On Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:17:49 EDT Bertvan@aol.com writes:
> Hi Steve,
> I'm not really clear about your objection to ID. (Or to Stephen's
> version of it) ID probably means something a little different to
> everyone who discusses it.
[...]
Yes, I'm discovering this the hard way. The notion seems to have such an
amorphous fluidity that it really is useless for further construction of
ideas. Can anyone point to definitive definitions that are generally
accepted by ID? I need to review this for myself.
[...]
> You speak of "undecidables". If they exist, and as an agnostic I
> suspect they do, they probably can't be addressed by reason,
> logical arguments or mathematical formulas. Perhaps the origin
> of the design happens to be one of those "undecidables".
The undecidable concept refers specifically to the methods of science,
not logic or reason in general (though one might try to generalize it in
this manner for perfectly good reasons). Just as the mathematical method
has undecidable propositions in which it cannot prove or disprove them,
perhaps science faces physical phenomena for which it cannot ultimately
prove or disprove a given theory. Of course, the really tricky thing is
to find a procedure for determining when we run across such phenomena.
We've developed such tests in math; perhaps it's possible in science.
And, yes, I do tend toward the conclusion that from a strictly scientific
perspective the origin of design is undecidable.
> I realize you believe differently.
Not from a scientific perspective, I don't. I might give logical and
philosophical reasons for determining the origin of design, but I am the
first one to admit that this is beyond the ability of science to decide.
It is just that, in crossing swords with certain notions in ID, I took
their position as my assumptions and then attempted to logically derive
necessary contradictions (reductio ad absurdum). For example, they claim
the designer could be a natural being. I tried to show from their own
design logic how this cannot be the case. I did not mean this as a proof
for the existence of God. It was simply an attempt to get ID'ers to see
their own inconsistencies.
> You are convinced the designer
> must be your God, and you present a logical argument for such
> a belief. I respect that argument. The agnostic belief that the
origin
> of the design is "undecidable" could also be argued.
My faith in the Lord does not work against the undecidability concept in
science anymore than it would in mathematics. We would perhaps disagree
on whether or not methodological undecidability ultimately leads to
philosophical uncertainty. As an agnostic, you would probably tend to
think this is the case whereas my faith would lead me in a different
direction.
> As for defining
> "science", I object to anyone claiming the authority to impose any
> such definition upon everyone with a desire to investigate nature.
> Science might be defined as any investigation of reality. If
> someone wants to define science as excluding the "supernatural",
> they must exclude free will, spontaneity, and creativity. I am
> convinced they all exist as a part of reality. However
> all three are at the present time"supernatural" in that science has
> no explanation for them - no way to measure or define them.
I don't see the standard definition of "science" as being imposed on
anyone. "Science" is only a label. It is just a term used to mark off a
particular category of knowledge and the means for arriving at that
knowledge. This is all I see it being. In making this definition, there
is no inherent claim that this body of knowledge is co-extensive with
"reality" or that it fully encompasses "truth."
I know that when I claim something is "unscientific" people tend to
bristle in reaction. They seem to think that an assertion is being made
about the truth value of their beliefs. This is naive and simplistic.
To say that some idea is "unscientific" only means that that idea does
not belong to a certain category of knowledge -- nothing more. To think
that "unscientific" necessarily means "untrue" is to be duped by
naturalistic thinking. Strangely enough, the whole ID reaction to
charges of being "unscientific" seems to reflect a mode of naturalistic
reasoning on their part.
If someone wants to work outside the bounds of "science," then by all
means they should feel free. I do it all the time in prayer, worship,
etc. Whenever I see a beautiful cloud formation, I praise God for His
incredible genius. But I don't try to redefine science in the process.
BTW, I do believe in the existence of free will, etc., but I tend to
think of these things as being undecidable within the restricted confines
of the body of knowledge we call "science."
Steve C.
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 05 2000 - 01:59:45 EDT