carlsonjok
Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006
|
| Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 06 2006,22:10) | | Carlson (presumably our very own carlsonjok) had a beautiful takedown of uberidiot TRoutMac on OE, which will almost certainly earn him a banning and deleted comment, so I will reproduce it here: |
It took a few more posts, but I finally got banned. I have to give credit where due. The folks at OE seemed to tolerate alot more dissent than UD. DaveScot would probably have shown me the door a while back. The post that ended up getting me banned was also deleted. I think it might have been the potboiler comment that was a wee-bit over the line. Had I known this was the end, I would have substituted "actuary" for "accountant" even though it would have probably been a bit too esoteric.
Probably just as well. It is a beautiful day and I have a couple of horses to go ride.
| Quote | | Quote | | Yes, I realize it's [genetic code] not literally universal, that there are a few exceptions. However, this is quite irrelevant. |
Where did those goalposts go? Oh, there they are, another 10 yards back. You said "EVERYTHING alive on this planet regardless of how big or small uses EXACTLY the same DNA molecule." Now you expect me to believe that you weren't using the words "everything" and "exactly" in their literal sense?
| Quote | | I would think that an evolutionary hypothesis would expect to see many varied systems for storing and processing genetic information. |
Quoting again, you said "Don't you think the earliest evolution might have produced multiple systems for doing the same thing? Why just one?" So, I guess when you said the number 1, you were speaking figuratively? The presence of 2 or more represents a bit of a problem for your notion of common design, where EVERYTHING uses EXACTLY the same DNA molecule.
| Quote | | The scientific process SHOULD be neutral, but under methodological naturalism, it's NOT. If it was neutral, the possibility of design would not be taken off the table before the evidence is even gathered. |
The scientific method doesn't exclude the possibility of design, but it does ask that the design proponents play by the methodological rules that have worked quite well to advance science. And that is the problem here. You can't shoehorn your designer into the scientific method, so you are left with stretching and twisting the method beyond all recognition. What you are seeking, wittingly or not, is a complete overthrow of modern science. I'm sure the astrologers, dowsers, and faith healers would be glad to lend a hand, if you could use one.
| Quote | | But with questions like "What is the origin of life?" or "What is the origin of the universe", the question is beyond the capacity of methodological naturalism to provide an answer. Why? Because it launches you into an endless spiral of antecedent natural phenomena, every one of which can only be explained by another antecedent natural phenomenon. |
Classic God-of-the-gaps argument. The fact that science may not have the answers today, does not mean it won't have the answers tomorrow. Or next year. Or next century. You are basing your whole system on the idea that application of the scientific method will never answer these questions. I guess I just have more faith in man's ability to reason empirically than you do.
| Quote | | I have yet to encounter someone who insists on this narrow view of science who has been able to explain to me how they can escape this box. Perhaps you could be the first. |
What box? The one that says science must seek natural explanations for natural observations. You can advance your design ideas the same way every other scientist goes about their business: form hypotheses, design and run experiments, analyze results. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
| Quote | | Notice that until now, I have not even used the word "supernatural". |
You have so spent much time castigating scientists for only seeking natural causes to natural observations, it really wasn't necessary.
| Quote | | As I've indicated before, one assumption of naturalism is that we have accurately staked out the bounds of "nature", that we've already taken an exhaustive "inventory" of the natural world. |
This is a patently false statement. If this were true, then scientists would have folded up their tents and become engineers and lawyers long ago. Yet there are still many working scientists. I suppose, perhaps, they are all writing potboilers that they can sell on their website so they don't have to stoop to becoming accountants.
| Quote | | This is why design theorists reject the rather shallow accusation that they are "invoking the supernatural." |
It appears that Behe didn't get the memo before he took the stand at Dover. Dang interoffice mail!
| Quote | | Because to say so implies that we know where to draw that line, and any honest assessment would have to conclude that we may not. The focus is not on whether this designer is "natural" or "supernatural"… rather, the focus is on whether there is a designer at all, regardless of how you categorize it. |
The very actions of the ID movement put the lie to this statement. If anyone, for a moment, thought the designer was part of the natural world, there would be no qualms about applying the scientific method to identifying who the designer is and trying to determine what his methods were. But, the ID movement can't get away fast enough from any question of who or how. |
--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)
|
