Sorry for the screwed up line breaks; let me try again...
For what it's worth, I concur with what Keith, Howard, and David have said
so far about the Dembski Intelligent Design (ID) questions. I haven't read
much ID stuff, so I'm not sure about a couple of points. Perhaps you folks
can clarify.
1) Do ID investigators directly state what their overall objective
is? Which of the following is it?
...a) To determine IF there are patterns of complexity CONSISTENT with
prior design by an intelligent agent.
...b) To determine IF there are patterns of complexity that CAN ONLY be
explained as prior design by an intelligent agent.
...c) To demonstrate THAT there are patterns of complexity CONSISTENT with
prior design by an intelligent agent.
...d) To demonstrate THAT there are patterns of complexity that CAN ONLY be
explained as prior design by an intelligent agent.
2) Do ID scientists clearly state whether chemical/biological evolution by
natural processes (which, to use Howard's language, assumes that the
universe has a robust formational economy) is the mutually exclusive
opposing theory to ID as they define it?This certainly seems to be the way
ID is publicized. As I understand it, if ID pits itself against natural
evolution, they will be faced with a major problem when it comes to
mechanism. Even though particular cases can be cited in which our
knowledge of all the evolutionary steps involved is incomplete, all data on
mechanisms relating to descent and modification support evolution as
understood by the general scientific community. We know how inheritance
works; we know that DNA mutates; we know that selection and drift occur;
etc, etc; And all these things are "random" and "probabilistic" within the
constraints of the environment. Thus, when patterns of morphological or
molecular variation (complexity) are interpreted evolutionarily, they are
done as extrapolations of KNOWN mechanisms. And these extrapolations are
not done lightly or blindly. I know that systematists and molecular
evolutionists are very careful to make sure interpretations of evolutionary
relationships have "statistical" support.
What known (or even possible) mechanisms does ID have to support it? If
IDologists determine a series of formational steps (Dembski's questions
3-5), doesn't that support natural evolution rather than ID? And if the
determine that something was designed by virtue of there being no
mechanisms that can explain it, isn't that just a Gap argument that leaves
them without an epistemological leg to stand on?
Sincerely,
Doug
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Douglas Hayworth, Ph.D.
(Evolutionary and Population Biology)
Department of Biomedical Sciences
UIC College of Medicine at Rockford
1601 Parkview Avenue, Rockford, IL 61107-1897
Phone: 815-395-5894 Fax: 815-395-5666
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 20 2000 - 12:12:42 EDT