(Thanks for raising this issue. David, I might be reading things into
your arguments that aren't really there. Perhaps you meant something very
mild by the term "paradigm blindness." But for the sake of discussion,
I'm going to respond to a _strong_ version of the "paradigm blindness"
argument.)
-------------------------------------------
> <LH< I'd like to see some ID-biology criteria advanced which is
> both specific (specific like "irreducible complexity") --- much
> more specific than simply "... natural processes could not do it"
> --- and generally agreed upon by scientists. I believe this can
> be achieved, and it would help advance the discussion. (Perhaps
> you will suggest that the lack of a widely agreed-upon criteria
> (such as irreducible complexity) is due to wilful blindness on
> the part of evolutionists, but I don't want to put words in your
> mouth. :-)>>
DT> Is it realistic to ask for these criteria to be "generally
> agreed"?
IMO, yes.
DT> Surely this is impossible while naturalism reigns!
I disagree!
DT> And it is not necessary to invoke "wilful blindness" - for these
> reductionists are working within a paradigm (so I'll accept a
> diagnosis of paradigm-blindness).
This is an important issue which keeps cropping up in origins debate. How
much "paradigm blindness" goes on in evaluating the evidence?
The majority of biologists today believe that the currently-observed level
of irreducible (biological) complexity COULD have been produced by
evolutionary mechanisms. To what extent is this a reasonable inference
from the data, and to what extent is this "paradigm-blindness"?
Obviously, our paradigms affect how we see the data. On the other hand,
I think that the "paradigm-blindness" card has been overplayed by
some PC/ID-advocates. (Although not necessarily by David. :-)
O.k., there are few totally committed Naturalists out there who will
continue to believe in Naturalism no matter what evidence is produced.
Let's forget about the fanatics, and concentrate on the MAJORITY of
agnostic/atheistic scientists out there.
I suggest that some of us do a little experiment: Find half a dozen
biochemists / molecular biologists and ask each of them to specify a
(theoretical) situation which would convince them that humans didn't
evolve (without some intelligent intervention and/or tinkering with the
genetic code). Ask them not to offer "extreme" examples. Instead,
challenge them to think of _potentially_ realizable data. (To give one
semi-extreme example, a molecular biologists might specify that if 10
not-yet-sequenced genes in humans are found to be identical to dog
sequences but very different from sequences in all primates, that would
convince him that someone "tinkered" with the human genome.)
Even though those biologists evaluate all _currently_available_ data with
the marcoevolutionary paradigm, they will all be able to suggest specific
scientific data which --- if confirmed --- would convince them to toss
that paradigm in favor of one which included occasional intelligent
tinkering.
That is why I think it is possible to achieve some "generally agreed"
criteria for I.D.
---------------------------------------------
DT> Later, on the theme of "Observability and testability", Loren writes:
>
> > >LH> I wouldn't QUITE say that ID and neo-Darwinism are "in the
> > same category." IMO, the basic difference is this: neo-Darwinism
> > must prove that natural mechanisms are adequate to account for
> > biological history; ID must prove that natural mechanisms are
> > INadequate. In one sense, ID has a much more difficult task,
> > since it must exhaustively examine all natural processes to prove
> > its point. However, if ID succeeds, it will have _convincingly_
> > shown that intelligence was involved. On the other hand, even
> > IF neo-Darwinism succeeds, it will NOT have shown that
> > intelligence was NOT behind the process.>>
DT> But within a reductionist paradigm, ID will never prove that
> natural mechanisms are inadequate! From the perspective of ID,
> reductionists will never prove that their natural mechanisms are
> adequate. (I leave, for the present, the thought that neo-
> Darwinism is not inconsistent with intelligence).
True, you cannot "prove" a paradigm is wrong from within that paradigm.
However, most scientists are willing to step outside their paradigms from
time to time, and most scientists can specify data which would make them
seriously question their paradigm.
Again, let's forget about the few reductionist-fanatics out there, and
let's talk about the MAJORITY of scientists out there who currently use
the reductionist paradigm on all currently-available data. I am convinced
that certain kinds of genetic homology data (or non-homology data) would
convince all but the fanatics that ID is the superior paradigm.
Conversely, although I personally believe that the carbon and oxygen atoms
were "designed," I am also convinced by the data that they were assembled
from component pieces by natural mechanisms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"... Another casualty of applied metaphysics." | Loren Haarsma
--Hobbes (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu