From: Cliff Lundberg <cliff@cab.com>
>Richard Wein wrote:
>
>>There's one major logical flaw in Johnson's position which I haven't yet
>>seen mentioned, though it's fairly obvious. He claims that science rules
out
>>ID because it excludes the supernatural by definition. But this is a non
>>sequitur, since he also insists (though he didn't mention it in this
>>particular interview) that the ID which is demonstrated by ID proponents
is
>>not necessarily supernatural. So, Johnson's favourite argument falls at
the
>>first hurdle!
>
>Could you elucidate this? I have no problem at all with the claim that
>science rules out the supernatural; I don't think anyone from either
>side would challenge this.
Well, I might do so. As I've mentioned recently, I've yet to see an adequate
definition of "supernatural". However, that doesn't matter here. For the
sake of the current argument, I'm accepting this claim.
>Now how does this conflict with the claim
>that ID is not necessarily supernatural? AFAIK ID advocates have
>left open the possibility of intervention by aliens, rather than by
>deities. Of course, this must be some kind of ploy, since they really
>don't seem all that interested in aliens; but you can't bust them for
>pretending to be scientific until they actually overstep the bounds
>of science, which ID theory tries not to do.
You're right that it's a ploy (to avoid the problem of the constitutional
separation of church and state that keeps creationism out of schools), and
you're right that, even though it's a ploy, that doesn't in itself detract
from their argument.
In case it was unclear, when I said "He claims that science rules out ID", I
meant "He claims that MAINSTREAM science rules out ID". Obviously he doesn't
claim that his "theistic science" rules out ID.
Johnson makes this claim so that he can dismiss all the arguments of
mainstream scientists, claiming that they're obliged to reject ID on
principle regardless of the evidence.
The problem is this. How does Johnson get from the premise that mainstream
science rules out the supernatural to the conclusion that mainstream science
rules out ID? The answer is that he can't, because, according to his own
assertions, ID could be non-supernatural.
In other words, mainstream scientists do *not* rule out ID as a
matter of principle. If the evidence pointed to ID, mainstream
scientists would be willing to accept that proposition. It would have to be
strong evidence, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. But the proposition would not be ruled out on principle. Even
Dembski recognizes this! He gives the following example:
"To see this, consider what would happen if microscopic examination revealed
that every cell was inscribed with the phrase "Made by Yahweh." Of course
cells donāt have "Made by Yahweh" inscribed on them, but thatās not the
point. The point is that we wouldnāt know this unless we actually looked at
cells under the microscope. And if they were so inscribed, one would have to
entertain the thought, as a scientist, that they actually were made by
Yaweh. So even those who do not believe in it tacitly admit that design
always remains a live option in biology. A priori prohibitions against
design are philosophically unsophisticated and easily countered.
Nonetheless, once we admit that design cannot be excluded from science
without argument, a weightier question remains: Why should we want to admit
design into science?" (http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html)
A better example (of my own) would be the discovery of alien relics in a
pre-Cambrian stratum. We could even throw in (as this is a thought
experiment) the discovery of records showing how the aliens tampered with
life on Earth.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 29 2000 - 15:31:42 EDT