From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Aug 19 2003 - 09:48:15 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.
-Good Idea
"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."
-I understand your position, but don't necessarily agree with when you think
it's reasonable to invoke intelligent intervention. I think ID can be a
viable hypothesis before a universal negative is absolutely proven.
"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."
-Do you believe in Christ's resurrection? Why wait to believe that it
happened before you know how it happened (i.e. did the neurons start firing
first and then the heart, or did the heart start pumping and lungs start
breathing then when there was enough oxygen for the neurons, or was it all
at once?) I think what you've said is reasonable, but if mankind never
discovers an explanation for IC, then ID will always remain within the realm
of possibility regardless if a person uses parsimony or not.
"See also Mayr, _This is Biology_, p67-69 for a discussion of
pluralism in biological explanations."
-It would be most useful, as this is an email listserve and I already have a
long list of books/projects going, if you could boil down the ideas from
sources you are quoting to help us understand you. I'm interested in
discussions, but I already need to read No Free Lunch after conversations
with Howard.
"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."
-Sure, but in general we focus our conversations on IC, and these other
issues don't shed any light on the problem.
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.
-Davids' comment either meant that fibonacchi patterning and shell formation
are not IC, or even if they were, IC is not difficult or problematic in
trying to explain structures derived by evolution (whether RM&NS or
population genetics or whatever.) I disagree.
_________________________________________________________________
<b>MSN 8:</b> Get 6 months for $9.95/month.
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 19 2003 - 09:50:44 EDT