I posted the following some time ago but it is relevant to your post.
Whence the dirt? Scientists need a starting point, Who or What provides
that? You can't get around the fundamental need for science to begin with
all sorts of assumptions and with matter/energy, space and time. In the
final analysis science never deals with the real thing but a mere replica of
it. The whole thing can go out in a puff and no scientific theory could
ever have predicted that. The question of origins is not a scientific
question. Period!!! Moorad
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a
long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and
tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and
said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point
that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you
just go on and get lost." God listened very patiently and kindly to the man
and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about
this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist
replied, "OK, great!" But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just
like I did back in the old days with Adam." The scientist said, "Sure, no
problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt. God just
looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
To: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: ID
>At 10:34 AM 3/6/00 -0800, Bert wrote:
>>Joel Z Bandstra wrote:
>> >
>> > Not sure I understand what Bosons have to do with the dice experiment
(see
>> > below). The particles are distinguishable!
>>**********
>>The Universe started with indistinquisable particles but now there are
>>complex things which are distinguisable.
>>
>>**********************
>> > Anyway, there exists a wealth of literature on complexity and self
>> > organization.
>>********
>>A wealth of literature is to be found on any viewpoint however good or
>>crazy. There has been a lot of criticism of that literature as well and
>>I trust you are suitably informed. The Universe is complex and this
>>does not prove that life and its complex systems arrose from random
>>processes or some "self organizing principle". What I think you are
>>proposing is that there is some un-specified law of organization yet to
>>be discovered.
>>
>>The issues as I tried to illustrated with the dice is that with large
>>numbers of randoam events that you can find some "specified complex"
>>events. This does not argue for the level of complextity that is found
>>in life nor does it give us the path to this complexity. So the
>>ultimate point is that if we find some things here and there with a
>>little organization we should not be surprised. The jump to life is
>>very substantial however.
>>
>>What I want to know about is not that a wealth of literature exists I
>>allready know that. I also do not care if some complex things exist
>>which appear from some random events and driven by some proposed
>>organizing principle. (It is certainly not non-linear differential
>>equations which in many instances relate to dissapative processes.) I
>>also know already that some see "promising" theories and have the belief
>>that the road ahead is clear and just a matter of time.
>>
>>What I ask for is a detailed description of how for example something
>>with as many proteins and processes as the Behe example of a flagellum
>>arrose.
>>
>> What were the intermediate steps?
>> What was the adaptive value of each?
>> What was the genetic changes that could make these steps?
>> (You must show that a coding exists for each of the steps.)
>> What is the evidence that these steps occurred?
>>
>>It is really a question of degree as I see it and this was the point on
>>the dice and certainly the point of Behe. Some specified complex things
>>are expected to occur randomly but some are not and the issue is the
>>level of complexity.
>>***************
>
>It is interesting that while we have grown accustomed to seeing this type
>of challenge applied to scientific theories, we seldom if ever see a
similar
>challenge made to ID. What might such a challenge look like? How about
>this for starters:
>
>What evidence do you have that an intelligent designer
>would be able to design and build something like a cilia?
>Do you have the blueprints?
>Technical memos?
>A description of the manufacturing procedure?
>A patent?
>Where is the design mechanism which ties the designed object
>to the designer?
>
>OK, so perhaps we need to fall back on the argument from analogy.
>As far as we know, the only way for irreducibly complex structures
>to arise is by ID. Then we can use Behe's mousetrap as an example.
>But what seems to have been forgotten here is that things can be
>irreducible but not complex. Can we seriously compare a mousetrap
>to the biological systems that Mike discusses? No, the mousetrap
>is irreducibly simple. So, what we learn from the analogy is that the
>hallmark of intelligent design is irreducible simplicity. Our argument
>by analogy then leads us to the conclusion that biological systems are
>not intelligently designed because they are too complex.
>
>
>Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
>Associate Professor | something and want to
>Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
>The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
> | -- Morrowitz
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 16:00:12 EST