From: Sarah Berel-Harrop (sec@hal-pc.org)
Date: Mon Aug 18 2003 - 00:43:13 EDT
Let's back up, here, as the messages are getting very long,
and I really am completely unable to parse your comments
in a meaningful way. Let's try with a blank slate.
First, I am not speaking specifically about shells. I had
two basic *general* points that you may agree with or you
may not. I can't tell because you appear to be attempting
to refute them by applying them to the specific case of
the shells. But I don't want to put words in your mouth. My
first point was that the absence of apparent function should not
be taken as prima facie evidence of ID, whether you are
arguing from CSI or using the traditional argument from
design. This is because not all traits require a specific
function to become fixed in a population and in the alternative
the function might be unknown. Accordingly, there is
no reason to invoke "intelligent intervention" unless and
until all of the other possibilities are exhausted (And I
would say not even then, at that point you leave it as
an unknown). Whatever is discovered, and indeed
the unknowns as well, should not be troublesome to
someone who believes in God's continuous involvement
in Creation because his or her belief would in principle not
be contingent upon the periodic occurence of miracles.
There is another possibility. If you think there has been "intelligent
intervention" postulate what it would act like and test it.
Otherwise, you don't need it. I think that's a factor
to consider in parsimony.
You state you are simply arguing that David should
not have said that there was no intelligent intervention
involved in the formation of shells. I agree with you.
I think he should have said something like "no apparent
intelligent intervention".
My second point was that it is inappropriate to set ID
against RM & NS because they are not collectively
exhaustive of all of the possibilities. As an example,
there is an ongoing debate among evolutionary
biologists about the relative importance of mechanisms
other than RM & NS in evolution. See also Mayr,
_This is Biology_, p67-69 for a discussion of
pluralism in biological explanations. It's fairly
clear from reading some of the other posts by
your interlocutors that they are well aware that
there are pluralistic explanations involved in biology,
while they may not explicitly state that. Even if
they were not, it would not make the dialetic correct.
Mayr discusses the problems posed by pluralism
for verification and falsification. Biology is messy.
These were offered as general points and I really do
not know what would be controversial about them.
Do you think shell formation is IC? I'm pretty sure
you have already said you did not. So I don't
see why you brought up IC. I never said
that shell formation is IC, nor did I say that "population
genetics" solves IC. In fact, my suspicion is that if
a system actually *were* IC (and I have some
doubts about the construct itself), the explanation
would tend to be selectionist.
And yes, I have a significant problem with "pop
science" that over-hypes science. I think science
is most useful within limits. There is also a great
deal of "scientism" in the popular culture. Colson
notes it and calls it "Modernism" in _How Now
Shall We Live_. I don't think the solution is
to change the ground rules of science, as Dembski
suggests in the article you don't wish to read.
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 07/30/2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 18 2003 - 00:48:18 EDT