From: Steve Petermann (steve@spetermann.org)
Date: Wed Sep 24 2003 - 18:11:57 EDT
Michael wrote:
> Can anyone give me one example where ID has been fruitful in science? I
> cannot think of one example.
Sure. It has forced Darwinists to look a lot work harder at how
microbiological evolution works. Any challenge to current theory in science
creates an impetus for new creativity. Interestingly enough research by
IDers has also forced them to look harder at Darwinian processes.
For an example of some very professional and civil debates on ID and
Darwinism check out the Brainstorms forum:
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-6.html
This is a no nonsense discussion scientific forum on the emergence of
complexity. Amazingly there is none of the usual rhetoric and ad hominem
that has surrounded the debate.
Steve Petermann
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
To: "Steve Petermann" <steve@spetermann.org>; "Howard J. Van Till"
<hvantill@chartermi.net>; "ted davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>;
<asa@calvin.edu>; <kbmill@ksu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: RFEP & ID
> Can anyone give me one example where ID has been fruitful in science? I
> cannot think of one example.
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Petermann" <steve@spetermann.org>
> To: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@chartermi.net>; "ted davis"
> <tdavis@messiah.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>; <kbmill@ksu.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 6:36 PM
> Subject: Re: RFEP & ID
>
>
> > Howard wrote:
> > > I would argue that its remarkable fruitfulness as the working
> > > assumption for the historical sciences for a century or more should be
> > taken
> > > as an indication (not a proof, of course) that the universe actually
has
> > the
> > > nature described by the RFEP.
> >
> > I would suggest that the <fruitfulness as a working assumption> is
exactly
> > why science should take an interest in ID. Seems to me that what the
RFEP
> > assumption did was not contribute directly to specific advances in
science
> > but instead promoted the continued search for natural causes to
phenomenon
> > instead of attributing some anomalous data to the supernatural. What
RFEP
> > did in affect is continually drive science to challenge itself and
> > investigate further. At this point in time this is also what ID
concepts
> > are doing. What ID says to scientists is, when confronted with problems
> of
> > causation in biology, don't just assume natural causation and stop. Look
> > further.
> >
> >
> > > Given his additional argumentation that science will never be
> > > able to do this because the joint effect of all natural causes (both
> known
> > > and unknown) is incapable of actualizing a bacterial flagellum,
Dembski
> > > counts this as evidence that RFEP is false.
> >
> >
> > Dembski's opinions and speculations don't count as evidence.
> >
> >
> > > I suspect that biologists will never be able to construct a causally
> > > specific account that would satisfy advocates of ID. Some critical
> detail
> > > would always be declared missing; plausibility arguments, no matter
how
> > > reasonable, could always be declared to be less than convincing. I
will,
> > > however, defer to biologists for more commentary on your question
> >
> >
> >
> > For those IDists who are primarily motivated by political or religious
> > reasons, you are probably right, they will never acquiesce(just like the
> > YEC's ). However, I have run across some researchers who seem to be
> > objectively tackling the plausibility of ID in good scientific
faith(Mike
> > Gene for one).
> >
> > However, if Darwinian biologists are *not* able to reasonably line out
in
> > detail *some* complex biological designs it will prove ID. Obviously if
> > very intelligent human designers cannot figure out how to make a
flagellum
> > using a Darwinian model with all they know, how in the world could
> > unintelligent natural forces do it, even over millions of years. It's
> going
> > to be a very interesting decade as this unfolds.
> >
> > Steve Petermann
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 24 2003 - 18:14:42 EDT