Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 18. January 2003 21:00
Frances: Seems that non-ID scientists have already looked at much of the 'research program' proposed by Mike
Which illustrates just how fertile my ideas are.
So far teleology does not seem to propose a research program much different from a research program based on methodological naturalism which suggests to me that teleology may be sterile after all. Its not that teleology based on front loading may not be able to generate a research program but this research program seems to match one based on methodological naturalism quite closely.
I think you are missing the point. It is often claimed that a design approach cannot lead to any research. The idea is that a "designer-did-it" conclusion is sterile and leads nowhere. Clearly, I have demonstrated, from many different directions, using many different examples, that this common claim is entirely bogus. That my ideas could lead to the same types of discoveries we attribute to "methodological naturalism" (as you admit) indicate that non-teleological assumptions are not required to guide research. That is, a positive teleological approach is quite capable of delivering what we call 'science.'
And I argue that it still does not resolve how the initial condition arose, teleologically or non-teleologically.
We've been through this again and again. To help resolve this, I asked you what type of data you need to suspect that evolution was front-loaded by an intelligent agent. You replied:
quote:
Mike wants to know what data would cause me to suspect that evolution was front loaded. This would require the following 1. Mike needs to define what the purpose or goal(s) are of the intelligent agent 2. Mike has to show that given the chaotic and unpredictable nature of the world around us, this goal can be reliably reached 3. it can be shown that natural processes without intelligent design could not have achieved the state at t=t_0 4. it can be shown that there was indeed an intelligent agent present at t=t_0.
And this led to my reply:
1. As already mentioned, the working hypothesis is that the purpose/goal at this point was to rig things such that the designed unicellular state would find multicellular states. The investigation begins modestly.
2. That's one of the objectives being carried out by my essay on cytosine deamination and other postings.
Now, when it comes to points 3 and 4, what Frances needs to merely suspect evolution was front-loaded are investigation-killers.
3. He needs to demonstration that intelligent design is "required," that natural processes could not achieve the state. He needs someone to prove a negative for him.
4. He needs independent evidence of a designer. Is the investigator supposed to invent time travel and take along a video camera? Search the world, in Indiana Jones fashion, in a quest to find a crashed alien spacecraft?
I thank Frances for his answers, but it is now clear that the type of investigation I am fleshing out would never be good enough to trigger a suspicion in him. And that's okay, as we all have different levels of trigger sensitivity (we just should put them on the table). Now, I will make it clear that I am not going to attempt to prove a negative, nor am I going on a search for the intelligent agent. Thus, we can happily agree to part company and go our separate ways.
PS: Thanks for the good papers. I may be able to use them.
IP: Logged
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic