Bradfords Hammer
Comments(13)
Bradford over at Telic thoughts wields the hammer and hits the nails squarely on the head:
He says :
‘He mentioned how struck he was by the reaction of biologists to the genetic code. They (and others) act as if this were an ordinary biological feature. It is far from it. The Big Bang and quantum physics get the attention of philosophers while the genetic code flies under philosophical radar. A symbolic molecular coding system is presumed to be a consequence of unobserved chemical reactions. But why? Because we find parallel results in chemistry? No, that’s not it. There are vague references to complexity arising. But the type of complexity cited (crystals for example) is of a different nature. All of this leads me to believe a philosophical predilection underlies which lens we choose to view data through. If the lens orients one to a telic perspective it is not likely to see the light of day.
When Darwinians challenge IDers to come up with some empirical results that strikes me as a strange demand. The empirical data is being churned out every day in labs all across the world.
Excellent point. Data is neutral with respect to where it comes from. Whether researchers believe in ID or oppose it the data remains the same.’
I am in complete agreement with the above statement,the data is there -there are no exclusively naturalistic empirical driven scenarios for how we got to the complexity of structure and function including the systems we see in place for maintaining fidelity of the message; that we find in the genome. Just as there are no exclusively naturalistic empirically driven scenarios for the cause of Hoyle’s distasteful ‘Big bang’ , that is why the field is wide open for interpretation.
History teaches that a consensus is not to be trusted, another bus will be along shortly. I read again and again that Intelligent design is dead ,yet not one piece of evidence is brought to the table to demonstrate its demise,while the big elephant in the room everyone is ignoring remains to be explained,where did this complexity and diversity we have recently and unexpectedly uncovered originate ?
Is it naive to expect the data to always lead and our ideas to meekly follow ?Are we unsullied by metaphysics and so free to see the data as it is ? The big invisible elephant suggests otherwise.
