On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 20:04:50 -0600 (CST), Susan B wrote:
>SJ>Here is an article by Tom Bethell, originally in this month's The American
>>Spectator and now at the Discovery Institute's website, on the Intelligent
>>Design movement.
>>
>>Maybe the last paragraph is the key one:
>>
>>"Phil Johnson's strategy is to show that the facts of biology do not fit the
>>materialist preconception. He aims to drive a wedge between the two. It is
>>an encouraging sign that he has attracted to his side people of the caliber of
>>Behe, Nelson, Wells, Meyer, and Dembski. The president of the Discovery
>>Institute, Bruce Chapman, who has had the courage to help fund this
>>movement, says that the question of evolution `not only has a direct
>>bearing on the integrity of science, it also has immense importance for our
>>culture. The materialist superstition has affected our learning in all
>>academic disciplines.'"
SB>wait a minute!!! If they've got all that money, why aren't they funding
>scientific research? Why throw their money away on a propagandist like
>Johnson? If they've got money to burn like that they should be advancing
>the cause of *science*. I thought intelligent design was going to have all
>kinds of scientific benefit to our society!
First, it doesn't say that the ID movement has "got all that money". It says
that a private individual, "Bruce Chapman...has...help[ed] fund this
movement". Compared to the millions (if not billions) of dollars available
materialistic-naturalistic science, the ID movement is run on a shoestring.
Science is a very expensive enterprise these days and no amount of private
individual funding short of Bill Gates would be adequate.
Second, as said many times previously, the primary task of ID at this stage
is to establish its philosophical claim that it *is* science.
Third, when ID has established its philosophical claim to be science, then it
will have just as much a call on the public purse as materialistic-naturalistic
science for funding for its scientific research. Then and only then can ID
begin to engage in mainstream scientific research, which will be then
publishable in mainstream scientific journals like SCIENCE and NATURE.
SB>Or could it be that they know intelligent-design-as-science is hogwash and
>they have no intention of wasting money on it?
Susan's very comments that "intelligent-design-as-science is" *in principle
"hogwash" is the very reason why ID must first establish its philosophical
claim to be science.
There is no point in ID doing much "scientific research" at this stage, even
if they had to money to do it (which they haven't), if ID is regarded by the
mainstream scientific community as in principle "hogwash"!
BTW there is a fundamental contradiction in materialist-naturalists claims
that ID is in principle not scientific, coupled with their demands for the
results of ID's "scientific research". If ID did produce scientific evidence,
materialist-naturalists would say it was inadmissible since, according to
them, ID is in principle not scientific.
It would be like the judge telling the accused at a trial that their evidence is
inadmissible, but then demanding that they produce it anyway!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I now wish to give some reasons why I regard Darwinism as metaphysical,
and as a research programme. It is metaphysical because it is not testable.
One might think that it is. It seems to assert that, if ever on some planet we
find life which satisfies conditions (a) and (b), then (c) will come into play
and bring about in time a rich variety of distinct forms. Darwinism,
however, does not assert as much as this. For assume that we find life on
Mars consisting of exactly three species of bacteria with a genetic outfit
similar to that of three terrestrial species. Is Darwinism refuted? By no
means. We shall say that these three species were the only forms among the
many mutants which were sufficiently well adjusted to survive. And we
shall say the same if there is only one species (or none). Thus Darwinism
does not really predict the evolution of variety. It therefore cannot really
explain it. At best, it can predict the evolution of variety under "favourable
conditions". But it is hardly possible to describe in general terms what
favourable conditions are except that, in their presence, a variety of forms
will emerge." (Popper K., "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography",
Open Court: La Salle Ill., Revised Edition, 1982, p171)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------