From: Gary Collins (gwcollins@algol.co.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 07 2003 - 13:47:39 EST
Hi Denyse,
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 06:56:40 -0500, Denyse O'Leary wrote:
> Gary Collins wrote:
>>
>> I generally agree with this. I'm not especially an advocate of ID myself. I sympathise with
>> their views to the extent that I believe it is certainly possible that God (aka the IDer)
>> specifically intervened in some way at some points in evolutionary history. If this is the
>> case, then in my opinion - and it is only my opinion - this would most likely have been
>> accomplished by 'rigging' probabilities, such that an extremely improbable event
>> becomes actualised, and as such would not be distinguishable from a 'purely natural
>> process' (another loaded phrase).
>
>
>Yes, that is certainly one way. And, if so, you would be able to detect
>it as evidence, not only through the eyes of faith.
How so? Just because an event is unlikely doesn't mean it couldn't "just have
happened." All you could do is suggest some kind of confidence limits (or so
it seems to me). Unless, perhaps, there is a large number of such events.
>
>
>ID should not, in my opinion be viewed as part of
>> science, because it seems to me that it will never be possible to show that something IS
>> intelligently designed - in the sense of being specifically manipulated in some way.
>
>
>The substance of Michael Behe's argument is that irreducibly complex
>features of a cell are just such an example, and, conveniently, they can
>be studied in detail.
I have read "Darwin's Black Box." I found it interesting and stimulating.
However, one point that seems to have been overlooked is that a feature
that is irreducibly complex _now_ might not have been so in the past.
What I mean is, it may have derived from a non-IC precursor by the loss
of some of its elements - similar to the way that a scaffolding is removed
once a building work has been completed. I'm not a biochemist myself,
much less a paleo-biochemist (if such exist!!) but I did study medicine
for a year and am not totally unfamiliar with some of the issues involved.
I don't know myself whether what I have outlined above is feasible or not,
but I don't believe I have ever seen this objection addressed.
>
>As a
>> result, (a) if something is declared to be 'IDed' the research effectively stops there, as you
>> can't then investigate the details, at least not by a scientific process; and (b) wouldn't
>> they look sheepish if someone subsequently shows the example to be not ID after all.
>
>
>Well, first, irreducible complexity (IC) is an ID prediction, and, as
>you have just asserted, it is falsifiable. That is the risk of making a
>real prediction.
OK, that's fair enough.
>
>Please do remember this e-mail exchange the next time that someone tells
>you that ID does not make testable or falsifiable predictions.
So it makes "negative" predictions - e.g. that no pathway will be found
for 'X.' This, whilst not (in theory at least) impossible to falsify, does not
offer any affirmation; it could be just a matter of time. Does ID make any
"positive" predictions, that could be tested and so single it out from any
other line of approach? And it seems that it would be impossible to falsify
ID itself - they would just move the goalposts. To some extent that's what
happens with many theories, of course.
>
>You seem more worried about them making predictions than I am, and I am
>a supporter.
>
>I am not clear why research would stop in any event. There is lots to
>know about the bacterial flagellum other than the fact that it may be
>irreducibly complex. The only sort of research I can think of that would
>likely be useless, if the flagellum is indeed IC, is the time spent
>trying to figure out how it could have happened by a slow series of
>natural selections operating on random mutations.
That's just what I was getting at. There's no point looking into the
origin of the bacterial flagellum because it's IC. So no research is
done. The big question, of course is the little word 'if.' If it is decided
that it _is_ IC, then the only way it could be proved otherwise is if
somebody outside the ID paradigm were to show it to be so. That's
what I really meant - by stipulating that something is IC, you're
resigning yourself to not being able to find out any more about its
origins. But there's always a chance that your 'if' may have been
wrong.
We would be just as
>well off to try to figure out how computers evolved that way.
>
>> OTOH I think it is extremely important to avoid dogmatism, and to keep in mind at all
>> times that all our theories, even the best ones, are not as watertight as we might like them
>> to be, and perhaps to think a bit more about what the confidence levels for a particular
>> theory, or part of a theory, might be. To weigh up pros and cons a bit more. I'm sure we
>> all know this and assume it as an 'unsaid' but sometimes in our discourses we might
>> speak as though we have forgotten this, and I am, I think, as guilty in that regard as
>> anyone else! And it's important too that when we don't know something, for scientists
>> to honestly admit as much. Our methodological naturalism, whilst extremely useful,
>> even indispensible, may in the end turn out to have its limitations.
>
>
>Well, now you've hit on a key issue, in my view, Gary. The main point of
>MN is that it excludes design from the definition of science, and posit
>law and chance instead. Either a thing "must happen" or it "just
>happened." The key question is, if design exists, is the exclusion of
>design useful? Is it even defensible?
Yes, I believe it is - for _science._ Science can - and should - posit gaps for which it
is admitted that there is no really good scientific explanation. These will be areas
for research. But I think that an approach better than bringing design into science
is to emphasize that scientific knowledge is not the only legitimate form of
knowledge; that there may be things that cannot be (satisfactorily) explained by
science (can science really explain what makes a sunset beautiful?) and that there
are other ways of looking at the world which may be equally valid in their own
way (e.g. theology). I also think it important that there should be those outside of
science as such, but having a knowledge of science, who can, as it were, stand back
from science and comment on the reasonableness of the explanations it provides
(e.g. philosophers of science may fall into this category). In my opinion ID more
properly belongs to the realms of philosophy/theology than it does to science.
/Gary
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 07 2003 - 08:48:13 EST