Hi Jonathan,
Sorry, delayed response here. It's over a week since you posted the message below...
This is an interesting read - I hope ID doesn't become as big an issue here as it is in the US but it is a good example of an idea that can start out as a niche, which then has the possibility of generating a large following. Even scientists find it hard to accept that all 'this' exists by chance, and there are clergy working in university science depts here in the UK. I agree that ID isn't science - more pseudoscience with it's references to mathematics etc. etc. But, isn't it possible for a non-science to become a science, or at least become a more accepted area of academic study over time. I think Consciousness is the usual example?
The Evolutionary Theory is credible but it has it's limitations - and as for Orr's article below...mmm...a group of humans get together and design an experiment where they will create a species in a laboratory - sorry, but this sounds like the only evidence the IDers would ever need that Intelligent Design is possible?!
To what extent can evidence of 'natural' selection be observed in a laboratory?
My 'faith' is still with the members of Cambridge Uni's 'School of Divinity' who taught us (at Birkbeck) that the creation of a species (obviously in the natural world) has never been observed - I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong here but why would you need to (re)create a species in a laboratory if it was readily observable in the outside world?
Anyway, thanks for the information - I would be interested in receiving the pdf you mention.
Many thanks,
Wynn Abbott
MA/MSc Student, Birkbeck College
________________________________
From: psci-com: on public engagement with science on behalf of Jonathan Osborne
Sent: Mon 15/08/2005 04:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] (Un)Intelligent Design (was [PSCI-COM] Content fil ters)
I follow this debate with interest and never really thought it would surface
much in the UK. It has been a subject of intense debate on
an American science ed researchers list about 4 months ago. The real
problem is that scientists worry that by being prepared to debate this issue
they give intelligent design credence as being a science. I think this is a
mistake and displays an arrogant attitude of scientists who wish to set the
context of the debate which is not their sole prerogative. I take a very
libertarian stance here that allowing people to air their thoughts is an
important function of a democratic society. At least this way, they get
challenged rather than being sustained by a small group of adherents.
There is a very important issue here which is not the credibility of
evolutionary theory but 'when is a science not a science'. When looked at
from this perspective, then it is pretty clear where intelligent design
falls - in the non-science category and where evolutionary theory falls - in
the science category. It seems to me that exploring issues of 'what is
science?' is something that is perfectly legitimate for all teachers of
science and science communicators to do. So if proponents of intelligent
design want to debate the issue just make sure it is on the grounds of the
above question. That doesn't mean that you have to treat it as science or
to incorporate any other theories that people want included. It just means
making a case as to why, when it comes to the boundary between science and
non-science, ID falls the wrong side.
There is an excellent article on this issue from the New Yorker magazine
which runs through all the main arguments advanced by the two main
scientists who are proponents of intelligent design. I have this as a pdf
file and am happy to send to anybody who wants it.
Orr, H. A. (2005). Devolution. The New Yorker, 81, 40-46.
For the moment let me just provide a sample of what Orr has to say.
Those of us who have argued with I.D. in the past are used to such shifts of
emphasis. But itıs striking that Dembskiıs [one of the ID scientists] views
on the history of life contradict Beheıs [The other leading ID scientist].
Dembski believes that Darwinism is incapable of building anything
interesting; Behe seems to believe that, given a cell, Darwinism might well
have built you and me. Although proponents of I.D. routinely inflate the
significance of minor squabbles among evolutionary biologists (did the
peppered moth evolve dark color as a defense against birds or for other
reasons?), they seldom acknowledge their own, often major differences of
opinion. In the end, itıs hard to view intelligent design as a coherent
movement in any but a political sense. Itıs also hard to view it as a real
research program. Though people often picture science as a collection of
clever theories, scientists are generally staunch pragmatists: to
scientists, a good theory is one that inspires new experiments and provides
unexpected insights into familiar phenomena. By this standard, Darwinism is
one of the best theories in the history of science: it has produced
countless important experiments (letıs re-create a natural species in the
lab<yes, thatıs been done) and sudden insight into once puzzling patterns
(thatıs why there are no native land mammals on oceanic islands). In the
nearly ten years since the publication of Beheıs book, by contrast, I.D. has
inspired no nontrivial experiments and has provided no surprising insights
into biology. As the years pass, intelligent design looks less and less like
the science it claimed to be and more and more like an extended exercise in
polemics.
Jonathan Osborne
King's College London
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive,
can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive,
can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk
**********************************************************************
|