Hi PvM,
“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.”
Understanding limitations and common processes are probably insufficient for
detecting design. Monod goes deeper than this – “it is through reference to
our own activity, conscious and projective, intentional and purposive…as
makers of artifacts.” Detecting design is thus an example of detecting
another mind. As Van Till explained, detecting design is about focusing on
mind-like action, not hand-like action.
“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.”
No, it’s deeper than that. We subjectively know what it is like to be
human. We subjectively know how humans think, what humans value, along with
how and why we design. We ARE designers and, as such, recognize other
designers the way we recognize other minds. It’s not simply about
limitations and processes. It’s much more subjective.
“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'.”
How so?
“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.”
Again, how so? What scenarios would these be and how would science go about
incorporating this possibility? As Monod notes, this would change the very
essence of science, as science requires “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.” I’m trying
to figure out how science goes about redefining itself from within.
“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'”
Yes, I wrote about this over 3 years ago: There can be no evidence for
design and there can be no evidence against design. Design would be forever
hidden away firmly in our collective intellectual blind spot. The
designer-centric position is thus fundamentally agnostic about ID.
The inability to detect design means the inability to disprove design.
Thus, those insisting ‘designed’ would be in the same boat as those
insisting ‘not designed.’ Another similarity between the ID movement and
New Atheist movement.
-Mike
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Aug 11 09:43:37 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 11 2008 - 09:43:37 EDT