Intelligence and the new science

Just a few more comments on 'Signature in the Cell' by Stephen Meyers. I don't think the old (naturalistic) definitions of science are going to hold up. Sooner or later science will have to be redefined so as to include intelligent agents.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'He [Ruse] argued that science must assume that "there are no powers, seen or unseen, that interfere with or otherwise make inexplicable the normal working of material objects.' [1.]

- The trouble with the game of defining intelligence out of science is that the world is changing. In the past science has dealt almost exclusively with the 'physical' world, but ever increasingly science is now dealing with the humanly constructed world... and this process will only increase. The problem with the old definitions (such as championed by Ruse) is that they can't adapt to this change. e.g. how can you rule out intelligence when you're dealing with humanly made artifacts, events and effects?

Are we supposed to believe intelligence had nothing to do with creating various software programs? With genetically engineered plants? The old definition/s of science will have to change to include intelligent interference. (If you want to call it that.) There isn't any law of nature that writes computer games. Is science just supposed to ignore all of the humanly constructed world? We don't have to just account for 'natural' events and objects, but for humanly made events and objects.

- What this means, if we follow the 'naturalistic' definition, is that you can't have any scientific explanations of computers, or computer networks, of pharmaceutical drugs, of rockets, of Mars landers, etc. What then are you left with? What are people who study these things doing? If it's not science what is it? If these people are scientists, who and what are they? (If we look at this from the level of physics we can say that some particles are engaged in intelligently designed projects and some aren't.)

B. 'As philosopher Nancey Murphy explains, methodological naturalism forbids reference "to creative intelligence" in scientific theories.' [2]

- Forbids? Let's take one of the newer Sf novels that deal with nano-technology. I read one not too long ago, where the whole planet was one big nano-tech network. (If I can put it in those terms.) This network was then run by various computer programs. The whole world (weather included) was a kind of virtual reality made real if I can put it that way. How would a methodological naturalist (e.g. Murphy) go about doing science on such a world? If she can't refer to intelligence she's going to be lost isn't she?

- But of course it's just a game to say that 'science' must exclude any idea of intelligence. This is reminiscent of regulations written by committees of bureaucrats. Real scientists, working in the real world, don't pay any attention to these professorial definitions. (Why the rest of us must pretend that they do, I don't know.)

Notes;
1. Signature in the Cell - Stephen Meyer/418
2. " page 434
3. It was a few years ago, and I'm afraid I can't remember the title; although I'm fairly sure it was by the Canadian writer Karl Schroeder.
- Let's go back to the planet in question. Let's say some spaceship blunders upon the planet by some accident, on a routine exploration mission. Let's say the crew knows nothing of nano-technology. Would they be able come to true explanations for things by engaging in methodological naturalism? Would they be able to comprehend things correctly without positing intelligent agents behind things? Would they not require an idea of design to come to the truth?
- As a philosopher, don't you want a tool you can use to decide whether or not a world you're looking at is 'natural' or intelligently constructed?