Re: definition of science (MN)

Don winterstein wrote:
>This is one of the problems that besets ID in its claim to be science.
>Certain ID protagonists are aiming to do good science, science that would
>not be done under conventional assumptions.  That is, assuming ID, they
>claim, leads to testable hypotheses. I'm skeptical but willing to let them
>have a go.  As a rule, though, a belief in ID would seem far more likely to
>discourage the search for cause-effect than stimulate it.  And it is the
>success of that search heretofore that has earned science the status it now
>has.

I basically agree with what you say. In the article by
Lewontin, I was objecting to the notion that science
__must not__ let the "divine foot" in the door. In
practice, we do not let that "divine foot" in the door,
but we should not say "must not".

What's important is that one needs to propose a mechanism
that can be tested. Even __given__ that ID could actually
show some evolutionary event had a probability of 10^(-200)
we'd still be without an explanation for what actually
happened. Indeed, without some geologic event that could
support such a transition, the ID propositions would still
remain suspect.

Along similar lines as the objections to ID,
whereas it seems that Einstein was wrong about objecting
to the spookiness of quantum mechanics, he was right to
resist being easily lulled into complacency. Perhaps even
some of the early objections to Boltzmann's non-interacting
gas can be forgiven in this light. More than once, I've
already seen that the philosophical underpinnings of these
20th century concepts can run us amok if we handle them too
casually.

by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
 
Received on Fri May 6 09:10:32 2005