>>Bertvan:
>>Hi Steve,
<>We might be able to agree on a definition of science, but I'm not sure we'd
>>get everyone to agree. I'm not committed to any particular definition. I
>>rarely use the word evolution because what I specifically question is
"random
>>mutation and natural selection as an explanation of macro evolution."
>>Awkward, but I do all I can to make my position clear.
>Steve C:
>It is not necessary to get everyone to agree. I just want to know what you
>think. You are quite willing to take science to task for not including ID,
>but you are unwilling to commit to any definition of science. I think that
>in this debate you have an intellectual responsibility to be able to define
>what you are talking about.
Bertvan:
First, I don't "take science to task for not including ID". I criticize
biology for the concerted efforts by Darwinists to exclude ID. I believe any
scientist should feel free to use any approach he chooses, mechanistic
determinism, ID, or whatever. Those working under assumptions more closely
corresponding to reality will probably achieve the greater results - in the
long run.
>Steve C:
>If you can't say what science is, on what basis do you suggest that it
>should include ID? Stated differently, what would you limit science
>to? If you include ID as belonging to science, do you also include
>astrology? Metaphysics? Religion? If you don't include these, why
>not? How do you justify including ID, but not Darwinian biology or
>psychology? Just because you don't like them is not a sufficient
>reason. I do not like alternative medicine, but I argue that its claims
>can indeed be addressed by science.
Bertvan:
I wouldn't limit science. Science should be free to investigate astrology,
religion, psychology or anything else. "Dislike" doesn't describe my
attitude toward any of them. I'm simply not impressed with results so far
achieved. I can even think of ways to try to scientifically investigate
religion, although I wouldn't be optimistic of much success. I don't
"dislike" "random mutation and natural selection". I don't feel the evidence
supports it as a cause of macro evolution.
>Steve C:
>I am not asking that you accept any list of definitions. This has never
>come up. But when people argue the merits of Darwinian biology and ID, the
>basis for the debate is how they define science. This is central to the
>various intellectual positions, but is rarely discussed openly.
>So, here I simply ask that you exercise a consistently logical philosophy
>of science in order to explain the basis of your problem with materialism
>in science and your favoritism of ID in science. It quite fair for me to
>ask how you define what science is when you claim to know what should be
>included and excluded from science.
Bertvan:
I have no problem with either materialism or design in science. Both should
be included in the debate. Neither should be excluded. It is true that I
do not favor materialism. I, personally, regard it as an inadequate
description of reality.
I have not yet seen a satisfactory scientific definition of "intelligence".
(It is my personal intuition that "choice" and "intelligence" will turn out
to be related.) Yet I believe "intellignece" exists as a part of reality -
certainly a part of every molecule of life. "Iintelligence" might turn out
to be as real a force as "fields", "forces of gravity", etc. Physicists
haven't yet determined whether light is a wave or a particle. Physicists
have accepted that, at this point, cause of quantum events appear to be
unknowable. None of this century's achievements in physics would have been
achieved if science had been limited to strict materialism, IMHO. Although
I'm sure some very competent physicists are materialists.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 08 2000 - 15:04:59 EDT