Polar Bear Seminar: Why Behe Is Right

[T_aquaticus]

@pnelson

And this creates the central paradox confronting ID-interested students and faculty in the sciences:

1. The only way ID can improve as a scientific theory is to engage its external critics, in depth. Karl Popper: conjectures and refutations.
2. But the loudest of ID’s external critics don’t want the ideas to grow into a real theory. They want to kill those ideas in their cradle.

If the ID community wanted to grow ID into a real theory there is nothing critics could do to stop them. There are plenty of conservative christian universities where this kind of research could go forward, such as Liberty University. The Discovery Institute is bringing in 5 million a year, so surely some of that money could go towards developing the theory. At some point, we can only conclude that the ID community itself thinks ID can not be grown into a real theory. Otherwise, they would invest the money.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@T_aquaticus

And this creates the central paradox confronting ID-interested students and faculty in the sciences:

1. The only way ID can improve as a scientific theory is to engage its external critics, in depth. Karl Popper: conjectures and refutations.
2. But the loudest of ID’s external critics don’t want the ideas to grow into a real theory. They want to kill those ideas in their cradle.

If the ID community wanted to grow ID into a real theory there is nothing critics could do to stop them. There are plenty of conservative christian universities where this kind of research could go forward, such as Liberty University. The Discovery Institute is bringing in 5 million a year, so surely some of that money could go towards developing the theory. At some point, we can only conclude that the ID community itself thinks ID can not be grown into a real theory. Otherwise, they would invest the money.

Note that both of Nelson’s items involved “external critics.” In reality, there’s no need to engage with them at all. They could just do the science and test ID hypotheses.

There is no viable conclusion to be inferred from this behavior but two: it’s a scam or they are deluded. I’m sure there are some in each camp and between camps.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@T_aquaticus

At some point, we can only conclude that the ID community itself thinks ID can not be grown into a real theory. Otherwise, they would invest the money.

It’s a completely logical conclusion that I’ve never heard a good response to.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@pnelson

And this creates the central paradox confronting ID-interested students and faculty in the sciences:

1. The only way ID can improve as a scientific theory is to engage its external critics, in depth. Karl Popper: conjectures and refutations.
2. But the loudest of ID’s external critics don’t want the ideas to grow into a real theory. They want to kill those ideas in their cradle.

@pnelson and @Eddie and @Agauger:

I think the time has come for Discovery Institute to hire its own professional Epistemologist .

This ongoing dispute about I.D. proving vs. discussing the ability of Science to make conclusions about design is not going to be solved by Science … IF the dispute is in epistemology!

Based on Behe’s latest book, and the discussions we see here at PeacefulScience.Org - - only a trained epistemologist has any hope of piercing the veil of “how do we know what we think we know”!

[T_aquaticus]

@gbrooks9

This ongoing dispute about I.D. proving vs. discussing the ability of Science to make conclusions about design is not going to be solved by Science … IF the dispute is in epistemology!

You are assuming they want to plant their flag on that hill. If they don’t commit to ID being science then they can avoid criticisms. This is why the use phrases like “design inference” instead of “design hypothesis”.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@T_aquaticus

You are assuming they want to plant their flag on that hill. If they don’t commit to ID being science then they can avoid criticisms. This is why the use phrases like “design inference” instead of “design hypothesis”.

@T_aquaticus,

Only a pro-active Epistemologist-for-Hire will pierce the veil of “what is science”.

There are plenty of scientists who already get the distinctions implied. But Discovery and its supporters obviously don’t believe what these scientists (like @swamidass) have to say.

At least a professional Epistemologist will explain to the ID folks why they have to at least follow conventional interpretations and “information” gambits.