Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate

diegopig@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Hi, Mike.

I may very well have a wrong idea about ID initiative.
I must admit I haven't read much on "primary resources".
I read some of Dembky's blog and some of the Discovery Institute's
documents.
But none of them seems to consider some quiestions.
I'd like a better understanding of what are the next steps ID
initiative is going to do in scientific research.
For example, the creation of a test of design would be extremly
valuable, but nobody seems to be working on this.



You are wrong. If you consult the primary sources, you will find that
the tests you are looking for have been specified/elucidated.



You're right that a error-free test is not a realistic objective, but
it will be far better than what ID have today (which is something like
a kind of opinion, I guess).
From an utility point of view, a scientist can't say if a system has
evolved (and thus is worth more investigation) or is designed (which
means you have to take it as it is).
So, in this respect, ID is not yet a valuable tool for people doing
science.



This is an unfair characterization. If it is determined that something
is designed it is certainly still worth "more investigation". The SETI
folks certainly think so. A forensic pathologist would certainly think
so. An engineer would certainly think so.

The limits of what unguided naturalistic process are capable of
achieving under stateable conditions is well worth determining. This
would be an entire major research initiative all by itself.



I, personally, I'm not very satisfied with the state of research of ID
initiative.
Do you feels there are scientifics research initiative in the ID
movement?
Is there some place where I can find information on the research
programs of ID?



Diego, I want to suggest to you that these are ill-posed questions.

Now we don't really know each other and while I mean no outright
disrespect towards you, in all frankness,it makes me think you are
approaching the whole thing from common clichés that you have heard
and are repeating.

What you need to understand is that every researcher in every field in
every university (say) is "on an ID research program" at least
provisionally - he may just either be in denial or not realize it.

I suspect you are the victim of a lot of biased, distorted, and
prejudicial reporting on the matter. I think you owe it to yourself -
we all do - to consult the primary sources and these what these folks
are actually saying not just what unscrupulous people are saying they
are saying.




Another thing I'm unsatisfied with is the lack of interest, on the ID
side, about exploring the conseguences of design.



So what? Who says anyone has to satisfy your opinion about this issue?
Lack of satisfaction is a great motivator for someone like YOU to fill
this perceived gap, rather than simply complain about it!

How many great stories there are about great men and women who used
their dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs as the reason
to jump in a make a contribution!



I mean, even if ID is not about the designer but about the design
itself, is should be possibile to study the design in much more detail
than just say "It's designed!"


Of course. For example valuable new design patterns and advanced
techniques could (say) be harvested from such a study. There is also
the collateral benefit of this prospect stimulating that cottage
industry of advances in analytical techniques that other studies have
achieved.



Unfortunatly I have been unable to find, somewhere, some study (of even
proposal for study) about the, say, optimization of the design we
see/think to see in Nature.
Is it optimal? Is it suboptimal? It's redundant?
Getting and answer on these questions could be valuable.


The problem you have there is framing the question properly. Optimal
in terms of what objective function?

Optimality is invariably subjective in the sense that the metric of
optimality (the objective or scoring function) is not a given but must
be supplied by the investigator.

Still this is valuable, because it is always valuable to bound the
problem in science.



The last point I would like your opinion on is the close relationship
between ID and religious movements.
From many things I read around the web, many initiatives on ID, on
teaching the controversy, on declassing ToE to an opinion seems to be
driven by religious reasons.


Perhaps you are just excessively suspicious, and this prevents you from
seeing it in more objective manner.


I agree with Behe, and other ID people, that this doesn't necessarly
tells us that ID has not religious agenda. But both sides seems to
thinks so.
What Dover trail told us is that the whole matter has been seem, in the
Dover comunity, as a religious matter.
Some on the school board said that "someone died 2000 years ago on a
cross..", while some wrote letters to papers telling that "they want to
teach religion at home, not in school".
So, this seems to be the perception on ID: that ID is religion.
Why do you think this is happening?


I frankly think that ID is a bona fide scientific initiative; but like
all such it has world view implications. I think the temptation for a
power grab by ideological zealots to co-opt science and define it in
terms that could only support their world view is simply to strong to
resist.

I think that the integrity of science had better be protected from such
irascible world view promoters so that it is capable at least in
principle of adjudicating between competing world views. It is the
only way that we ever going to be able to keep each other honest.

I don't think the current establishment of Naturalistic Rationalists
wants hoensty, I think they want power and to maintain control for
their ideology. Of course they will simply spin that as need
protection from people like me. I so you can see how it goes.

So there needs to be a referee. Science should be that ideal referee;
but it can't be if is allowed to be defined in terms of some competing
world view.

In my opinion Naturalistic Rationalists have no stomach for this kind
of a commitment to an open mindedness that would be capable of putting
even their world view at risk, and so they find it convenient to use
the genetic fallacy of trying to convince everyone that ID is
creationism and play upon peoples anti-religious prejudices.

Now I know that I may sound a bit zealous here myself, but the
discussion is unfortunately almost entirely polarized, and it is
virtually impossible to find someone that is willling to meet you in
the middle.

That is what I think. Thank you for asking.

chow,

-Mike Goodrich


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kissing Darwins Atheist ass: Clergy Letter Project
    ... opinion jeopardizes your sense of well being? ... They, not science, are the reason why so many do not ... So the union between science and religion is now OK ... lot of anti-science creationists that have been brought up with the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • "Creationism" horseshit is back again
    ... We thought that the religious view of science called "intelligent ... where there is no separation of religion and state. ... design was voted out of power. ... teaching "creationism in disguise," and therefore the school violated ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: OSCNIA
    ... The organization trying to push their propaganda into the schools went so far as to do a simple text search-and-replace in their chosen textbook, replacing "creationists" with "design proponents." ... Intelligent design is a fraud built on top of another fraud -- let's see some discussion of the issue of evidence of unintelligent design. ... one," science has stopped cold. ... Science does not meet the standard of being a religion. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Commentary: Evolution doesnt answer all of sciences questions
    ... religion into science. ... that Intelligent Design is religion. ... incorporate Intelligent Design in their biology curriculum. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Id like a better understanding of the debate
    ... the creation of a test of design would be extremly ... Who says anyone has to satisfy your opinion about this issue? ... problem in science. ... this seems to be the perception on ID: that ID is religion. ...
    (talk.origins)