------------------------------------
In an ealier post, I wrote that Intelligent Design would need to
"... exhaustively examine all natural processes to prove its point."
David Tyler responded,
> It seems to me this leaves intelligent design as an option that
> only "wins when all other avenues have been exhausted"
> (a) Will this ever be the case? (see below)
> (b) Does this not leave ID open to the criticism that it thrives
> only in a "God-of-the-gaps" context?
> (c) Does it do justice to the philosophical issues involved?
I agree with your basic point here. ID is more than just "an option which
wins when naturalism fails."
But in order to make progress, I think we should split the issue of ID
into two parts: design-of-component-pieces and method-of-assembly. (For
example, I believe for religious reasons that the component pieces of the
physical and biological world were designed. And I believe that the
philosophical arguments advanced by ID-advocates are very strong arguments
for design-of-component-pieces. But I also believe that the evidence
suggests that the method-of-assembly was via theistic evolution.)
I'll come back to design-of-component-pieces later, but for now I want to
focus on the method-of-assembly question. Let me go out on another limb:
When it comes to method-of-assembly, ID-theory is --- as far as I can
tell --- pretty much restricted to arguing whether natural mechanisms
are adequate or inadequate to explain the data. Philosophical issues
play a very limitted role.
If scientists exhaustively examine all known natural processes and find
them to be inadequate to explain a certain event/process, intelligent
design will be shown (beyond reasonable doubt) to be a superior paradigm
for method-of-assembly. On the other hand, if some natural process is
shown to be adequate, then "natural processes" will be judged to be the
superior paradigm for method-of-assembly.
However, ID does not have to WAIT for either turn of events in order to
enter the discussion. If it _uncertain_ whether natural processes are
adequate or inadequate to explain assembly, ID has a role in the
discussion. Naturalistic processes for abiogenesis (for example) are
extremely speculative. The more speculative the naturalistic
explanations, and the stronger the scientific objections, the stronger the
case is for adopting the ID-paradigm. In this context, when debating
method-of-assembly, the philosophical arguments do play a limitted role in
helping to favor one paradigm over the other. But the lion's share of the
decision is still based upon shared scientific intuition over the adequacy
of naturalistic explanations.
Now let's go back to design-of-component-pieces. On this issue, I believe
that the philosophical arguments are _central_ to the discussion. On this
issue, ID is free from "god-of-the-gaps" criticisms. (Your points b and c
above.)
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
DT> Jim Bell asked whether you could distinguish Anthropic Principle
> design from Intelligent Design. You replied:
> >> Ah, no, I don't think I could distinguish it from
> "intelligent" design. :-)>>
>
> It seems to me that Jim was right to ask the question, and I
> would like to hazard a response.
> Intelligent design is evidenced in, for example, the DNA code,
> where there is no physical or chemical reason for the sequencing,
> and where the sequencing has no direct connection to the
> phenotype. We have raw information, analogous to machine code
> computer software.
I'm intrigued. Can this really _distinguish_ between Anthropic Principle
Design and Intelligent Design? Is it possible to have APD _without_ this
sort of "raw information" built into the system? It's an interesting
idea.
DT> Anthropic Design is evidenced in, for example, the way enzymes
> work: the chemical structure of the enzyme resulting in a precise
> morphology which is appropriate for interacting with a specific
> target material in order to execute a specific chemical reaction.
Some enzymes work this way, but a great many proteins and genes have
multiple targets and multiple functions. Does this undercut your
argument?
You're right, Jim Bell asked a very good question.
I would hazard an opinion that Anthropic Principle Design and Intelligent
Design are --- given our current level of knowledge --- INdistinguishable
as far as design-of-component-pieces is concerned. IMO, philosophical
arguments strongly _favor_ ID over APD in design-of-component-pieces, but
I don't see a way to definitively distinguish them.
However, intelligent method-of-assembly, if it is ever proven, would most
certainly be distinguishable from APD.
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
DT> If we emphasise more the foundations on which science is built,
> then it is possible to say that a science of the natural world
> can be built on naturalistic presuppositions, and that a science
> of the natural world can be built on ID presuppositions. This
> takes ID out of the "god-of-the-gaps" context; it gives freedom
> to explore the concept and to develop the science without having
> to be so defensive about itself.
I agree. But this takes me back to the point of my previous post. If ID
is to be widely accepted as an "alternative paradigm," it will need to
come up with some specific tests/predictions which are (1) different from
naturalism and (2) much more specific than simply, "... natural mechanisms
are inadequate." I think this can be done, but it needs a little more
work.
Thanks for your excellent thoughts, David.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory, there is no difference between | Loren Haarsma
theory and practice, but in practice | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu
there is a great deal of difference. |