Intelligent Design: Science or Philosophy

Here are some of my thoughts on intelligent design (along with a mid rebuttal my Raven):

I am very tempted to by Intelligent design after rigourously studying the arguments for it and against it.
However, the debate of science v. ID is a misguided battle at best.
Science (except in the most advanced theories--see string theory) is only concerned with NATURAL explanations of phenemena.
ID deals with SUPERnatural explanations for the origin of the universe.
So, that are mutally exclusive in terms of support for or arguments against one another.
It would sort of be like learning spanish in order to determine the merits of calculus. It just doesn't make sense.
\y Brandon Music

PS to Dr. Music: ID claims to be natural phenomena. Religion makes a supernatural claim, with miracles and original sin and all that stuff, but ID proposes a guy in a lab coat, more or less. Of course, if you have a problem with ID, the standard answer is that you "don't understand what it is." And that's still an open question here at EO: What is ID? What does it claim, exactly, and what understandings does it give us? This question has not yet been answered.Posted by The Raven
ID, as a natural phenomena? C'mon.
Supernatural is not just miracles, original sin and all the stuff you have to take on faith.
The distinction is that 'natural' is something that can be TESTED with observations in the scientific sense. It is repeatable. For something to fall under the rubric of natural, it must be conquerable by the scientific method.
Teleological arguments, the fine structure constants, probability, and ANY other argument you can think of for an ID all boil down to one thing: they are philosophical arguments. Not scientific ones.
Supernatural, at least as I use it, is anything that is beyond the natural world. That isn't bound by the laws of nature in the same way that you and I (at least materially speaking)and quarks and atoms are bound by the laws of nature. Call ID a "guy in a lap coat" all you want, but the point is this: he cannot be tested in the scientific sense; he is not observable in the scientific sense, and so on and so forth.
The important point, for me, boils down to this: science cannot be concerned with an ID. Those scientists who ARE concerned are, perhaps, motivated by the spiritual or religious side of their lives to explain the origins of life.
And these scientists certainly concoct good arguments. But these arguments are philosophical arguments at that heart, no matter how many numbers, probabilities, or whatever can be put behind them.
If ID were to be natural, then it would have to be observable. And the ways in which it is claim to be seen now (the fine structure constants, for instance), is nothing more than a metaphorical "observation", or just plain philosophical induction.
But, Raven, as for the Questions you suppose, they are very interesting indeed. They deal with, I suppose, the impact and consequences of ID as an argument. These concerns are very legitimate. And they seem to me, to perfect philsophical questions.
And that together is what puts me in the camp of believing that ID is philsophical argument/position, and not science PER SE. Now, I"m not saying its a bunch of hot-air, and quite sympathetic to it, but it does not meet the high standards of science-at least as far as I have been indoctrinated (oh, i mean, educated!).

10 Ways Darwinists help ID. or try here to go to it http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003089.html It is a great article to be informed on the ID v. Science clash.

And Justice for All: Propaganda

Reading this Blog> I started thinking about Propaganda.

Is propaganda inherently bad? Should it be used an insult?

Whether you are liberal or conservative, you are accused of promoting your own propaganda.

What is propanganda? It is simply a systematic attempt at promoting one idea or point of view or cause.

Everyone, in short, does this. We are at our heart subjective beings, so we are constantly pushing our own opinions and point of views.

Any sort of academic area has this as a pressuposition. For example, one understands a particular episode in history only when we understand the factors that influence it (e.g. socio, economic, political, and/or military factors).

The reason that propaganda is considered so bad is because of the history associated with it. From what I understand, a systematic attempt at propaganda really started to take around World War I, and was advanced in the coming years (see Hitler during World War II).

When people look back on propagandists like Hitler, we can see where the negative connontations of the word takes shape. Who wants to think something can be decent (or at least morally neutral), when it was so instrumental the Holocaust, and the genocide of the Jewish population?

The inlincation to see propaganda as negative is very natural.

Of course, there are other forms of propaganda which aren't so bad. What about the NAACP/ACLU attempts to bring a positive light to civil rights for minorities (e.g. Non-wasps)? A more informed populus concerned about the civil rights of non-majority peoples is a positive thing.

My main point then, is that, maybe propaganda is morally neutral, and not as bad as we might think.

But, of course, maybe that's just some propaganda I'm pushing myself.

Until Next time,

Rev. Dr. Brandon Music

See Also:

Americablog This is a good entry to be aware of: Will the GOP use terrorism a central issue AGAIN? Will it be used as propaganda?

To Get some Criticism of Conservative Actions you won't find much in the Media: The Fudge Report

A great blog and analysis The Talking Points.

And Justice for All: Propaganda

Reading this Blog>