>On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Todd Moody wrote:
>
>
>> That's peculiar.  Both SETI and archeology are scientific
>> searches for intelligent design.  Are they also about the
>> supernatural?
>>
>> One of the differences between Intelligent Design and creationism
>> is that ID theory makes no assumptions about the identity or
>> character of the designer.  If intelligent design falls outside
>> the range of science, then SETI and archeology are not science.
>> Indeed, if we take Dawkins at his word here, there are no social
>> sciences at all, since the behavior of rational agents is
>> generally excluded from the category of "natural processes."

Andy replied:

>Physics is concerned with what lies within the universe. The study of what
>lies
>outside of the universe may be amusing, but it is not science, as science
>requires observation, and what lies outside the universe is not observable, by
>definition. One can not say that ID theory makes no assumptions about the
>identity of the designer and is also scientific. If ID theory is scientific,
>then any designer must reside within the universe.

Science is concerned with, logically, what is knowable, and
instrumentally,
what is repeatable in the laboratory frame. The latter started as a
practical convention, because we can't investigate everything reported
everywhere, but has become confused with the former and subsequently
embalmed as a priestly dogma that drives out any assertion that can't
be
reproduced in the temple.  There's no epistemological basis for the
"Extrordinary claims require extraordinary proof.." knout to drive out
the
heretics; it reduces to, "Don't bother me, I'm too busy."

Which is perfectly valid; just don't confuse it with some actual
logical tool.

Mike