[Buddha-l] life force vis a vis Xianity & Hinduism

[Stanley J. Ziobro II]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote:

> On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 11:27 -0400, SJZiobro at cs.com wrote:
>
>
> > My question: Why as one theory among others in a post-Modern society
> > are arguments for intelligent design deemed unacceptable?
>
> Intelligent design is not a theory, because it cannot be tested. The
> people who put it forward are not capable of stating what evidence they
> might entertain as defeating the claim. If one has a claim that is not
> defeasible, then one has a dogma, not a theory. That's why it is
> completely unacceptable to teach intelligent design in a science
> classroom. If a scientific version of it were to come along, then it
> would be a candidate for discussion in science classrooms. But so long
> as it is a dogma parading as an hypothesis, the people who advocate it
> should be shot and pissed on. (Open-mindedness has its limits, and
> you've just found them.)

I'm not sure I agree with you entirely with regard to the range of theory,
since theory is not restricted to scientific investigation.  But I agree
with you that each science has it legitimate sphere of discourse and
method(s).  To confuse them does nobody a real service.  That said, then I
think scientists should not attempt to pronounce upon spheres of discourse
for which their disciplines do not form a legitimate basis.  A more direct
manner of phrasing the point: A scientist is not a theologian, so a
scientist ceases speaking as a scientist when he or she ventures into the
realm of philosophy or of theology.

> >  Here is another and related question: Why should a theory that posits
> > accidental origination as a viable explanation to the complexity of
> > the universe be a better one than a theory that posits an intelligence
> > that in some way guides in accord with this complexity all things in
> > their complex interactions?
>
> Jesus Christ.

Come, come, Richard.  This is a Buddhist discussion list.

> Don't they tell you Catholics anything about Ockham's
> razor? (Ockham was a Catholic, after all.) The basic idea behind
> applying Ockham's razor to this pseudo-theory of intelligent design is
> that a theory that does not posit intelligence requires fewer
> assumptions to explain the same thing. The theory of random mutation is
> capable of explaining everything we know of with a bare minimum of
> assumptions. Nothing at all is gained by adding the notion of
> intelligence to the notion of mutation, especially since the theory of
> intelligent design leaves unanswered the huge question of where the
> intelligence came from that allegedly guides creation. It raises more
> questions than it answers. So it is an inferior position.

Ockham's razor here explains what something is; it gives no clue as to its
"why".  When seeking to express the "why" of something simply describing
emperically random morphologies does not meet the point.

Stan Ziobro