Loren's comments on 17th January are a welcome input to the
discussion.
LH: "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."
In principle, this is an acceptable experiment. However, the
question is one that is never asked within the orthodox paradigm
- so I'm not sure the reactions from the half-dozen would be
meaningful.
Perhaps the first question might be - do you accept the premise
of the experiment? That is, would ANY evidence be allowed
against evolution? This seems to be the main thrust of Dembski's
pulsar (quoted by Stephen in his post of 17th Jan) - a
hypothetical situation which Dembski argues allows ID to be
considered a legitimate scientific theory.
But then the half-dozen are faced with a problem: what
constitutes a non-extreme example which would convince them? I
submit that this question is alien to the contemporary mind! My
prediction is that the examples will be either extreme or
unconvincing (so that naturalistic explanations will be attempted
- even for the non-extreme case you suggest).
I personally have a problem with this kind of question - because
I cannot relate it to the world around me (even though I am an
advocate of intelligent design!) Dembski's pulsar is not the way
God works! Design is to be found everywhere - not in the
extreme, nor the non-extreme! Design is in the "ordinary" and
familiar ingredients of the world around us.
Rather than ask whether these people can think of such a
compelling example, it might be more interesting to get them to
assess the arguments of "Darwin on Trial". In this book, they
are faced with a challenge: that there is no satisfactory natural
explanation of origins. The data/evidences do not warrant the
conclusions of evolutionary biologists. It seems to me that this
is where evidences of paradigm blindness will be revealed.
As a follow-up, maybe Walter Remine's "The Biotic Message" could
be used. Are the evidences of design (the Creator's message)
really so prevalent?
LH: "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."
I am all for encouraging this - with the proviso that we are not
looking for our design signatures and messages, but God's. I
hope you are right. But do you really find much evidence of it
within the evolutionary biology community?
I want to comment on Loren's other post of 17th - but today's
time is gone!
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***