The Coalition of the Swilling

Arrrrgh. No one I have ever seen in the ID camp believes in ID because they saw the gaps in the fossil record and said "Hey. God must have done it!" - no, they came to ID as a means to reconcile their faith with science, and they did so through negative inference. Which is why ID is not science.

I happen to believe in something akin to ID philosophically and theologically, but I do not accept ID as a valid sceintific theory as it has been formulated by Dembski et al. But idiots such as Dawkins on the scientific side goad the Dembski's of this world because they imply that science provides a philosophical certitude on matters theological, which it manifestly does not, and which I doubt it ever can. As Rand Simberg says - science is also based on some unprovable beliefs:

1) There is an objective reality
2) It obeys universal laws
3) Its nature can be revealed by asking questions of it in the form of experiments
4) The simplest explanation that fits the facts is the one that should be preferred

(That last one of Rand's is a bit shaky in my mind: Occam's Razor has two edges and no handle, and I've been cut but tha bitch more than once).

Atheistic scientists would do well to acknowlege the unprovable assumptions at the core of their belief system before pointing fingers at others'.

Amen to that, John. BUt I have heard folks use the fossil gap bit as supportive of ID. Frankly, I see God as having cooked up the primordal soup and saying "Have at it, boys!"

Yeah, but looking at the gap is negative inference - there's nothing to say we won't find a fossil like this where we least expected it. Saying that the evidence is not completely in to support all the facets of the current theory of evolution fine, but it's a far cry from going on to state that the absence of that evidence then proves something else. The absence of evidence never proves anything - it can merely disprove a specific predictive theory.

So, Mr. B., you're a Deist, then?

Nope. I'm a Presbyterian. I just believe God figured it wasn't worth the effort to explain genetics and biology to the ancient Hebrews.

No. He's Republican.

John - glad to be on the same side of the aisle with you on this. Your explanation is as concise as I've yet seen, and I will probably quote you from time to time.

I'm always amazed by people who say "evolution and salvation are mutually exclusive" - whether they're scientists or churchgoers. (Or "Sopranos" characters.) St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, floated the idea that Genesis was not a literal account of creation - in the 400's. Darwin's just a johnny-come-lately. ;)

I don't need ID to believe in God or Science to supposedly disprove Him, I just like the idea of a walking, scaly, big-teethed dinosaur-man!

I just want proof that "Land of the Lost" actually happened.

Mr. B, isn't Bob Byrd up there living proof that "Land of the Lost" actually happened?

Dave, I bow to your observational skills!

It's kind of a stretch to include statement four, which is not science or even important, with statements 1 through 3, which are most decidedly facts. But there's no point debating with someone who claims there is no reality. No matter the proof, you'll just claim that the proof is not real. Oh well.

Statement 4 has nothing to do with science, it is simply a shortcut for some people's thinking. It is never appropriate to expound anything as a fact, only as a probability. There's a big difference.

Er, I meant,

It is never appropriate to expound anything as a fact based on Occam's razor, only as a probability.

John, I would not characterize those (the first three, anyway) as unprovable beliefs (they are, but that's not the best way to characterize them). They are necessary assumptions, without which one cannot even enquire into nature.

Mike, Occam's razor is, in fact, a component of science, though not necessary component, and it is not a shortcut. The simplest explanation that fits the facts is the one to be preferred because (a) simpler explanations tend to have greater generalizability (not always, but they seem to do so), and more importantly, (b) they are easier to test (again, a generalization but a valid one, I think).

Ken, as a scientist, I come at those as the assumptions on which my experimental worldview is based, but when speaking of matters metaphysical, I look at them as the core a of a belief system - a sytem that is orthogonal to religious faith, with the exception of when Churches make silly pronouncements about the physical world.

You are absolutely correct - as science is practiced, Occam's Razor is used in almost every case. That being said, it's often wrong, so I use it with care, and I, myself would not include it in the core assumptions of science, rather in commentary on them.

I don't mean the simplest is most often right, only that it's to be preferred largely because it's easier to test and, if appropriate, to reject.

Still, it is interesting to note how often the great revolutions in scientific thinking involve replacing a complicated system with one far simpler in description and/or assumptions, but far more general in its implications. The Special Theory of Relativity is one of my favorite examples, replacing much of classical physics by a relatively (har!) simple theory with only two postulates, but with vast and detailed implications.