Re: [asa] Reference design

Thanks, Randy. We no doubt agree too closely to parse out any
differences, particularly as I come late to the ID issues, having paid
little attention to them since the Austin conference.

BTW -- here is a website:

http://knowledge-base.supersurvey.com/response-bias.htm

which purports to be a help in the design and execution of surveys and
polls. Pretty basic stuff, really, but so many surveys continue to
violate basic precepts.

jb

On 11/9/08, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
> Burgy wrote:
>
>> I see I was not precise enough in my analogy. Let me try again. It is
>> 8,000 years ago and you and I have just discovered the decorated nest.
>> Neither of us sod-busters have ever seen or even thought of a bird --
>> or any other animal -- doing such thing. It is a new phenomena to
>> both of us.
>>
>> But even though new, both of us (I hope) would be interested in
>> pursuing the scientific programme of an investigation of causation,
>> with the underlying assumption that such decorations don't happen
>> "naturally."
>>
>> Now to the extent one postulates a divinity as causation, that seems
>> to be possible, but outside what science can investigate. (See -- I am
>> still a methodological atheist). But my understanding of ID is that
>> this postulation is not required. A postulation of an advanced (or at
>> least very different) agent however, is not ruled out.
>>
>> Back to my anology. It is the present day, but you and I are members
>> of a remote tribe in S.A. Our reaction to the decorated nest is the
>> same. Then we stumble onto a dirt road and see a car. We thought we
>> were the only humans on the earth. What do we see as a research
>> programme in this case?
>
> I'm simply saying that if we discover anything which is so new to us that
> there is little resemblance to objects whose designers we know, then we do
> not have enough information to conclude anything about a designer. A
> research program to discover the source is indeed in order.
>
>> I am still not impressed with the concept of "reference design." But
>> you knew that.
>
> I wasn't trying to impress, just to explain.
> ....
>> Good point. But it does not address the question "is such a search
>> outside science?"
>
> Science seeks to discover and "explain" the world through correlated events
> (I hesitate to use causal relationships). Observation is key to its
> operation. If no comparable "reference design" is known, then science can
> only say we do not yet know--more work is needed. A divine source as a
> designer would need to be reproducibly observed and verified to be a
> legitimate purview within science.
>
> Essentially, another way of saying all this is that ID claims that the realm
> of human activity (specifically the generation of objects designed through
> human intelligence) constitutes an adequate reference design so that the
> elements of a living cell, having similar characteristics to such human
> activity, can be said to be the result of the design activity of an entity
> with "intelligence" analgous to human intelligence. I'm simply suggesting
> two things: 1. that any human design activity is not an adequate reference
> design since there are also key differences in living cells that render the
> comparison inadequate, and 2. there is no reference design from a non-human
> intelligence, divine or otherwise, that would render such a suggestion
> within the realm of observability, i.e., science.
>
> Randy
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.