Hello Doc! You wrote the above in response to my claim that some scientists have theological commitments that are undisclosed in their work. Certainly creationists cannot be held guilty of such non-disclosure. And it seems to me that ID at the present time is more cosmological in its focus than strictly scientific. That is, ID has yet to produce a comprehensive, detailed theory that is testable by means of present methods.
As I've mentioned before, it seems to me that ID is more a catalog of unanswered problems than an elaboration of a comprehensive theory directly leading to experiments. However, I don't think it's fair to say that ID makes no observations. Indeed, observation is what is driving ID in the first place. Primarily what has been observed is the insufficiency of the materialist explanation.
For all its cosmological character, however, my sense (FWIW) is that ID is correct to note that matter requires information in order to produce the world that we observe all around us, and that information is not an epiphenomenon of matter nor of the physical-chemical laws nor is it a product of 4D space-time. One supposes that the reverse is more likely to be true. This is a cosmological statement, not a scientific one.
Yet all science involves cosmological premises of some type, for the simple reason that cosmological premises necessarily lay at the root of all human thinking. When the metaphysical naturalist tells you that all there is, is matter in its motions (contingent on physical laws), that is a cosmological statement, having obvious theological implications. It is fundamentally a statement of faith, for it seems impossible to falsify/validate. And I would say, well, that's just fine -- except for the simple fact that the statement seems hopelessly reductive -- that is to say, insufficient to take into account all the real phenomena that we observe.
ID, it seems to me, seeks to open up the conceptual space in which science is done by not restricting inquiry to only the material, physical features of the universe. Laws aren't physical or material, for openers; yet materialists need them all the same, otherwise their science would be impossible. This to me is a case of fundamental inconsistency, even self-contradiction in the materialist view. It is a tacit admission of the very thing that materialism most strenuously denies -- i.e., the real existence of non-physical entities in the Universe.
I understand that some will say ID cannot be science because it seeks to investigate non-physical components of nature (such as laws and their origin). But that's only true if the purpose of science is limited to the exploration/explanation of the physical. My understanding, however, is that the purpose of science is to tell us about the nature of reality, of the Universe.
My conjecture is that the Universe is more than just its material component, more than its physical "expression." You give every indication that you disagree with me about this. And yet I would say that Doctor Stochastic is more than his material component. Indeed, the most important part of Doc isn't the matter that composes his physical body.
But then, our thinking follows from our seeing. And since neither of us can "see" for the other, I imagine we will continue to have interesting debates.
Thanks so much for writing, Doc!
I think that's what some of have been saying for quite a while.
Primarily what has been observed is the insufficiency of the materialist explanation.
Science doesn't have all the answers, true.
ID is correct to note that matter requires information in order to produce the world that we observe all around us, and that information is not an epiphenomenon of matter nor of the physical-chemical laws nor is it a product of 4D space-time.
This is a baseless assertion, and almost certainly false. Let's just say that every time it has been put to the test it has failed. Perhaps you could cite an example to the contrary.
And I would say, well, that's just fine -- except for the simple fact that the statement seems hopelessly reductive -- that is to say, insufficient to take into account all the real phenomena that we observe.
Like representative democracy, science is worse than anything except the alternatives.
Right. Good observation. Which is precisely why ID is regarded as a joke among scientists.
Every science has unanswered problems. Such problems are the stuff that PhD dissertations are all about. That's how science advances. If you took a list of the topics being worked on by grad students in the biological sciences (or any other sciences) you'd see a great catalog of unanswered problems. They're being worked on -- using the scientific method.
The gradual progress of the sciences in working on such problems can be seen merely by glancing at the table of contents of any professional, peer-reviewed journal. Such as-yet unanswered questions are gradually being answered. By scientists -- the only people who are equipped to provide the answers. That's how it works.
But elsewhere, far from the places where science is done, a few unanswered questions (and some that have already been answered) are being touted by public relations con-men, or they're being presented to woefully ignorant school boards, with arbitrarily proclaimed, non-testable answers, as an alternative "theory" amounting to a "controversy" for the children to decide.
The contrast between the activities in the sciences (on the one hand) and the hocus-pocus, flim-flam, mumbo-jumbo, buy-my-anti-evo-tapes world of creationism/ID (on the other hand) is so strikingly obvious that it doesn't require any elaboration.
A perfect post to test drive the new "Cosmology Ping List" graphic! It's a bit bigger than I would like (in terms of file size), but putting everything in the JPEG basket is much easier than an JPEG/HTML combo platter. I might convert it to a GIF, which would shrink the file size by about a third, but my photo space on the web doesn't accept GIF's--some bizzare software limitation.
Freep mail me if you want on/off the Cosmology ping list.