 |
|
 sesquipedality | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Reposted in edited form from a comment in pickwick's journal.) The Intelligent Design Hypothesis in its least offensive form, namely that the basis of the universe is so complex as to imply the existence of a higher power guiding it, is scientifically totally neutral, in that there's no real way to apply the scientific method in order to test it. This is a long way from saying that science has proved it wrong, which some people seem to be implying. (Science has, of course, pretty conclusively debunked the whole "earth was created in seven days" hokum, but I believe that this is known as Creationism rather than Intelligent Design.) Anyway, I think the point is that Intelligent Design is no more science than say, Cartesian dualism (the idea that reality is comprised of the physical and the metaphysical, and that the soul, as the metaphysical component of our identity, in some way interfaces with physical reality). While such things are interesting ideas, with merits that are arguable, they aren't really susceptible to the scientific method, and thus really don't belong in any scientific discussion, not because they exhibit poor cognitive structuring (much though rabid fundies like Dawkins would like you to believe), but because they aren't subject to scientific analysis, unlike the Theory of Evolution. In maths we don't by and large have theories. If something is believed to be true it's a hypothesis or conjecture. If it's proven true, it's a theorem. You've gotta love a subject where things are actually demonstrably correct in terms of the axioms of the system. If only science were more like maths scientists would have a lot easier time of it. On a personal note, I don't believe in Intelligent Design. However in its more acceptable form as distinct from Creationism, there's no inherent logical fallacy in it, and I feel that in the interests of maintaining the moral high ground, it's important to remember that, even while we firmly and politely maintain that it's philosophy rather than science. Science really has nothing to say either for or against the existence of a higher power. It's part of a class of questions which science has no power to answer because they aren't framed in terms that are susceptible to analysis under the scientific paradigm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: ao_lai |
Date:
March 28th, 2007 02:51 am (UTC)
|
| (Link) |
|
|
Speaking for myself, of course, I find the most annoying part of Intelligent Design to be the way it seems to be based on the idea that 'I cannot think of a way that such-and-such a thing could have evolved from something simpler in single simple steps, therefore *there is no way that it could have happened*, therefore a higher intelligence made it like that.'
But no, say I. There might still be a way, but the ID supporter just hasn't thought of it. It seems to me to be basing its conclusions on little more than a gut instinct of the observer.
As I think Carl Sagan said, I try not to think with my gut. And as I think he may also have said, but very likely with different wording, in science, 'I don't know' is a perfectly acceptable answer...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I always thought that Darwin's idea was incredibly simple. I've no idea what Dennett claims, but the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution are neither complex nor unlikely. Their simplicity is part of their unassailable truthfulness, in fact.
Admittedly, getting something to reproduce is very complicated. Then again, only things that reproduce will be observable, as they're the only things that will last.
Anyway, once reproduction is there, Darwinian evolution is a tiny step away, and very likely to occur.
Anyway, that's a long-winded way to say that I'd refute the idea that an invisible friend is necessary or useful for evolution. The invisible friend theory cannot surmount its own problem (where did the invisible friend come from?) so it's not even a useful addition anyway - if it doesn't help work out where reproduction came from, then it's nothing more than a distraction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: simont |
Date:
March 28th, 2007 08:55 am (UTC)
|
| (Link) |
|
|
The Intelligent Design Hypothesis in its least offensive form, namely that the basis of the universe is so complex as to imply the existence of a higher power guiding it, is scientifically totally neutral, in that there's no real way to apply the scientific method in order to test it.I've often thought, actually, that out of the two statements - There is no plausible mechanism by which the {universe, human body, whatever} could have arisen as a result of natural non-sentient processes
- Yes there is
the former sounds, at least in principle, more falsifiable: to falsify it, one need only exhibit such a mechanism. Whereas to falsify the latter statement, one must either enumerate every candidate mechanism and refute its plausibility, or construct some sort of mathematical-style proof that rules out whole categories at a time. It sounds a lot more difficult, put like that! Of course it's in the practicalities that this argument falls down, and just as well really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous