--- James Cobb <james@cobb.name> wrote:
Many in this discussion have taken the dogmatic view that the design inference cannot be part of science--it's religion and the two cannot be mixed.
The fundamental characteristic of ID is it violates the basic rules of logical reasoning by argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). It violates a basic principle of scientific reasoning by asserting that the existence of a thing can be inferred from the absence of evidence - leaving an implausible, extraordinary explanation as the only possible cause. Proper scientific reasoning in such circumstances is to suspend belief until more evidence can be gathered to support the affirmative hypothesis. ID proponents go a step further beyond mere argument to ignorance - they purport to insert divine, unseen, mysterious forces, the existance of which can never be confirmed by experimentation - as the cause of observed effects. If that form of "reasoning" is to be taught in our public schools, our culture is doomed. We might as well tie grass skirts around our children and have them chant to Beelzebub, Loki or MaGog to explain changes in the weather. We can clear out the medical schools and bring in the faith healers armed with crystals. The basic difference in the approach to reasoning between ID and real scientific reasoning, that ended witch burnings and eliminated childhood infectious disease in developed countries, is so fundemental as to be unreconcilable. Conversely, scientific reasoning and religious faith are compatible. Scientific reasoning can never explain the entirety of an infinite cosmos and can never refute the basic cosmological tenent of most religions - that the universe was created as an expression of love by an infinite divine being. Scientific reasoning can enhance one's appreciation of the central religous cosmological tenent. Science continues to explore and uncover the infinite complexity of our world and the surrounding cosmos - adding to the bewonderment that those with religious beliefs feel. Conversely, religion can destroy science be instilling pseudo-scientific forms of reasoning into our childrens' minds - instead of the real thing.
I would be interested to know where those who are so strongly inclined against even considering the design hypotheses stand on SETI. Does not SETI consist of combing through EM signals looking for sign of intelligence? <snip>
SETI is based on extrapolation from the probable frequency of habitable planets that it is a reasonable thing to look for electronic emmissions evidencing possible inhabited planets. It does not presuppose that ET exists and allows for the falsification of the hypothesis that ET does exist. ID exploration is not based on the falsifable hypothesis that a divine being does not exist. It allows only that her or his existence may be proved by further inquiry. If not proved, then the "researcher" will simply continue with their faith based belief that a divine being does exist. That is not scientific reasoning; it is religious based-faith.
By all means, do not teach in the high schools as certainty that ET exists. Is it OK to mention in that venue that the search for ET is an ongoing activity?
To my limited knowledge, I have never heard of any secondary school science teacher stating that extraterresterial life is known to exist with certainty. Insistence that proper scientific reasoning be taught in our public schools is not a last gasp expression of "rage of those who don't want God discussed in any way" in public schools. It is a committment to an approach to technological development that has, in the developed countries, almost ended poverty, eliminated disease, extended life-spans and made life relatively easy. Abandon the transmission of that scientific mental discipline to our children, and we will quickly be on the slippery-slope to a world with a very bad resemblance to the island in Golding's "Lord of the Flies" - a world dominated by attributing all unexplicable events to the unseen "Beast". - Canopus56(Kurt) Lord of the Flies, p89, Simon on the Beast: "'What I mean is... Maybe it's only us.'... Simon became inarticulate in his efforts to express mankindÂs essential illness." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com