test would, if
successful, strongly indicate some kind of design. I am in fact working on
one such theory myself, for a science fiction novel series. (But, I expect
that that's what it will always be: Science fiction, but, when it is
published, ID-advocates are welcome to try to test it -- though they may not
LIKE the particular theory I have in mind, since it is ultimately a
NATURALISTIC intelligent design theory. :-) )