From: Iain Strachan \(asa\) (iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com)
Date: Sat Apr 26 2003 - 16:13:10 EDT
George Murphy wrote:
> > ----------------
> > 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).
>
> This statement is already questionable, even without carrying the argument
> farther. It's true that we can't "conclude" that such a structure is
designed in the
> sense of logical implication - but then we can't "conclude" in that sense
that a
> structure is designed if it _can't_ be explained in terms of known natural
laws.
I honestly don't see what you're getting at here George. All observations
we make are subject to error and any conclusions we draw have to be made on
the basis of probability. If I toss a coin 1000 times and it comes up heads
over 900 times, then it is reasonable for me to conclude that the coin is
biased. But if I toss it 10 times and it comes up heads 9 times then it is
not reasonable to conclude that it's biased, because it's not sufficiently
unlikely; there is not enough evidence. But however low the probability,
you can never absolutely rule out coincidence; as in "Hitchhiker's Guide To
The Galaxy", where Douglas Adams describes an "infinite improbability drive"
that could, for example cause all the molecules in the hostesse's dress at a
party to move 1 meter to the left of their normal position. There is
clearly a finite probability of this happening, but it's so vanishingly
improbable that we would be reasonable to conclude that it was a miracle (
Richard Dawkins gives another example in The Blind Watchmaker of a statue
waving its hand at you; which again he would concede is a miracle).
Your second statement; that we can't conclude it is designed if it can't be
explained in terms of natural laws is a more rational attack on the ID
position, but it is not the issue that Roberts was addressing. Roberts was
attacking Behe for showing proper scientific caution and not drawing a
conclusion (making an inference if you prefer) if there is insufficient
data. Furthermore he was wrongly (IMO) suggesting that Behe's lack of a
design inference meant that Behe was excluding God's provenance. But
whether God causes a coin to fall heads once, or the lot to fall on a chosen
person is a theological question, and not one that is susceptible to
scientific analysis.
Iain.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 26 2003 - 16:13:56 EDT