From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Tue Nov 11 2003 - 19:28:06 EST
>From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> Biochemical ID theories seem to be of one
> sort and that is to make a prediction which cannot be disproved at present
> but may in the future. They sound good because they are wrapped up in amino
> acids and complicated sums (math) but when you unwrap them they are God of
> the Gaps pure and simple.
Agreed. As I have said on numerous occasions (but apparently not believed by
Denyse):
The ID argument is never any stronger than this: "In the absence of
a complete and detailed (causally specific) history of the natural formation
of X, it is logically permissible to posit that X was formed (at least for
the
first time) by the non-natural, form-imposing action of some unidentified,
unembodied, choice-making agent."
"Logically permissible" falls far short of "convincingly demonstrated."
Here's another way to state the basic ID argument: IF the real world of
atoms, molecules, cells and organisms can do no more than the computational
model I posit (equipped with a limited menu of formational capabilities and
dressed with phantom probabilities or gedanken-experiment bits), THEN the
first actualization of certain biotic systems by natural causes is
impossible and I am free to posit the necessity of episodes of non-natural
form-imposing interventions by an unidentified, unembodied, choice-making
agent.
The key is to pay attention to the big IF.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 11 2003 - 19:32:36 EST