>Steve J.
>> BTW, I am interested that you seem to embrace the "false alternative"
>> that Brian accuses me of? If "no known natural mechanisms could
>> account for this event", ie. "there are empirically sound reasons for
>> ruling out all known natural mechanisms", you seem to see this as
>> evidence for a "supernatural" origin?
>
LH:==
>Yes, if I am pretty sure that "no known natural mechanisms could account
>for [an] event," I see this as evidence for a SUPERnatural event (or I
>MIGHT prefer "unknown natural mechanism," depending heavily on the type of
>"event" and several theological factors --- I could give you an historical
>example of this if you are interested).
>
I would certainly be interested in this historical example. Examples
are often the keys to reaching some understanding or agreement.
My objection to the above is that just determining whether *known*
mechanisms can account for something is a really tall order. WRT
the origin of life, science is a long long way off from determining
this. The extrapolation from no *known* naturalistic mechanisms
can account for this to *no* naturalistic mechanisms can account
for this is even more problematic.
Yockey gives an interesting example along these lines:
Science often finds itself attempting an explanation that is
far beyond its capability at the time. Many examples of this
are discussed by Kuhn (1957, 1970). We know that life originated
on Earth and we know the approximate timespan in which this
occurred. But we are frustrated in finding a means by which it
happened. It is worth reading Sir Arthur Eddington's (1926)
chapter entitled 'The source of stellar energy'. By the
application of the basic laws of thermodynamics and of quantum
theory as known at the time, he correctly put his finger on
the main source of stellar energy, namely the burning of hydrogen.
He was frustrated at finding a mechanism by which that might
occur but, to his great credit, he did not resort to unfounded
speculation and factoids (they only simulate facts). We are
in the same situation as Eddington with regard to the origin
of life. The currently accepted scenarios are untenable and
the solution to the problem will not be found by continuing to
flagellate these scenarios.
-- H.P. Yockey, _Information Theory and Molecular Biology_,
Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 291.
This goes along very well with Yockey's repeated quotation of
some baseball player (can't remember who off hand)
"If you don't know what you're talking about, shut up"
One reason I gave the Deaddog quotes earlier was to further
illustrate this problem and also to illustrate how science
usually works. One cannot make a sweeping test of whether
natural mechanisms can account for the origin of life. One
must introduce very specific hypotheses and then test these
rigorously. If these fail then one can try some other idea.
But the interesting thing about Deaddog's assessment was that
these failures were not really complete failures. The process
of testing one idea suggests some other idea and so on. Useful
ideas that pave the way to other useful ideas, as Deaddog puts
it. I would dare say that some of these useful ideas could not
even have been imagined 30 years ago.
Here is where the argument from the false alternative comes in.
If one wants to use this argument then one has to provide strong
grounds for saying all possible naturalistic explanations fail.
I personally feel that setting up this either/or argument
just plays into the Naturalists hands. If scientists are able to
show that naturalistic mechanisms can account for the origin
of life and that they do so with probability near one under
suitable prebiotic conditions which likely existed on the
earth 4 billion years ago then Naturalism deserves to rule.
Hogwash. This is also the argument from the false alternative
since science is unable to establish that the alternatives are
mutually exclusive.
I mentioned above the importance of examples. What really tells
against this form of argument is to observe how it is used.
For example, Steve wants to set up chance and intelligent
design as mutually exclusive alternatives, never mind that
chance is just one of many naturalistic scenarios that have
been proposed for the origin of life and never mind that it
was discredited in the literature 30 years ago.
Another good example is Brian Goodwin. Steve quoted one of
several "inconsistencies" that Goodwin mentioned wrt
orthodox neo-Darwinism. It is very useful to look how
Goodwin himself used these problems. Did he argue that
these problems provided evidence for his own view? No,
and had he done so I'm sure Steve would have been all
over him. The problems with the orthodox view were presented
as a motivation to pursue another theory that might better
explain the data. Now the really hard work begins.
Let's consider another example along these lines. Steve is
continually (and rightfully) reminding everyone that he is
a PC and not to lump him in with YECs. In his books, Hugh
Ross (a PC) provides a number of arguments against Young
Earth Creationism. Suppose that a TE were to take one of
these and argue that creationism is wrong and thus
theistic evolution must be correct.
========================
Brian Harper | "I can't take my guesses back
Associate Professor | That I based on almost facts
Applied Mechanics | That ain't necessarily so"
Ohio State University | -- Willie Nelson
========================