Re: [asa] Proof That Common Descent is NOT Begging the Question

Your position seems a bit foolish to me but I understand. Just because
Dawkins has not told us, we cannot apply logic and common sense
ourselves. Sure, aliens telling us that they created life is not
enough to establish it scientifically but anyone can lay out a path
which would lead to science being able to address their claims.
That Monod made his claims that science cannot address purpose and
design either makes the concept by definition forever outside the
realm of science or he is simply wrong as sciences have been quite
able to determine issues of design and purpose. Surely that is self
evident.

When science cannot address something, we should at best be able to
claim a position of 'we don't know' that is hardly a position of
scientism but rather one of realism and logic. Now our faith can lead
us to assert that science's (temporary?) ignorance is evidence of
something more, but ID is not in the business of providing any
evidence of what this 'more' really is.

I am not sure why you have chosen to mangle and misdirect my
statements to suggest that since science cannot address the existence
of a God that therefor we should remain agnostic. What I am stating,
and I am sure you may appreciate this, is that we cannot call
something designed when science cannot (yet) explain it, and at best
we should accept a position of 'we don't know', Now we can use faith
to suggest that God exists, but we should be careful not to base this
on our ignorance and gaps in our knowledge. God and the absence of a
God are equally well supported by facts science cannot address.
However, ID seems to forget this and by calling these areas of
ignorance, 'designed' creates an unnecessary confusion.

Monod's claim seems to be trivially wrong or tautologically true,
either way it seems to be a problematic position. We can discuss why
human design detectors may be overly sensitive (perhaps a likely
adaptation?) but science is not the work and interpretation by a
single person, but rather relies on being able to formulate
hypotheses, and in case of design, the knowledge of means, motives and
opportunities, combined with physical evidences and eye witnesses can
establish a 'beyond reasonable doubt' case for design and purpose.

Mike ends with a puzzling

"And should I be an agnostic about whether or not Edwards had an affair?"

Or "Bush led us into an unnecessary war"?

Of course not. In both cases evidence, testimony and other 'smoking
guns' can make the case in a very convincing manner. You may wish to
move the goalposts and argue that such approaches are not
'scientific'... But logic and reason seem to dictate otherwise.

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
> Hi PvM,
>
>
>
> "What if aliens visited us and told us? Seems straightforward and
> simple enough. It does not take much thought to show why Monod's
> position seems to be problematic."
>
>
>
> Not at all. Aliens visiting us and telling us is not science. Dawkins has
> not told us how science would go about detecting whether or not life was
> designed.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 13 12:29:22 2008