Joined: Jan. 2011
|Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 24 2011,11:47)|
|Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,09:41)|
|Well, I've never said that ID or creation is science or scientific.|
What I am saying is a bit stronger than that. I'm saying that ID as currently conceived generates no testable hypotheses, and can generate no testable hypotheses, and therefore is inherently incapable of meaningful scientific verfication or guiding future empirical research. Do you also agree with that? You come very close to asserting same when you say "Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible."
If so, as I said before, I'll bow out of further discussion of ID with you, as you and I would be in substantial agreement on that point, and I have no interest in the further topics of religion, peer review, scientific fraud and other peripheral issues you've raised, at least not given the eristic way in which you raise them.
If not, it is incumbent upon you to propose (sketch) a conceptual framework and empirical approach by means of which ID may be subject to empirical test.
| In the meantime, science and scientists should be silent about them.|
What scientists and others cannot ignore are attempts to wedge ID into the science curricula of public schools, as was the case here in Ohio five years ago. What we also choose not to ignore is the persistent, deliberate distortion of the current state of evolutionary science promulgated by the DI, UD, and other advocates of ID.
|For example, scientists should not claim that abiogenesis is well established, or proven, or provable, or an alternative to creation or design, or a fact, or parsimonious, or any other way of asserting or implying that it's a done deal until and unless it can be shown to be a done deal without speculation, inferences, and assumptions. They should just say we're working on figuring out how life came about on this planet and we don't have all the answers yet, and may never.|
Most scientists would agree with aspects of this. However, abiogenesis is inherently an alternative to creation or design, and can't be represented as otherwise. Further, among those alternatives, theories of the origins of life within a naturalistic framework are the only theories that are, and can be, amenable to empirical investigation. Lastly, because all successful scientific theories rest upon a measure of assumption and rely upon inference, I would strike that portion. That said, no one should represent abiogenesis as a done deal, as you say, and I'm not aware of anyone who has. It is one of the great unsolved scientific questions of our lifetimes.
|Even a quick look around this site will show that most people here assert that ID and creation are impossible.|
Please quote one person at AtBC stating that ID is impossible. I've certainly never said that, or anything resembling that, as I don't believe that.
What I do believe is that ID as currently formulated is inherently incapable of being cashed out scientifically. That is quite a different thing than being inherently impossible.
Like I've said, I don't condone the teaching of ID or creation in public schools, but I don't necessarily agree with some of your contentions, such as: "and can generate no testable hypotheses, and therefore is inherently incapable of meaningful scientific verfication or guiding future empirical research". Who knows what the future holds?
Also, like I've said before, many people here and on other sites speak as though creation and/or ID are impossible, even if they don't use the word "impossible". Just look at the reception I get when I simply suggest that they are possible, or that a creator/designer is possible in some form, at some level, even when I suggest that it could have nothing to do with any religious beliefs the world has ever known and that it could be 'naturalistic'.
For all any of us know, a creator and/or designer of our universe or life or some aspects of them could be discovered someday that is naturalistic. Then, the next question would be; Where did that creator/designer come from?
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato