MikeBGene:
>Actually, I think it is far more complicated than this. First of all, ID is
>not
>the opposite of evolutionary biology. Both can co-exist easily. In his
>latest
>book (Nature's Destiny), Denton shows one way this can happen and I know
>of no serious objections that have been raised against these arguments.
>Another
>way is to posit ID in place of abiogenesis, and then envision evolution as
>the process that flows from this design event.
the problem is, if you paper over an interesting problem with "God did it"
then you stop investigation cold. What would be the interest or the use of
investigating abiogenesis if we had all shaken hands and decided how it
happened--absent any evidence.
>Secondly, I don't think it's really an issue of faith vs. evidence. Remember
>that evidence exists only in the context of belief. Remove belief and
>evidence is only raw data.
That's true. That's about what Darwin had. Evoution was "in the air" at the
time, but basicaly all they had was a bunch of raw data. But that was 150
years ago. Now there's data *and* a theory to explain it.
>Thus, the raw data are interpreted *as* evidence in the
>light of belief meaning all evidence entails some element of faith.
you are skating very close to post-modernism here.
>Now, in science,
>the basic ground rule is that all data are to be interpreted in light of
>naturalism.
anything else is theology, not science. Obviously theology can exist along
side science, but they can't really mix. Technology didn't really get
started until the Enlightenment and the separation of religion and science.
>This results in the practical exlcusion of any interpretation in the light of
>intelligent design. Thus, the evidence uncovered by science is not evidence
>for a non-intelligent cause over an intelligent cause, it is only evidence to
>support ways a non-intelligent cause could have produced something. In
>science, a non-intelligent cause for a biotic phenomenon is never tested
>against an intelligent cause for such phenomena.
how would you propose that be done? So far intelligent design consists of
"it looks designed to me." What if the very same thing doesn't look
designed to the person standing next to me? How would you figure out
whether it's *actually* designed or not?
>None of this means there
>is anything wrong with science. We just have to remember that science is
>not the tool to determine if something evolved or was designed by an
>intelligent
>agent, as science *begins* with the former proposition.
And must or ceases to be science. Science can't speak to religious issues.
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 03 2000 - 17:46:26 EST