In another thread The Lurch and I had the following exchange that I didn't want to get buried 14 pages deep based on Michael Behe's admission during the Kitzmiller trial that in order for Intelligent Design to be considered a scientific theory the definition for scientific theory would need to be dramatically altered to the point that astrology would be considered scientific
The goal of the ID movement is more than just opposing evolutionary theory, but in redefining science itself.
Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Now getting back to your statement here... You are aware that Behe was forced to concede that in order for Intelligent Design to qualify as a valid scientific theory that you would have to distort the definition of scientific theory to the point that it would include things like astrology, right? I'm not talking about astronomy but astrology -- the pseudoscientific belief that you can divine information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects.
Now I know that the Discovery Institute tells their lemmings that isn't true so let's look at the transcript again.
Ouch.
Behe then continues by giving his own personal definition for "theory," which only confirms that you have to change it to the point that it includes crap like astrology. In science "theory" has a very specific meaning: What "theory" means in science
IOW, Jones did demonstrate his understanding of "intelligent design as science." That it isn't. That it is pseudoscientific claptrap on par with astrology.
Now I know that the Discovery Institute tells their lemmings that isn't true so let's look at the transcript again.
Q: And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A: Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q: The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A:That is correct.
Q: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A: Yes, that's correct.
A: Yes.
Q: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A: Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q: The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A:That is correct.
Q: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A: Yes, that's correct.
Ouch.
Behe then continues by giving his own personal definition for "theory," which only confirms that you have to change it to the point that it includes crap like astrology. In science "theory" has a very specific meaning: What "theory" means in science
IOW, Jones did demonstrate his understanding of "intelligent design as science." That it isn't. That it is pseudoscientific claptrap on par with astrology.
Originally posted by TheLurch
View Post
I think the fundamental need to redefine science so that Behe's version of intelligent design is something that's under-emphasized. Beyond the astrology issue, Behe wants to change how science approaches the unknown. For the origin of a biological system, we have a successful theory - evolution - that should be the default explanation in the absence of any other evidence. In other words, if we describe a new feature of biology, we default to assuming "it came about through evolution", since evolution successfully explains the vast majority of things we've looked at in detail. Should, for whatever reason, evolution prove insufficient to explain a system, the default shifts to "we don't know yet."
Behe makes two changes to how science functions in this regard. One, without convincing any scientists, he believes that he has found a set of circumstances where evolution is always insufficient. But he's done that without considering all the known mechanisms by which evolution occurs, which is why his argument hasn't convinced the scientific community. And, despite his lack of success, he wants that to dethrone the default explanation.
But it gets worse. Rather than simply shifting to "we don't know yet", which is how science has functioned for centuries, he wants design to be the default explanation. He does this without any evidence in favor of design whatsoever (this is the whole false dichotomy issue that was discussed extensively at Dover).
It's a radical change to science, and one that seems to be under appreciated. Behe really does want to throw science as we know it out
Behe makes two changes to how science functions in this regard. One, without convincing any scientists, he believes that he has found a set of circumstances where evolution is always insufficient. But he's done that without considering all the known mechanisms by which evolution occurs, which is why his argument hasn't convinced the scientific community. And, despite his lack of success, he wants that to dethrone the default explanation.
But it gets worse. Rather than simply shifting to "we don't know yet", which is how science has functioned for centuries, he wants design to be the default explanation. He does this without any evidence in favor of design whatsoever (this is the whole false dichotomy issue that was discussed extensively at Dover).
It's a radical change to science, and one that seems to be under appreciated. Behe really does want to throw science as we know it out
Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
This might be worthy of a thread of its own
Kenneth Miller (who, coincidentally, was the plaintiff's lead expert witness at Kitzmiller) devotes an entire chapter of his Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul to just that issue, discussing, in chapter seven (Closing the American Scientific Mind), the goal of ID:
As we can see with Behe and other ID proponents (or is that cdesign proponentsists ) they seek to bastardize science to the point where crap like astrology is a legitimate scientific theory.
Miller also spells out how the "cdesign proponentsists" are seeking to insert the equivalent of cultural relativism into the natural sciences and wanting nothing less than the dismantling of the scientific method (the cornerstone of all scientific thought) noting
"Johnson" here is a reference to Phillip E. Johnson, the lawyer who the I.D. community fondly refers to as the godfather and "Mahatma" of their movement, author of the "Wedge strategy" (an attempt to split Americans away from "naturalistic science" by portraying science as we know it as innately antireligious and forcing them to choose between science and religion) which he outlined in The Wedge Document.
Again quoting Miller
Effectively, they want to hurl science back into the early Middle Ages.
Kenneth Miller (who, coincidentally, was the plaintiff's lead expert witness at Kitzmiller) devotes an entire chapter of his Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul to just that issue, discussing, in chapter seven (Closing the American Scientific Mind), the goal of ID:
Its goals went far beyond merely carving out a little scientific respectability for antievolutionism, and extended all the way to a complete redefinition of the way science -- all of science -- is done. The proponents of ID seek nothing less than a true scientific revolution, an uprising of the first order that would do a great deal more than just displace Darwin from our textbooks and curricula. They seek the undoing of four centuries of Western science, and that surely should be enough to make anyone sit up and pay attention.
As we can see with Behe and other ID proponents (or is that cdesign proponentsists ) they seek to bastardize science to the point where crap like astrology is a legitimate scientific theory.
Miller also spells out how the "cdesign proponentsists" are seeking to insert the equivalent of cultural relativism into the natural sciences and wanting nothing less than the dismantling of the scientific method (the cornerstone of all scientific thought) noting
Quite consciously Johnson then set about developing a strategy that would subject science to the same relativistic critique that had already affected the rest of academia. That strategy would become known as the Wedge...
"Johnson" here is a reference to Phillip E. Johnson, the lawyer who the I.D. community fondly refers to as the godfather and "Mahatma" of their movement, author of the "Wedge strategy" (an attempt to split Americans away from "naturalistic science" by portraying science as we know it as innately antireligious and forcing them to choose between science and religion) which he outlined in The Wedge Document.
Again quoting Miller
The real target of the movement, as the document makes clear, is the whole of science, and materialistic foundations of the scientific process
Effectively, they want to hurl science back into the early Middle Ages.
Comment