From: Iain Strachan (iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com)
Date: Thu Apr 24 2003 - 13:56:08 EDT
Dick Fisher wrote:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1999/PSCF12-99Roberts.html
I read this article, and came to the conclusion that the argument was
specious & was about to write a post explaining why I thought so, but then
followed up the link to the response by ASA fellow Gordon Mills at
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Mills.html#Behe%20and%20Intelligen
t%20Design20Theory
It seems Mills spotted the same obvious logical flaw in Roberts's argument
that I did & put it much better than I can:
----------------
Roberts (p. 248) quotes a statement in Behe's book as follows: "If a
biological structure can be explained in terms of those natural laws then we
cannot conclude that it was designed" (p. 203). Roberts then indicates that
this statement is equivalent to saying that "it was not designed." I submit
that the second tier of Behe's position is that area where the evidence is
simply not sufficient to say clearly whether a process or a structure was
designed or whether it was not designed. Both Behe and I, as trained
biochemists, acknowledge the role of chance (i.e., in mutations, etc.). We
simply argue that chance is not sufficient to explain many of the complex
processes or structures of living organisms.
----------------
In other words, Behe is being accused by Roberts of the following well-known
logical fallacy:
Premise: All crows are black
Conclusion: Therefore all not-crows are not-black.
Equivalently:
Premise: All irreducibly complex objects are designed.
Conclusion: All not-irreducibly complex objects are not-designed.
It seems obvious to me that Behe never implied this conclusion & that
therefore Roberts' argument contributes nothing of interest to the debate,
because it attacks a straw man.
If one wants to criticize Behe then one should attack the premise, not the
false conclusion. By all means contest the idea that irreducible complexity
necessitates design, or state that there is no such thing as irreducible
complexity (what Dawkins calls "the argument from personal incredulity").
But to attack a conclusion that wasn't made by Behe seems pointless to me.
However, the article did serve to re-acquaint me with G.M. Hopkins' sublime
poem, which was an enjoyable reunion for me. We can all from time to time
stop doing science and marvel at the Grandeur of God's created universe.
I'm sure Behe does this right along with the rest of us.
Iain.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Apr 24 2003 - 13:56:19 EDT