Posted on 09/20/2005 7:02:45 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
I already quoted you the definition. It means something not reachable through scientific investigation. So all you've done is make the completely circular observation that something which by definition is outside of science is outside of science. Doesn't elucidate much there.
...which means, mr. attentive, that if ID proves to be the case, there's no reason to think it will likely deepsix evolutionary biology, since what we already know and puzzle about from fossils and microbiology isn't going away.
Current evolutionary theory is that natural variation regulated by natural selection is enough to account for the development of the living species of the world. Anything that shows exceptions to this type of species development will show that that's not the case exclusively, and that will leave open the question of just how much of the biodiversity on this planet was designed, and how much was the product of naturalistic evolution.
You'd be dreaming if you don't think it would turn current scientific assumptions upside down. Even the presence of oil deposits in the predicted locations would only prove that species descended from other species, not that this descent was not guided to any degree by any intelligent force.
How can you rule out "all possible causes"?
How, for example, could Newton -- a very smart man -- rule out DNA as the locus of heredity?
Then I think we're agreed. The result of an evolutionary process can be considered designed to whatever extent it satisfies the initial specification. In the genetic programming examples, the function of the circuit or algorithm is designed, but the details are not designed (except to whatever extent they also were specified - for example, there is often a size selection function so that the algorithms can be executed efficiently).
And SETI isn't a scientific theory. I consider it an engineering effort, or perhaps one of discovery, or (cynically) an exercise in PR by NASA, but it isn't a scientific theory.
Those aren't theories you're quoting.
No, they're statements of theories. You said that "scientific theories generally don't deal in absolutes like that." I was showing that in fact science does very often make absolute statements like the ones I mentioned. But they are not outliers. In fact I'd say science usually is making absolute claims. Newton claimed that *every* pair of masses *anywhere* in the universe attracted according to his law. Evolution makes the claim that *all* present earth life descended from prior life and so on back to some universal common ancestor.
Circular reasoning.
I made the claim that ID isn't a scientific theory then concluded that because it isn't, it need not be constrained by the forms of a scientitific theory. How is that circular?
You do it to every extent that you can. How many scientific theories out there, including the theory of evolution, have completely and successfully ruled out all contrary explanations for whatever observations they're designed to account for? Not many. That doesn't stop them from being viable scientific theories.
Science doesn't work that way. Successful theories are ones that lead to productive lines of research. Competitive theories are obligated to explain everything covered by the current best theory and explain additional evidence.
ID does this only in the sense that it explains everything that could possibly happen. that is not science. ID will have to predict some data points that are not yet known.
Correct, and I made that same point as well earlier in the thread. The question isn't whether SETI is a scientific theory, but whether it would be a valid scientific exercise to attempt to determine whether a signal we might discover through SETI is or is not of intelligent origin.
No, they're statements of theories.
No, they're not theories or representations of theories. Ask any scientist.
Evolution makes the claim that *all* present earth life descended from prior life and so on back to some universal common ancestor.
And ID makes the "claim" that there definitely was intelligent intervention in the process of speciation. But the fact remains, neither theory is considered absolutely proven, and theories, despite their absolute "claims", get revised all the time. So it's really only a question of probability whether or not a given theory accurately describes reality.
I made the claim that ID isn't a scientific theory then concluded that because it isn't, it need not be constrained by the forms of a scientitific theory. How is that circular?
Because you're using as your assumption the very assertion that's in dispute here on this thread.
Theories that invoke some sort of intelligent action are by their nature not going to be predicting very many specific data points. As I said in another post, if we find a signal through SETI, there's likely going to be some theorizing as to whether or not it's of intelligent origin. The answer may not be absolute, it may involve merely a high probability in one direction or the other. But the theory that it's of intelligent origin is going to be unlikely to predict much, even if it is valid, because sentient intelligence by its nature isn't held down to hard-and-fast rules.
Ask him what? Whether the statement "energy is conserved" is an absolute one? Whether it is a statement made by at least one scientific theory? What is it you're objecting to?
Because you're using as your assumption the very assertion that's in dispute here on this thread.
Nothing circular in that. It's only circular if I use my assumption to prove itself which I have not done.
And ID makes the "claim" that there definitely was intelligent intervention in the process of speciation.
But, unlike the claim of evolution, there are no testable predictions of this ID claim because there are no deductive consequences.
So it's really only a question of probability whether or not a given theory accurately describes reality.
Only if you're using probability in a non-technical sense. Technically, you can't have a probability without a complete specification of the dynamical process and the development of scientific theories is very much an art.
You're wrong in a deeper sense too. We *create* these theories to accurately describe reality so I'd say, in your non-technical sense, that it's very probable that an orthodox scientific theory accurately describes reality.
And a final point here. I'd say empirically that we should always expect scientific theories to be proven false eventually and so we should never think of a scientific theory as being knowably true.
I already quoted you the definition. It means something not reachable through scientific investigation. So all you've done is make the completely circular observation that something which by definition is outside of science is outside of science. Doesn't elucidate much there.
The wikipedia definition is historically deficient, There was the notion of supernatural before there was science, much less the modern debate about the reach of science. As I already explained to you at some length, "beyond the reach of science", and "supernatural" are not remotely identical.
...which means, mr. attentive, that if ID proves to be the case, there's no reason to think it will likely deepsix evolutionary biology, since what we already know and puzzle about from fossils and microbiology isn't going away.
Current evolutionary theory is that natural variation regulated by natural selection is enough to account for the development of the living species of the world.
And...as I have already pointed out, more times than I should have had to, without a meaningful response,... this is not a vital assumption, and countermanding it is insufficient to kill darwinian evolutionary theory--too many problems concerning too much evidence, particularly in microbiology would still remain. If it is true, ID is interesting, but not terribly impactful.
Anything that shows exceptions to this type of species development will show that that's not the case exclusively, and that will leave open the question of just how much of the biodiversity on this planet was designed,
All scientific conclusions are always open to question. Discovering that some gap, or the origin of life, required a jump start is not that big a change in the current story.
and how much was the product of naturalistic evolution.
It doesn't change the fundamental facts that the fossils are morphologically connected to form a tree that matches up with the geological column and the tree established by the mutational clock. If there was interference in the so-called fossil gaps, it was an interference with something. What is it that the think the fossil gaps are gaps in? Your contention is founded on a substantial mis-estimation of the devastating strength of the available evidence.
You'd be dreaming if you don't think it would turn current scientific assumptions upside down. Even the presence of oil deposits in the predicted locations would only prove that species descended from other species, not that this descent was not guided to any degree by any intelligent force.
But, curiously enough, there won't be any reason not to keep following the track of ancient shorelines as the planet evolved and folded, will there? And what do you think we should call the theory that underlies this form of oil prospecting? How about Darwinian evolutionary theory?
Well, that's fine if you want to think that. Others would react to it differently.
It might not have much impact on the ability to locate oil deposits, but Darwin didn't come up with his theory as a way of locating oil deposits.
Yea, I'm sure creationists and tabloids will have ecstasies over it, but oil-geologists, crop biologists, micro-biologists and paleontologists will still be going to work, and still be trying the solve the same problems they had to deal with the week before.
It might not have much impact on the ability to locate oil deposits, but Darwin didn't come up with his theory as a way of locating oil deposits.
Uh huh, and Aristotle didn't formalize logic so that electronic engineers could design logic ciruits, but what ya gonna do?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.