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

Hi PvM,

I asked, "Has [Dawkins] explained how science would detect design?" You
replied, "What if aliens visited us and told us? Seems straightforward and
simple enough." I then noted that this is not science. Your reply?

"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."

There is nothing foolish about pointing out that testimony from aliens is
not science. And while science may incorporate logic and common sense, logic
+ common sense does not equal science. Or are you saying that anyone who
uses logic and common sense is doing science?

"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."

Aliens telling us they created life is not science. That you personally
believe "anyone can lay out a path which would lead to science being able to
address their claims" is not relevant, but it is absurd to think that you
have refuted Monod's point by fuzzy appeals to an imaginary "path" that
cannot be described.

"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."

The only thing that is evident is this: when asked how science would go
about determining whether or not life was designed, the very best you could
come up with is this: "What if aliens visited us and told us?"

Since this is not science, the position that 'science cannot determine
whether or not life was designed' remains completely intact (and also
explains why the scientific community is not publishing anything that
addresses this issue). In fact, even if someone believes that testimony
from aliens = science, it would simply mean that science is dependent on
testimony from aliens in order to detect whether or not life was designed.
And since science cannot get aliens to visit and truthfully provide
testimony, science cannot determine whether or not life was designed.

"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."

Wrong. When science cannot address something, we should claim 'science
doesn't know.' Unless one thinks that all knowledge comes from science
(scientism), that 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."

I am neither mangling nor misdirecting. I'm simply following the lead of
your logic. Consider you belief:

"When science cannot address something, we should at best be able to
claim a position of 'we don't know'"

Since "we don't know" = agnosticism, we should rephrase you belief as
follows:

When science cannot address something, we should adopt agnosticism in
relation to the subject that cannot be addressed.

Since the existence of God is something science cannot address, your logic
dictates that we should all be agnostics.

You may not be pleased with where you logic leads, or don't want people to
notice where you logic leads, but none of that matters.

"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."

You are confusing the use of science in a forensic investigation with the
practice of science itself. Or are you saying that police detectives are
scientists?

"Of course not. In both cases evidence, testimony and other 'smoking
guns' can make the case in a very convincing manner."

Indeed. But this is not science. In fact, this shows us that we can acquire
knowledge, and move beyond the "we don't know," without doing science.

"You may wish to move the goalposts and argue that such approaches are not
'scientific'... But logic and reason seem to dictate otherwise."

Now you are confusing your own opinions with "logic and reason." Since
National Enquirer reporters followed up a tip and ambushed Edwards at a
hotel (one part of our natural world), are you saying that logic and reason
dictate that we all admit the National Enquirer reporters were scientists
doing science? Would this mean the National Enquirer is a scientific
journal?

-Mike Gene

----- Original Message -----
From: "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
To: "Nucacids" <nucacids@wowway.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 12:29 PM
Subject: 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.
>

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 13:55:59 2008