Re: *Expelled* writer admits he opposes the entire foundation of

On Feb 26, 9:56 am, Glend <interelectromagne...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Kevin Miller, one of the writers for "Expelled"  spills the whole guts
of their anti-science agenda at "After the Bar Closes":

"As for being mystified by "my cause," my main interest in this
project is the whole philosophy of science angle. How do we
conceptualize science and its implications? How can we know that we
know anything? The debate between rationalism and empiricism.
Epistemology, that sort of thing. Personally, I see ID as a challenge
not just to Darwinian evolution but to the very foundation of the
scientific enterprise itself. Will we allow non-material causation
into science or won't we? Most people think this question was settled
decades or centuries ago. IDers say new evidence in biology and
elsewhere compels us to reconsider our answer. I find this intriguing,
especially when you bring in philosophers like Michael Polanyi, Alvin
Plantinga, and new discoveries in quantum physics that are essentially
saying the same thing. I'm not talking about supernatural causation--
as in magic. Just non-material causation, such as human consciousness.
Right now, I see many branches of science--particularly evolutionary
biology--as highly rationalistic. Theory-driven rather than evidence
driven. ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more
empirical approach--at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from
ID advocates. (I can't tell you how many times I've heard them say,
"Follow the evidence wherever it leads.") So I'm prone to wonder if
all the fireworks over ID are really just the most recent
manifestation of an age-old scientific debate that's been cloaked in
all sorts of modern religious and political agendas. It's just the
latest swing of the rationalist/empiricist pendulum. At least that's
one way of trying to conceptualize it. I could be way off. It's been a
long day. "

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f...

Of course "material causation" is simply observable causation.  Human
consciousness is physiological (the energy accounting indicates as
much), or "material" to such an ignorant dolt.  And anyhow, nobody
other than a few pinhead philosophers like Chalmers have ever doubted
that consciousness is causal.

So we're back to the same wearying lies, like that consciousness is
"not natural," along with the rabid hatred of real science, empirical
science (despite his blather that ID is empirical--it most certainly
is not).

Glen Dhttp://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Quote
As for being mystified by "my cause," my main interest in this project
is the whole philosophy of science angle. How do we conceptualize
science and its implications? How can we know that we know anything?
The debate between rationalism and empiricism.


Not in the slightest. The two necessarily go together.

Quote
Epistemology, that sort of thing. Personally, I see ID as a challenge
not just to Darwinian evolution but to the very foundation of the
scientific enterprise itself.


Of course it is, since ID insists that sticking to the evidence
doesn't matter.

Quote
Will we allow non-material causation into science or won't we?


If you ever find evidence for "non-material causation," we will allow
it into science. What you're calling "material causation" is what we
call "causation" in science. Matter itself is at issue as to origin
and meaning.

Quote
Most people think this question was settled decades or centuries ago.


In science, it was.

Quote
IDers say new evidence in biology and elsewhere compels us to
reconsider our answer.


And we've asked, futilely, for any legitimate evidence that this is
so.

Quote
I find this intriguing, especially when you bring in philosophers like
Michael Polanyi, Alvin Plantinga, and new discoveries in quantum
physics that are essentially saying the same thing. I'm not talking
about supernatural causation--as in magic. Just non-material
causation, such as human consciousness.


That's just nonsense. By all of the evidence we have, human
consciousness does not violate any physics, including the laws of
thermodynamics. What is more, it appears evolved. It's merely a
presupposition of IDists that consciousness is "non-material,"
whatever that phrase is supposed to mean.

What is more, human consciousness has never been excluded from science
as a causal phenomenon. So you're attacking a strawman.

Quote
Right now, I see many branches of science--particularly evolutionary
biology--as highly rationalistic.


Actually, it's ID that tries to use rational means such as mathematics
to deny the typical inferences of descent by observed processes of all
of life from a single source (if perhaps a population rather than an
individual or pair of conjugators). We rely on the evidence to come
up with explanatory models.

Quote
Theory-driven rather than evidence driven.


Perhaps such mistakes are why you call evolutionary theory
"Darwinism," because you fail to understand that the theory has
changed with the evidence.

Quote
ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more empirical
approach--at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from ID
advocates.


Perhaps you ought to listen to the other side for once.

Quote
(I can't tell you how many times I've heard them say, "Follow the
evidence wherever it leads.")


Oh, so the fact that we've pointed out time and again that they fail
to follow the evidence has been ignored by you. I guess that explains
why the movie is so full of errors and false accusation.

Quote
So I'm prone to wonder if all the fireworks over ID are really just
the most recent manifestation of an age-old scientific debate that's
been cloaked in all sorts of modern religious and political agendas.


Why didn't you bother to find out, before accusing scientists of
numerous calumnies?

Quote
It's just the latest swing of the rationalist/empiricist pendulum. At
least that's one way of trying to conceptualize it. I could be way
off. It's been a long day.


It's not like we haven't actually answered every one of your claims,
with evidence, long ago.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... It is the definition of science as it ... ID offers no testable hypothesis and no supporting evidence. ... If it can be shown that evolution *cannot* ... Not to the IDers, perhaps, but they do matter to scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... in science and rarely in religion. ... evidence may always change the explanation. ... No it could be included in science class. ... No, Calvin ball is an endeavour without rules, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bush Remarks On Intelligent Design Theory Fuel Debate
    ... > "I am certainly well aware of the advances of science. ... The question is - in the absence of evidence to the contrary, ... > design and creationism, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... It is the definition of science as it ... ID offers no testable hypothesis and no supporting evidence. ... ID is more logical than evolution ... Not to the IDers, perhaps, but they do matter to scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Comprehending Steven J.
    ... Your claim that Romans talks about modern evolution is one. ... The writers of the Bible had no idea about that evidence, and I don't expect them to have anticipated it. ... Ray, I've explained many times why natural evolution means nothing of the sort. ... The writers of the Bible knew nothing about science, the scientific method, or how life works. ...
    (talk.origins)