Bertvan
> Hi Pim,
>Maybe you haven't found common sense to be reliable, but mine has turned
out
>to be quite dependable over the years.
CC
Not if it has led you to some of the beliefs you now hold. :-)
>If "design" can't be tested, neither
>can the concept that the universe is an accident.
CC
Since an "accidental" universe is an absolute minimalist theory, the ID
design theorist has the main burden of proof. UNTIL such proof, the rational
presumption is with accidentalness. Since design theory, like non-design
theory, accepts the physical universe as existing and functioning according
to laws of physics, the core difference between them is that design theory
posits something that goes (vastly) beyond ordinary naturalistic theory.
THAT portion of such theory is where the burden of proof arises. Occam's
Razor sometimes cuts deeply. That can't be helped in this case except by
getting real, design-unique evidence.
You are right that accidentalness cannot be STRICTLY tested, since, no
matter WHAT patterns are found, no matter HOW precisely they match the
predictions of the "accidental" view, they COULD be the result of a
(possibly crazed) designer of some sort, who has chosen to "randomize"
things in such a way that we won't see any intelligent pattern. But this
does not exactly HELP the theory that the Univese is designed; it merely
DOESN'T absolutely prove the view that the Universe is ultimately
purposeless and design-free.
But, given the apparent lack of underlying purpose in the variations that
occur during DNA replication, which is the right way to bet?
Bertvan
>I imagine what will happen
>is each scientist will choose his own assumptions. Those believing the
>universe is an accident will continue to produce ideas such as "random
>mutation and natural selection", "selfish genes", 95% of the genome being
>junk, genetic determinism, Marxism, Freudianism, lack of free will, belief
>that mind is a merely complex computer called "brain", abiogenesis,
>sociobiology, multiple universes, belief that macro evolution is merely
lots
>of micro evolution, etc. Those believing the universe is the result of
some
>complex, rational design will look for more rational answers.
CC
Interesting mix here. Why don't you include the law of gravity, the
existence of electron beams, the principle of leverage, the law of inertia,
computer science, the laws of chemistry, the laws of motion, the laws of
thermodynamics, genetics in general (starting with Mendel's work on
inheritance), optics, nuclear physics (you could always claim that the Sun
is powered by burning wood), medicine, electronics, aerodynamics, rocket
science, and so on? And why include Marxism and Freudianism at all? Merely
because they are non-theistic? Keep in mind that Marx thought the universe
was driven by what amounts to a design theory, one that he got from Hegel
and repackaged in a pseudo-materialistic form.
And, of course, virtually NO ONE believes that the mind IS brain; they
believe that the brain "minds," that the mind is a vast, semi-integrated
conglomeration of neural processes. Note that many, if not most of us, do
not say that mind as such is reducible to physics and chemistry. We do not
claim that there is a set of laws of physics that is mind. What we claim is
that the HUMAN mind is reducible (in situ) to physical processes in the
human brain, IN THE SENSE THAT, we suggest that there is NOTHING
metaphysically existing in the human mind except these processes as
performed by the brain. A computer calculates, and the brain "minds." The
human mind is something our brains DO, not something the brain IS. Doing and
being are different ontological categories, in that existing is
ontologically prior to doing. The brain can exist WITHOUT minding, but
(human) minding cannot exist without the brain (or SOME material thing) to
do the minding.