quote:
Like Ruse, we believe that if a concept is not testable against a reoccurring pattern of events, then it is not scientific.
You inserted "a reoccurring pattern of events" and I will show where your premise fails with respect to the scientific method.
quote:
If we are referring to empirical science, then we are correct. Having said that, a forensic scientist, who may be forced to attempt a possible reconstruction of a murder, a murder which may have been unobserved and is certainly unrepeatable, would be rather offended is his work were referred to as unscientific. There is science that is not empirical, or not operable, and it remains a science.
You have confused two things in this description: repeatability and empirical.
Repeatability: This does not mean that we have to repeat the event, but rather the evidence used to reconstruct the event must be accessible through objective means. That is, every person who assesses the evidence must come to the same observation. For instance, several labs have to come up with the same DNA match, the same fingerprint matches, or the same blood typing. If more than one person come up with the same data then it is repeatable. It is not the event that needs to be repeatable but the data that needs to be repeatable.
Empirical: Repeatable and empirical are tightly connected and I almost thought about combining them. Empirical is just another word for objective data. That is, data that is not subject to bias or personal revelation. For instance, the height of the Eiffel Tower is objective, as is the length of a ruler, the weight of a container, etc. These are things that everyone can agree on regardless of religious, political, or any other personal bias. Of course, the best test of objectivity, or empiricism, is the ability of other people to confirm your data, hence repeatibility.
So, as you can see, fornesic science, which deals in repeatable and empirical data, is science.
quote:
The study of origins is such a science. Those who study are forced to speculate on origins whose beginnings are both unobservable and unrepeatable.
Just so that we agree on the connotation of your post, you are saying that the study of origins is not a science, more of a pseudoscience. If I am incorrect let me know.
Unrepeatable is not a problem. The major problem is that even if we are able to create life in a test tube we have no way of knowing if that is how life started. The only thing science can do, in this instance, is to put forward a plausible scenario that could have led to life. This scenario must be based in empirical science and be repeatable.
In
this thread I outlined an argument comparing Stonehenge and Irreducible Complexity. The argument works well here as well. Most people agree that humans built Stonehenge. This is not because we have records or pictures of humans building Stonehenge, but because we know that they had the technology capable of building Stonehenge. In fact, I have seen a few groups use stone age technology to move large stones like those at Stonehenge to show how it might have been done. This is exactly what scientists in abiogenesis are doing. They want to show that the chemistry on an early earth could have given rise to life. If chemistry alone can produce life without the influence of an outside agent then it is no longer a requirement to look to an outside agent. This in no way rules out the involvement of an outside agent.
quote:
Predetermined philosophies influence how scientists will interpret the facts. ‘Creation scientists’ or ‘evolutionary scientists’ both state that the universe did have a beginning. It is how such scientists interpret such a fact that determines whether they are a creationist or an evolutionist.
It is much more than a difference of interpretation, it is a difference of method. Scientists use the scientific method, also called methodological naturalism, to form theories. In that method, they start with observations, make hypotheses, and test the hypotheses. From this scientists are able to come to tentative conclusions. Creationists start from the other end. They start from a concrete conclusion (it has to be true) and then only use the data that supports the agreed upon conclusion. No testing is done since the conclusion is already made.
quote:
Reminding yourself of the forensic scientist, and many others, who are forced to reconstruct the unobservable and unrepeatable, I leave you with the following question: If evidence is interpreted as showing design in living organisms, then is it truly unscientific to conclude that there was a Designer?
As I have already shown, abiogenesis and forensics are science. Therefore the rest of your argument break down. How do we test to see if something is designed by an intelligent designer? What would potentially falsify the theory of intelligent design? Where is the evidence of a designer outside of the design? The reason we ascribe broken pottery to humans is because we know that people exist outside of the pottery. The reason we know a watch is designed is because we can observe the watch maker making the watch. No designer, outside of humans and animals on earth, have ever been observed. However, we can observe random nucleotides coming together to form polymers with enzymatic activity. We can observe amino acids forming in abiotic environments.
The problem that the ID crowd runs into is that they practice science, or rather incorrectly practice science, in the same manner as creationists. They start with the conclusion, that a designer exists, and then fit the data in so that their conclusion is supported. On top of that, it also relies on a subjective opinion, that something LOOKS designed. It is a judgement call that is not based on objective data. Also, evolution has been shown to create design in biological organisms, as well as in engineering design and circuit design. Man, as we speak, is using evolutionary mechanisms to design plane wings and radios. So, we have an observable design mechanism (evolution) but some people find it religiously satisifying to rely on an unobserved design process. You tell me which is scientific.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 10-04-2004 12:53 PM
™ Version 4.2