From: Steve Petermann (steve@spetermann.org)
Date: Wed Sep 24 2003 - 09:59:24 EDT
Howard wrote:
> As far as I can tell, ID and the RFEP are considered incompatible. One of
> the fundamental tenets of the ID position is that the formational economy
of
> the universe is incomplete (unable to actualize certain biotic systems)
and
> that the gaps in it (formed by missing formational capabilities) are
> empirically verifiable.
I don't see how ID can be empirically verifiable either. However, it seems
to me that RFEP is in the same boat? Since we cannot directly observe the
evolution of a flagellum(or some other complex system), an inference must be
made instead. Of course, science is driven by challenges to inference. ID
claims that RFEP cannot account for certain types of complex systems. That
presents a difficult challenge for Darwinians. It would mean that they would
have to make a detailed compelling case of reverse engineering what ID calls
a "specifically complex" or "irreducibly complex" system. I don't know if
someone has already done that(I would be interest in that) but Franklin
Harold, a professor emeritus of cell biology at Colorado State University.
said in _The Way of the Cell_ Oxford University Press(2001 p.205) that
"There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any
biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." Is
this just an impossible task to do? If not, seems to me Darwinian proponents
could put a quick end to the debate by producing a few such examples. My
guess is that something like that is not forthcoming and to this point its
all just a bunch of handwaving on both sides with no real resolution in
site.
Steve Petermann
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@chartermi.net>
To: "Steve Petermann" <steve@spetermann.org>; "ted davis"
<tdavis@messiah.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>; <kbmill@ksu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: RFEP & ID
> >From: "Steve Petermann" <steve@spetermann.org>
>
> > I'm curious about the compatibility of ID with your RFEP. As I
understand
> > it, your system does not rule out supernatural activity. Does this mean
> > that RFEP is amenable to the possibility of some sort of ongoing divine
> > intelligent design activity?
>
> As far as I can tell, ID and the RFEP are considered incompatible. One of
> the fundamental tenets of the ID position is that the formational economy
of
> the universe is incomplete (unable to actualize certain biotic systems)
and
> that the gaps in it (formed by missing formational capabilities) are
> empirically verifiable.
>
> From the standpoint of the RFEP, supernatural intervention is unnecessary
as
> a means for actualizing any physical structure or form of life that is an
> integral part of the universe's formational history. That being the case,
> all of ID's argumentation for the inadequacy of the universe's formational
> capabilities for actualizing certain biotic structures (like the bacterial
> flagellum) goes out the window and ID advocates have no "scientific" case
> for justifying the insertion of DI's (divine interventions) into the
> formational history scenario. And remember that, according to ID
advocates,
> the case for ID is purely scientific.
>
> Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 24 2003 - 10:02:24 EDT