Re: Fibbonacci and other mathematical patterns in shells

From: Sarah Berel-Harrop (sec@hal-pc.org)
Date: Mon Aug 18 2003 - 00:43:13 EDT

  • Next message: Don Winterstein: "Re: A "God" Part of the Brain?"

    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