This is interesting:
ID operates somewhere near the boundaries of science, and it can play an important role that is discussed below. ID cannot be considered a part of science proper, however. It lacks the features that make it an acceptable scientific theory including the ability to make predictions to be verified by experiment. For, if the conclusion is that there is an intelligent designer without knowing anything about his attributes and capabilities, how can we make testable predictions from that conclusion…
Two arguments can be made. The first is that ID is an impediment to science as it moves from the deficiency of the current hypotheses to a statement that we will never succeed in explaining the phenomenon scientifically. This can be countered by another argument that ID, by showing the inadequateness of current explanations, may help awaken the scientists from their intellectual slumber, something that often takes place given the inertia of the scientific culture (and other cultures). ID can be a motivator for scientists to think outside the box and try to propose alternative hypotheses. It is extremely unlikely that all the scientists will take an ID result and stop hunting for naturalistic explanations. The point is that ID may harm science, but ignoring it may also harm science. After all, everything has its share of merits and demerits.
I completely agree with the assertion of ID that the universe shows signs of design. Nevertheless, I have the concern that ID may be a self-defeating exercise. By insisting that the discernment of the existence of an intelligent designer is a clear-cut part of science, ID runs the risk of perpetuating the belief that science is the sole tool for searching for the truth, and that if one does not make scientific arguments, then his or her case is null and void. Though myself being a firm believer in science and the competence of the human intellect, I think the domain of science, albeit huge, is limited. Reason, revelation, experimentation, and intuition should form together the foundations of our knowledge. And, ultimately, it is revelation that provides answers to the really fundamental questions.
The source? Islam Online.
JDRhoades
And now you know…the REST of the story.
Paul Harvey…Good DAY!
Matt
While I disagree with the author’s conclusions regarding the possible merits of ID, I’m not shocked at all that this is coming from an Islamic religious source. Islam has traditionally been more open to scientific inquiry than Christianity has.
Joel B.
Oh Baloney…Sure Christianity has had its share of issues with science, but that’s par for the course for religion. Whatever the case, for the past oh….600 years Christianity has been far more hospitable for scientific thought. Traditionally as in maybe once upon a time for a relatively short period of time sure, but consistantly pshaw.
Even then, I’m no big fan of ID, none of it really matters to me, it all just obscures a couple basic points.
1. To some degree you take the existance of things that happened before your birth on some (granted a very small, but still some) degree of faith. There’s is really nothing to disprove the idea that all the world was created just as a kind of game for me to play, and all you all are just window dressing. Most of us overcome this leap of faith at like 2 or 3, but I think to some extent there’s a part that always wonders.
2. As you get further back, this degree of faith, whatever you believe increases. We all assume certain things to be true about how the world was created or…came into existence, but none of it really matters…all you’re really saying is, if we extrapolate 100 years of observed phenomena and extrapolate it over 6 billion we can say x happened 6 billion years ago. Is it just me or does that strike anyone else as a little well…faithful.
3. One point that has always gotten me, somewhat annoyed but whatever, is the idea that if something was created that it had to be created new. Even when men make something, no part of it is…new…it’s just…recombined. So if there is a diety or not who created things or not, it seems silly to proclaim the rule by which that diety may act. I don’t think the clay can do that to the potter.
4. My wife and I were in Zion, and they told the story of the Virgin River and how it carved out the canyon and the whole thing, long story short a road that was supposed to last 100 years (the engineers said) lasted all of 2 years before it got washed out, and this wasn’t the Colorado mind you. Point being, it’s hard a. it’s really hard to predict the future, and b. it’s really hard to know the past really well.
What’s the whole jist of the thing, well…
choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve.
Bob
I’m still waiting for an intelligent design explanation of that “water into wine” thing.
bs23
I can’t help but reiterate some points I made over at yglesias’s blog on this — as I understand it, ID doesn’t operate somewhere near the boundary of science; it flat out is not science. science is about making up naturalistic theories to understand the world as seen through empirical study. having a supernatural designer, which logically excludes efforts to understand it through empirical means, kills the whole enterprise as “science” from the get-go. we’re after natural laws, which empirical study reveals; supernatural beings by definition don’t have to “obey” these laws.
Positing a natural designer is science, as long as you allow yourself to follow all the logical implications of such a model. who knows, maybe someone would be able to make a testable prediction.
Of course, the natural designer does no good in explaining how the complexity of earth and humans in particular comes to be, since then you open yourself up to the question of where the designer picked it up in the first place. But I digress.
jcricket
I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster is responsible for the creation of earth.
Aziz P
the author of that essay on Islam Online has essentially formulated the spiritual reflection of Godel’s Theorem.
Backword Dave
Aziz, no he hasn’t. He doesn’t mention set theory or arithmetic anywhere, which are all Godel’s Theorem are about.
Kerlyssa
So, his arguments for ID are that A: without it, scientists will get lazy and not challenge existing theories nor make new hypothoses, and B: that true knowledge occurs through revelation, and ‘intuition’ should be placed on the same footing as testable hypothoses.
By saying ‘scientific’ instead of rational, logical or testable, he attempts to conflate science and religion as two similiar belief systems, with the obvious following conclusion that they should be given equal time.
The argument that while science=good, it cannot explain (insert basic theological tenet here) is not a new one.