From: Denyse O'Leary (oleary@sympatico.ca)
Date: Fri Aug 01 2003 - 16:21:07 EDT
Howard J. Van Till wrote:
>
> Wrong. Biologists have a number of ideas on what might have happened, but
> are a long way from narrowing the field of reasonable scenarios down to one.
> Your translator seems to be very biased.
Most of the scenarios sound reasonable only in comparison with each
other. OOL people admit that they really don't know.
By the way, if I were a hardline Darwinist, I would point out that
Darwinism is not a theory of origins but of development.
Naturally, it would be nice for Darwinism to also explain origins. In
that case, it would be a biological Theory of Everything. But it does
not have to explain origins in order to be a viable theory of development.
There is nothing unusual about the origins of a thing being quite
different from their development.
For example, babies usually come about through sex, but you can't go
back behind the baby to the sex. (You think you can, but that's because
you knew about sex already.)
For that matter, if the baby is the product of in vitro fertilization,
there was no sex involved. But you wouldn't know that from the baby.
>
>>Thus, science does not have any special expertise in the matter, at present.
>
>
> Can you think of any professional community that has has any more expertise
> on the possibilities of abiogenesis than the scientific community?
Some people would go with religion, but I'd go with art. Artists know
what it is to create something that genuinely did not exist before.
The whole field needs fresh thinking, so far as I can see. Maybe other
disciplines could help with reconceptualizing the problem.
Do we want to know how a random series of collisions of molecules can
produce a life form? Maybe that is not the right question. Or the right
way of putting the question.
>>Of course, science can pronounce on a viable hypothesis, when offered.
>>That is what science is for.
>
>
> What do you mean by "pronounce on"? It sounds like some sort of dogmatic
> assertion. It would be less misleading to say, "The task of science is to
> evaluate any viable hypothesis that is offered."
Okay. We'll put it that way then. But when it comes to allocating
tax-derived research funds, I think that the sense of "judgement" is
unavoidable -- and needed.
>>Right now, naturalistic evolution and panspermia are neck and neck in
>>what looks to me like a race to nowhere.
>
>
> It is my understanding that directed panspermia is considered by most
> biologists to be an ad hoc hypothesis with little scientific merit. Natural
> abiogenesis, on the other hand, is an active research area, although not a
> particularly large one.
Well, the basic problem with panspermia is that it ships the problem
back in time, to a faraway planet. But still the same conundrum.
However, if NASA finds life on Europa or Mars, I bet panspermia will be
dusted off.
>
>>ID is not really in the race, as far as I can see, because ID thinkers
>>claim that intelligent design is detectable.
>
>
> ID is not in the race because it offers no explanation other than "some
> unidentified, unembodied, form-conferring agent did it." Furthermore, ID's
> claims of detectability are, in my judgment, seriously flawed. I do not
> believe they have ever been, or will ever be, successful in proving that
> some particular biotic structure could not possibly have been actualized by
> natural means.
>
What evidence would you accept?
The issue isn't about natural means. It is about whether design is a
real as opposed to an imaginary category of the natural world. If it is
a real category, then it IS one of the natural means.
ID doesn't need to offer any explanation for OOL as yet. ID is in the
happy (but only temporary) position that it can cherry-pick a situation
that demonstrates design. Neither Dembski nor Behe claim that evolution
did not occur.
>
> ID's claim, "does not require a miracle," is as hollow as claims get. If X
> is a non-natural form-conferring intervention by an unidentified,
> unembodied, choice-making agent, then what sort of non-miraculous phenomenon
> could X be?
Design could be a fact of the natural world.
>>The ID people do not need to think about abiogenesis until someone
>>hypothesizes a plausible non-intelligent cause.
>
>
> Why not? Wouldn't it be an ideal opportunity for ID to demonstrate the need
> for non-natural form-conferring intervention by an unidentified,
> unembodied, choice-making agent?
Well, if you want to raise the funds and ask them to take it up, see
what they say.
>
>>Put simply: Because they think that an intelligent cause acts in the
>>universe, they can afford to defer their more difficult problems and
>>concentrate on the easier, more researchable ones where they might
>>detect design.
>
>
> What is your working definition of "design" here and how would it be
> "detected" in an ID research program? What "easy" problems do you have in
> mind?
>
Well, right now, they are looking for irreducible complexity. Even one
instance would probably get them on the map.
>>However, those who want to rule out evidence of detectable design need
>>to address the more difficult problems. It's only fair because they are
>>asking us to abandon an entire line of reasoning -- that the universe
>>shows detectable evidence of design.
>
>
> Critics of ID do not "rule out" (reject, close eyes to, forbid consideration
> of, ....) evidence of detectable "design." Critics of ID, whether theists,
> agnostics or atheists, are saying that ID has so far demonstrated nothing
> more than the unfinished character of the scientific enterprise.
>
Here I must disagree. Darwinists cannot accept design in principle,
Darwin himself said that his theory would fall to the ground if natural
selection could not do everything.
>>Thus, abiogenesis is mainly the problem of those who assert that
>>non-intelligent causes can produce life.
>
>
> Abiogenesis research should be of interest to both advocates and critics of
> ID.
>
My guess is it will go nowhere unless we find life on other planets.
Then everybody will get their shovel into the hole.
>
>
>>Here is what I do know: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the
>>light of biochemistry, and nothing in biochemistry makes sense except in
>>the light of evidence.
>>
>>Evidence is always appreciated.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> Howard van Till
>
-- To see what's new in faith and science issues, go to www.designorchance.com My next book, By Design or By Chance?: The Growing Controversy Over the Origin of Life in the Universe (Castle Quay Books, Oakville) will be published Fall 2003.To order, call Castle Quay, 1-800-265-6397, fax 519-748-9835, or visit www.afcanada.com (CDN $19.95 or US$14.95).
Denyse O'Leary 14 Latimer Avenue Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M5N 2L8 Tel: 416 485-2392/Fax: 416 485-9665 oleary@sympatico.ca www.denyseoleary.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 16:08:52 EDT