|
Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/3/2008 4:04:33 PM)
|
quote:
I am not answering for Jack, but it seems to me that ID proponents simply say the answer beyond a certain point is not possible to deduct without consideration that Intelligence caused it. That is not a declaration of: this is what happened beyond saying an Intelligence designed it.
I think that clarifies pretty well. I would add that this understanding is only 'anti-materialistic' in as much as intelligence can be considered a non-material cause, which is debatable.
But this discussion has caused me to think of a thought experiment which should claify where intelligent design stands with regard to materialism.
As a philosophical belief, materialism says in essence that ‘matter is all that there is’. That is, that the only entities or causes which exist are material in nature – that is composed of some material which exists in the universe.
Now imagine instead of that philosophy, scientists were wed to the idea of ‘terrestrialism’, a belief we will define as holding that, ‘the only life which exists is terrestrial (of earth) in nature’, and anything which even considers extraterrestrial life is wholly unscientific.
Now imagine a group of these scientists go to another planet in our solar system and they discover there an interstellar spacecraft of completely foreign design. The language on it's controls is unknown to human history, the engineering unique and unlike any in known to these scientists. Indeed, it is beyond any capabilities they have.
Because of there ‘terrestrial’ bias, they come up with a number of scenarios for how this might have come from earth, and how another civilization might have once existed on earth that was unknown to humans, and who developed this starship. They must come up with such stories, and interpret the evidence accordingly, because anything which considers an extraterrestrial origin is by their definition, ‘unscientific’.
Now imagine at a scientific conference concerning the spacecraft, a rather naïve ID-like scientist suggests that their approach is wrong – they shouldn’t attempt to constrain their evidence to a preconceived notion that requires a terrestrial explanation, but instead let the evidence lead where it may – perhaps this is the first indicator of life elsewhere. Perhaps if they follow that research vigorously and consider the possibility that intelligence isn’t limited to earth, it might lead them to novel discoveries and fresh research venues.
Of course, the young scientist is roundly laughed out of the room, reminded that his notions go against the ‘consensus’ and are threatening to the very foundations of terrestrialism, which has served the scientific community well for years, and in addition, he has no real evidence other than his own incredulity that such life forms might exist elsewhere.
Shouts follow him out into the hall; “Show us the extraterrestrial engineers!” - “Tell us why extraterrestrials would leave a spaceship here!” – “Such a notion is unfalsifiable”.
Realizing his scientific career is imperiled the naive young scientist decides he best be quiet and not risk further derision if he wants to continue to work in science.
And from that day forward, all good school children understand that while we don’t know the origin of the mysterious spacecraft, we can be assured it came from earth, and that some day science will demonstrate that fact – no need to consider possibilities to the contrary.
|
|
|
|