Managing director John Calvert’s many documents on the site are some of the more readable and insightful I’ve seen. I am particularly interested in the “Statement of Objectives” IDNet sets out that are intended to get around the impasse between ID and Darwinism.
So I’d like to take some time to work through the main points. Here’s the first:
"Origins Science is an inherently subjective and controversial historical Science. Because we have an incomplete understanding of life and the universe, there is bound to be controversy about origins. Origins Science is also controversial because scientific descriptions of origins seek to explain the cause of a series of singular unobserved events that occurred in the remote past that are often not reproducible under laboratory conditions or susceptible to direct observation. Explanations often amount to subjective historical narratives constructed from circumstantial evidence and analysis using inference, imagination, unproved assumptions, and information that is not intersubjectively Accessible."
This is a very well crafted point and I think it is a worthy task to break this statement down so that it is understood. The first statement is:
“we have an incomplete Understanding of life and the universe…”
This ought to considered true be beyond discussion. It would be the height of arrogance and exceedingly naïve to assert that we have a “complete” understanding of life or the universe. One would think this obvious reality ought to give naturalists pause about confident assertions of “fact” regarding events that occurred 20 thousand to 4 billion years ago.
The statement continues:
"…because scientific descriptions of origins seek to explain the cause of a series of singular unobserved events that occurred in the remote past…"
Key words in this phrase are, “unobserved” and “remote past”. The conflict between evolution, design and religious creationism is not primarily about observable data in the present, it is about things that occurred long ago, before written records exist, before human beings recorded any observations about what did or did not happen. Regardless of one’s position on origins, we are not dealing with present tense observations, but inferential explanations about events that are beyond the reach of verification.
These are events…
"that are often not reproducible under laboratory conditions or susceptible to direct observation."
It should be obvious that events not reproducible and not subject to direct observation should not be given the status of irrefutable scientific fact. No matter how reasonable the inference from present observations to past events, an inference is still an inference. Explanations of how something might have occurred given certain constraints can be quite plausible. No argument there. But that plausibility is always bound to assumptions and numerous “if” statements. So to shift the cautious language from “might have” to “probably” to “definitely” to “without question” is stretching the matter. No matter how plausible the proposed explanation, plausibility is not the same as proof. And absolute proof of events that occurred in the distant past is not attainable.
"Explanations often amount to subjective historical narratives constructed from circumstantial evidence and analysis using inference, imagination, unproved assumptions, and information that is not intersubjectively accessible."
So I’d like to take some time to work through the main points. Here’s the first:
"Origins Science is an inherently subjective and controversial historical Science. Because we have an incomplete understanding of life and the universe, there is bound to be controversy about origins. Origins Science is also controversial because scientific descriptions of origins seek to explain the cause of a series of singular unobserved events that occurred in the remote past that are often not reproducible under laboratory conditions or susceptible to direct observation. Explanations often amount to subjective historical narratives constructed from circumstantial evidence and analysis using inference, imagination, unproved assumptions, and information that is not intersubjectively Accessible."
This is a very well crafted point and I think it is a worthy task to break this statement down so that it is understood. The first statement is:
“we have an incomplete Understanding of life and the universe…”
This ought to considered true be beyond discussion. It would be the height of arrogance and exceedingly naïve to assert that we have a “complete” understanding of life or the universe. One would think this obvious reality ought to give naturalists pause about confident assertions of “fact” regarding events that occurred 20 thousand to 4 billion years ago.
The statement continues:
"…because scientific descriptions of origins seek to explain the cause of a series of singular unobserved events that occurred in the remote past…"
Key words in this phrase are, “unobserved” and “remote past”. The conflict between evolution, design and religious creationism is not primarily about observable data in the present, it is about things that occurred long ago, before written records exist, before human beings recorded any observations about what did or did not happen. Regardless of one’s position on origins, we are not dealing with present tense observations, but inferential explanations about events that are beyond the reach of verification.
These are events…
"that are often not reproducible under laboratory conditions or susceptible to direct observation."
It should be obvious that events not reproducible and not subject to direct observation should not be given the status of irrefutable scientific fact. No matter how reasonable the inference from present observations to past events, an inference is still an inference. Explanations of how something might have occurred given certain constraints can be quite plausible. No argument there. But that plausibility is always bound to assumptions and numerous “if” statements. So to shift the cautious language from “might have” to “probably” to “definitely” to “without question” is stretching the matter. No matter how plausible the proposed explanation, plausibility is not the same as proof. And absolute proof of events that occurred in the distant past is not attainable.
"Explanations often amount to subjective historical narratives constructed from circumstantial evidence and analysis using inference, imagination, unproved assumptions, and information that is not intersubjectively accessible."
This one is probably most troubling to the evolutionist, for it asserts the greatest level of presumption. The point is that observable cases of present processes cannot be extended to a necessary conclusion that such a process is the only plausible explanation of all life on the planet.
At issue is the problem of assumptions. In this whole debate, unproved assumptions are often left unexamined or carefully sequestered from discussion, the key assumption of all, the elephant in the lab, is the assumption of naturalism itself, that all natural phenomena MUST be explained in terms of natural cause and effect governed by natural law. There is no reason for this assumption to rule the day. It is very possible to distinguish between phenomena that clearly are the result of natural cause and effect, phenomena that possibly could be the result of natural cause and effect and phenomena that are exceedingly unlikely to be explainable by natural cause and effect alone. Opening the door to design does not bring back an age of irrational superstition.
There is more to this statement, so on we go in future posts.
At issue is the problem of assumptions. In this whole debate, unproved assumptions are often left unexamined or carefully sequestered from discussion, the key assumption of all, the elephant in the lab, is the assumption of naturalism itself, that all natural phenomena MUST be explained in terms of natural cause and effect governed by natural law. There is no reason for this assumption to rule the day. It is very possible to distinguish between phenomena that clearly are the result of natural cause and effect, phenomena that possibly could be the result of natural cause and effect and phenomena that are exceedingly unlikely to be explainable by natural cause and effect alone. Opening the door to design does not bring back an age of irrational superstition.
There is more to this statement, so on we go in future posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment