Evidence for pattern development; mulling (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 09, 2014, 17:22 (3427 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: As a description by another person who shifted from non-belief to belief, in exactly the same manner as I did, look at the following:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/religion-and-intelligent-design-theory/-Like you, Murray clearly doesn't follow any particular religion, but he seems to have different views from yours about “guided evolution”: 
“My spiritual views do not require that evolution be guided, so I'm not in this argument to support any worldview a prioris [sic].”
 
What has set me thinking, though, is his insistence that ID theory is scientific. This raises very interesting questions. One of the problems that bedevils the whole debate is the fact that all too frequently those involved fail to draw a distinction between science and the conclusions drawn by scientists. We need the distinction, because science is supposed to be objective and people can easily be misled into thinking that the philosophical beliefs of scientists themselves must therefore stem from objectivity (e.g. Dawkins' claim that natural selection “explains the whole of life”.) Scientists are no less subjective than the rest of us.
 
However, the borderlines are not always clear, as becomes all too obvious when we enter the realms of science theory - and this is Murray's focus. Tony quite rightly rails against people who refer to evolution as a fact (I recall being reprimanded for the same crime early on in the history of this website), and we are currently being bombarded by theories about multiverses, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, inflation, strings and superstrings in 11 dimensions, which all seem to raise more questions than they answer, and that's without even considering quantum theory. If they come under “science”, one might ask why ID shouldn't be in the same category. The argument that other theories deal with the natural world, whereas a designer suggests a supernatural world, falls apart if we acknowledge that none of us have a clue as to the borders of the natural world. If theories about unknown and probably unknowable universes, dimensions, forms of energy etc. can be dubbed “scientific”, why not a theory about an unknown and unknowable form of intelligent energy that produced our intelligence? Murray has a point. -DAVID: dhw is very honest in his description of his position, and I think he is just as stubborn as I am in coming to the battle. It really shouldn't be viewed as a battle, but as an honest discussion to arrive at logical conclusions. I wish others would join in. Please do. -We are coming up to the seventh anniversary of the launch of this website, and I would like to think that honest discussion has been the hallmark of all the exchanges between you and me, Tony, BBella, Matt and many others who have been and gone. I doubt if there is anyone who has actually changed their mind as a result of these discussions, but speaking for myself, I can only say that the exchanges have often been stimulating, illuminating, and usually with a tolerant courtesy that I find sadly lacking in some forums. Your presentation of new findings and thoughts is a wonderful source of information and is often a spur to further discussion. And yes, we are just as stubborn as each other. If we weren't, this website would have folded years ago!