Joined: May 2006
[quote=kevinmillerxi,Feb. 25 2008,23:33][/quote]
|As for being mystified by "my cause," my main interest in this project is the whole philosophy of science angle. How do we conceptualize science and its implications? How can we know that we know anything? The debate between rationalism and empiricism. |
Not in the slightest. The two necessarily go together.
|Epistemology, that sort of thing. Personally, I see ID as a challenge not just to Darwinian evolution but to the very foundation of the scientific enterprise itself.|
Of course it is, since ID insists that sticking to the evidence doesn't matter.
|Will we allow non-material causation into science or won't we?|
If you ever find evidence for "non-material causation," we will allow it into science. What you're calling "material causation" is what we call "causation" in science. Matter itself is at issue as to origin and meaning.
|Most people think this question was settled decades or centuries ago.|
In science, it was.
|IDers say new evidence in biology and elsewhere compels us to reconsider our answer.|
And we've asked, futilely, for any legitimate evidence that this is so.
|I find this intriguing, especially when you bring in philosophers like Michael Polanyi, Alvin Plantinga, and new discoveries in quantum physics that are essentially saying the same thing. I'm not talking about supernatural causation--as in magic. Just non-material causation, such as human consciousness.|
That's just nonsense. By all of the evidence we have, human consciousness does not violate any physics, including the laws of thermodynamics. What is more, it appears evolved. It's merely a presupposition of IDists that consciousness is "non-material," whatever that phrase is supposed to mean.
Besides which, human consciousness has never been excluded from science as a causal phenomenon. So you're attacking a strawman.
|Right now, I see many branches of science--particularly evolutionary biology--as highly rationalistic.|
Actually, it's ID that tries to use rational means such as mathematics to deny the typical inferences of descent by observed processes of all of life from a single source (if perhaps a population rather than an individual or pair of conjugators). We rely on the evidence to come up with explanatory models.
|Theory-driven rather than evidence driven.|
Perhaps such mistakes are why you call evolutionary theory "Darwinism," because you fail to understand that the theory has changed with the evidence.
|ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more empirical approach--at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from ID advocates.|
Perhaps you ought to listen to the other side for once.
|(I can't tell you how many times I've heard them say, "Follow the evidence wherever it leads.")|
Oh, so the fact that we've pointed out time and again that they fail to follow the evidence has been ignored by you. I guess that explains why the movie is so full of errors and false accusation.
|So I'm prone to wonder if all the fireworks over ID are really just the most recent manifestation of an age-old scientific debate that's been cloaked in all sorts of modern religious and political agendas.|
Why didn't you bother to find out, before accusing scientists of numerous calumnies?
|It's just the latest swing of the rationalist/empiricist pendulum. At least that's one way of trying to conceptualize it. I could be way off. It's been a long day.|
It's not like we haven't actually answered every one of your claims, with evidence, long ago.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy