Re: [asa] Why ID Cannot Be Science

I believe there is a problem here with how the terms subjective and
objective are used. Subjective, as explained by Monod refers to
something which for instance Wilkins and Elsberry have pointed out,
refers to personal experience and need not be non-objective. We all
can appreciate the experiences that allow us to infer design when it
comes to human agency because we understand the limitations, the
common processes etc which guide human behavior.
Lacking a shared understanding of how a 'Creator' would act or behave
makes extending the same methods which work so successfully for
ordinary design, fail for instances of 'rarefied' design. However
science can still deal with this form of 'subjectiveness'.
It's not that nature is objective but that our understanding of
nature, like the understanding of human behavior can be formulated in
an objective manner. If one wants to change science itself to deal
with rarefied design then one has to resolve how one can constrain the
'Creator' to compare a 'design inference' to a 'we don't know'
hypothesis. Lacking such a measure, the inference becomes inherently
unreliable. There have been some excellent discussion on ISCID by
Gedanken on this topic.

I believe that there are various scenarios which would allow science
to incorporate 'life being designed' however these are not scenarios
which the common ID method can handle or is meant to handle. Instead
the common ID method, is one of elimination and negative results, not
one based on positive data. If indeed life were designed by a
'Creator' beyond our comprehension then we will have to rely on the
best placeholder which is not 'designed' but rather 'we don't know'

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
> 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 22:55:58 2008