Let me recall the prior part of the message which gives context for my statement that (natural) scientists are not united in their views.
Ted wrote in his article "Intelligent Design on Trial":
“In order for ID to provide a plausible alternative to evolution, its proponents would have to address the one issue they least want to face: the age of the earth and the universe .” (Winter 2006 Issue)
The question ‘which evolution’ has been asked, but no one has yet responded. If (big if) ID (hypothetically) limits itself to pattern recognition and specifying complexity, for example, I see no reason why it *must* address the issue of the age of the earth. Likewise, it may provide an alternative to a specifically defined type of evolution, say, information evolution, but not others.
Can this be agreed upon or would it redefine what ID is trying to do too far from reality?
There may indeed be only a (very) few geologists today who believe in a young earth, usually based on their biblical literalism. Thus geologists are mainly, though not completely 'united' in their views about the age of the earth. Charles may wish to label those YE geologists un-scientific or pseudo-scientists or he may not. But I’m not really concerned with the demarcation question here either.
I would like to know if a person *must* have an opinion about the age of the earth in order to do science?
Gregory
Charles Carrigan <CCarriga@olivet.edu> wrote:
Gregory,
I don't really see an answer here to what I was asking. You asked in a previous message why should ID proponents have to be candid about the age of the earth/universe when "(natural) scientists" are not united in their views. I'm not terribly concerned at this point about your definitions of natural(istic), science, methodological etc., because I think it is fairly obvious that your use of "(natural) scientists" refers to the large majority of practicing and publishing scientists. Why do you claim that these people are not united in their views on the age of the Earth/Universe? Am I wrong in whom you are referring to?
For ease, I'll repeat the part of your previous posting that I'm referring to (it seems fairly self-contained):
Why must ID make a theory on the ‘age of the earth and the universe’? If (natural) scientists are not united in their views on this topic, then why must IDists be united on their views?
Best Regards,
Charles
<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><
Charles W. Carrigan, Ph.D.
Olivet Nazarene University
Dept. of Geology
One University Ave.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
PH: (815) 939-5346
FX: (815) 939-5071
>>> Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> 3/2/2006 12:07 PM >>>
Hello Charles,
Appearing at the foreground of the ID-eVo-creation conversation is the comparison of scientific ideas, theories, experiments, data, courtroom trials, school board nominations and reorganizations, textbook printing, etc. In the background, however, is a bid for legitimacy, what counts as ‘science’ (that ‘brand new’ conversation!) and what is the place of science in society. Evolution is used as a theory in natural sciences (including applied sciences), social sciences and humanities. ID is said to have “implications for virtually all humane studies” (M. Behe). Yet it is only natu ral scientists in both cases who define the boundaries (or lack thereof) for ID and evolution. Why the imbalance?
The reason I put (natural) in front of scientists is in an effort to help distinguish between natural(istic) science and non-natural(istic) science. If all science is 'natural' then this is one of the very things that the IDM is arguing repeatedly against – hegemony in science that favors natural(istic) explanations above all others. Some would say ‘to the exclusion of all others.’ Naturalism is clearly one of the IDM's targets. Not methodological or metaphysical - just 'naturalism.' This target of the IDM welcomes criticism concentrated on naturalism and secularization, through appeals to biology, specifically, non-(or post)-Darwinian evolutionary biology.
Please forgive, Charles, that I prefer to play with words, which may enhance/multiply their meanings. Sometimes it helps, at other times it confuses. But I will trust that you understand what I wish to point out here by the emphasis on natural science and naturalism. Naturalism, whether consciously or unconsciously is entangled with ‘natural science’. Naturalism *is* a threat to theism when presented as its anti-thesis, though of course, not all natural scientists are anti-theists (apparently a hefty percentage of scientists in the USA, howeve r, are non-theists). A synthesis is likely not to be found in the repatriated concept of ‘design’ connected to ‘intelligence,’ which up until now has few if any limitations.
Regards,
Gregory
Charles Carrigan <CCarriga@olivet.edu> wrote: Gregory,
With regards to your statements below - Why do you state that "natural" scientists are not united in their views on the age of the earth and universe?
Best,
Charles
<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><
Charles W. Carrigan, Ph.D.
Olivet Nazarene University
Dept. of Geology
One University Ave.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
PH: (815) 939-5346
FX: (815) 939-5071
>>> Gregory Arago 3/1/2006 3:40 PM >>">gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> 3/1/2006 3:40 PM >>
“In order for ID to provide a plausible alternative to evolution, its proponents would have to address the one issue they least want to face: the age of the earth and the universe .” – Edward Davis (Winter 2006 Issue)
This door has been identified repeatedly. Entering it is debatable and perhaps backward looking into the creation vs. evolution debate instead of forward looking into a scientific landscape that must sooner or later deal with the effects of information theory, studies in complexity, self-organization and (though it bothers me to say it) Dembski’s specification-ism (which, as an aside, has not ‘eliminated chance’). Why must ID make a theory on the ‘age of the earth and the universe’? If (natural) scientists are not united in their views on this topic, then why must IDists be united on their views?
If I were an IDist (which I’m not), I’d put off the question that apparently ‘has to be addressed,’ as long as possible. It would seem there are other ways to ‘provide a plausible alternative to evolution’ than to speak about origins of life (OoL). The process philosophy inherent in evolutionary theory, for example, is vulnerable too.
---------------------------------
Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
---------------------------------
Make free worldwide PC-to-PC calls. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger with Voice
Received on Fri Mar 3 06:57:34 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Mar 03 2006 - 06:57:35 EST