Mission Statement
FAQ
Organization
MISSION STATEMENT:
iDesign Club at UCI seeks to foster scientific discussions regarding the origins of life and the universe. Theories such as Darwinian evolution, intelligent design, and creationism will be critically analyzed.
FAQ:
Q: WHAT IS THIS CLUB ABOUT?
Origins! We are interested in discussing alternative theories to the origins of biological structures. While the current mainstream theory in academia is Darwinian evolution, we would also like to discuss other viable ideas, such as intelligent design.
Q: WHO CAN BE A MEMBER OF THIS CLUB?
Anybody!
Students of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Engineering, Anthropology, and Philosophy may especially find this club intriguing. However, you do not need to have a science background to be an effective member of this club.
Q: WHEN AND WHERE ARE CLUB MEETINGS?
Please check blog entries for time and place.
Q: WHAT IS THE MEMBERSHIP FEE?
Nothing! There are no membership dues.
Q: IS THIS CLUB BIASED TOWARDS ONE SPECIFIC THEORY OF ORIGINS?
Perhaps. Ponder the name of this club. This club is ideologically the mirror of another club at UCI, the Students for Science and Skepticism. However, our main goal is to give a balanced view of the controversy regarding the origins of life so that students can come to an informed conclusion themselves.
Q: WHAT DOES THE LETTER "i" STAND FOR IN iDESIGN?
Good question -- the answer is intelligent. Q: WHERE IS THE CLUB CONSTITUTION?
We adhere to the minimum constitution that was provided by the Dean of Students. In the future, we plan to draft a comprehensive constitution and bylaws.
Q: IS iDESIGN AFFILIATED WITH ANY ORGANIZATION?
No. However, we are friends with the IDEA Center ORGANIZATION:
PRESIDENT: Arthur Information and Computer Science
VICE PRESIDENT: Brian
Biology / English
DIRECTOR: Andrew
English / Economics
|
Friday, March 31, 2006
Paul Nelson has another interesting post about methodological naturalism and the rules of science: Intelligent causation, I said to Ron, seemed to me to have been unjustifiably excluded from the roster of candidate hypotheses for the origin of life. Life could have been designed. That might have happened, as an empirical possibility, and whatever is possible ought not to be excluded from science a priori. (Some possible states of affairs might turn out not to be the case, of course, but that is a matter for empirical inquiry, not definitions.)
Of course design is possible and could have happened, Ron said to me, tucking into his meal. That's not the problem. This answer stunned me, and today, almost 23 years later, I can still experience the sense of amazement and shock. One grows accustomed to positivism after a while, and the familiar "science" and "religion" categories had been well-buttressed by multiple lines of argument from very bright people indeed on the 10th floor (albeit with the glaring inconsistencies mentioned above, e.g., 'Wait until Duane Gish sees this new transitional fossil!' -- and with a long historical record of shifting definitions and practices of science shoved to one side). I fumbled out a reply to Ron: But that's not fair, I protested. Where was the justification? Ron shrugged. You're right, he continued, it isn't fair.
I agree that the a priori exlusion of intelligent design as a cause for the complexity and elegance of life seems to be quite arbitrary. Jason Rosenhouse at Evolutionblog critiques Nelson's post. Here's an interesting tidbit: The situation is actually very simple. If Nelson or any other ID advocate believes that science ought to introduce supernatural thinking into its standard repertoire than the test they have to pass is very simple: Go discover something. Stop with the abstract philosophizing, stop levelling bogus charges about the bigotry and closed-mindedness of mainstream scientists, and stop whining about just wanting to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Scientists have given all due consideration to such evidence as ID folks provide, and they have rightly found it worthless. If Nelson believes they have made an error, let him go into the lab and prove them wrong in the only currency scientists care about: progress towards taming the chaos of nature. So Rosenhouse is arguing that scientists are rejecting intelligent design a posteriori (after considering all the evidence ). While I would dispute his assertion that scientists have given "all due consideration" to the evidence for ID, I would agree with the sentiment that ID proponents should go into the labs and discover new evidence for design. I believe that one fruitful area of research is the area of biomimetics. In any case, it's a good sign when people actually start asking for evidence for design instead of dismissing it by definition.
Posted by Art at 3:38 PM
|
iDESIGN BLOGROLL:
The Design Paradigm
Design Watch
Creation-Evolution Headlines
Telic Thoughts
Uncommon Descent
ID the Future
ID Plus
CreationEvolutionDesign
Evolution News
Dualistic Dissension
ID in the UK
ID Update
Intelligently Sequenced
PRO-DESIGN SITES:
Access Research Network
IDEA Center
UCSD IDEA Club
ISCID
PRO-EVOLUTION SITES:
Panda's Thumb
Talk Origins
Students for Science and Skepticism at UCI
NAS: Science and Creationism
PRO-CREATION SITES:
Answers in Genesis
Institute for Creation Research
A.E. Wilder Smith
Reasons to Believe
Baraminology News
CreationWiki
OTHER INTERESTING SITES:
American Scientific Affiliation
Richard Sternberg
ANTEATER LINKS:
University of California, Irvine
New University
Irvine Review
School of Biological Sciences
School of Medicine
School of Physical Sciences
Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Science
Henry Samueli School of Engineering
UCI Athletics
UCI Alumni Association
BLOG ARCHIVES:
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
April 2007
|