ABSTRACT: Intelligent Design can function as a paradigm (in
parallel with naturalism). Comments are made on the distinction
between design of "method-of-assembly" and
"design-of-component-pieces".
------------------------------------
LH > "However, ID does not have to WAIT ... 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".
I accept the point, and think that abiogenesis is a good example
- as many naturalists (like Crick) have admitted defeat regarding
a plausible scenario on Earth.
However, I want to add that whilst this kind of argument helps
people to "move" from one paradigm to another, it is not a good
basis for developing the ID paradigm. (For committed
naturalists, it will not move them. Crick, for example, would
rather speculate on an extra-terrestrial origin of life than
investigate what ID has to offer).
LH > "In this context, when debating method-of-assembly, the
philosophical arguments do play a limited 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".
It seems to me that Phil Johnson is pursuing this route in
<Darwin on Trial>, where he argues that there is no substantial
scientific evidence supporting Darwinism and that philosophical
presuppositions have a far more dominant role than people
imagine.
LH > "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".
DT > "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".
LH > "I'm intrigued. Can this really _distinguish_ between
Anthropic Principle Design and Intelligent Design? Is it
possible to have Anthropic Principle Design _without_ this sort
of "raw information" built into the system? It's an interesting
idea".
At the moment, I think this distinction is valid. Take, for
example, the case of water. The properties of water are all
understandable in terms of natural law - there is no encoded
information in a molecule of H2O. Yet the mix of properties
water has make it the most remarkable fluid we know - and this
mix is essential for the existence of life on earth. I am happy
to argue Anthropic Principle Design here.
I gave the example of enzymes in my earlier post: the chemical
structure of the enzyme results in a precise morphology which is
appropriate for interacting with a specific target material in
order to execute a specific chemical reaction.
LH > "Some enzymes work this way, but a great many proteins and
genes have multiple targets and multiple functions. Does this
undercut your argument?"
It may weaken it - but I suspect, when we have a clear
understanding of what is actually happening, that it will enhance
the argument. Generally speaking, the complexity of living
things surprises and overwhelms our minds. The situation you
describe reminds me of a case in which it was discovered that the
same stretch of DNA coded for two different proteins - based on
where the sequencing commenced. This "reuse" of code would, of
course, be an example of Intelligent Design rather than APD.
LH > "However, intelligent method-of-assembly, if it is ever
proven, would most certainly be distinguishable from APD".
I think we are agreed here!
LH > "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".
Again, full agreement - "little" being the understatement!
Thanks for your thoughts - including your trailer:
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice,
but in practice there is a great deal of difference".
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***