RE: [asa] Why ID Cannot Be Science

The objectivity in science is accomplished at the expense of removing the observer, the scientist, from the world picture. Therefore, theories that bring in the human being into their subject matter, say evolutionary theory, run the risk of not being truly scientific.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Nucacids
Sent: Sun 8/10/2008 8:56 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [asa] Why ID Cannot Be Science

In his book, Chance and Necessity (1971) Jacques Monod puts his finger on the subjective element that is necessary to detect design (design being an expression of another mind):

"Hence it is through reference to our own activity, conscious and projective, intentional and purposive-it is as makers of artifacts-that we judge of a given object's "naturalness" or "artificialness.""

Yet Monod likewise explains why ID can never be science without changing science itself:

"The cornerstone of the scientific method is the postulate that nature is objective. In other words, the systematic denial that "true" knowledge can be got at by interpreting phenomena in terms of final causes - that is to say, of "purpose." An exact date may be given for the discovery of this canon. The formulation by Galileo and Descartes of the principle of inertia laid the groundwork not only for mechanics, but for the epistemology of modern science, by abolishing Aristotelian physics and cosmology. To be sure, neither reason, nor logic, nor observation, nor even the idea of the systematic confrontation had been ignored by Descartes' predecessors. But science as we understand it today could not have been developed upon those foundations alone. It required the unbending stricture implicit in the postulate of objectivity - ironclad, pure, forever undemonstrable. For it is obviously impossible to imagine an experiment which could prove the nonexistence anywhere in nature!
  of a purpose, of a pursued end.

But the postulate of objectivity is consubstantial with science; it has guided the whole of its prodigious development for three centuries. There is no way to be rid of it, even tentatively or in a limited area, without departing from the domain of science."

Of course, as the guy in the middle, there is the other side of this observation - if life was indeed designed by an intelligent agent, science cannot incorporate this and must come up with another explanation that fits the cannon, even if it means a reliance on promissory notes without an expiration date.

To overturn the canon and redefine science, one would need very powerful evidence. But what if the evidence was merely suggestive and weak? Then you should "depart from the domain of science" and carry on.

- Mike Gene

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Aug 10 21:11:19 2008