> Del,
>
> [deletions]
> > So suppose that some design theorist did think that everything was in
> > fact designed, and was unable to specify conditions of something being
> > undesignable by God. Exactly what is supposed to follow?
>
> The question is, "what good is it?" In a naturalistic framwork, you can
> recognize design by pattern and appearance _coupled_ with process. That
> is an important point that people often forget (process). You just point
> point to something and say "that's designed." You have to do much more
> than that. For example, the only way we know that Glenn's flutes are
> designed is because 1) it has patterns consistant with tools - testable,
> 2) the design patterns are similar to objects we know are designed, i.e.
> modern flutes, etc. - testable, 3) we have evidence of the possible
> designer - testable, 4etc. With supernatural explanations, do you have
> any kind of rigor at all? For example, do we have evidence of the
> designer - that's religion dependant. Do we have evidence of "tools?"
> no. Do we have anything other than pattern or appearance? No. As I
> mentioned to Jim, appearance by itself is an extremely bad guide.
You make a good point about "process." I'd like to add two sub-points.
(1) There _is_ a proposed process (or class of processes) in ID: de novo
creation or supernatural rearrangement of existing material. This
process is not repeatable or testable in the way human processes (e.g.
tools to make flutes) are testable; that certainly limits their
usefulness for predictions. There IS historical evidence for this
process, although, as you point out, it is religion-dependant evidence,
which limits its persuasive power in a multi-religious discipline such
as science.
Is there any rigor at all [to ID]? That brings us to point 2:
2) Failure of known (natural) processes. (I don't personally believe
that natural-process explanations have failed, but ID-advocates do, so
I'm arguing their point here.) ID's "prediction" is a negative one ---
that natural-process explanations will continue to fail. That's not a
lot of "rigor," only a marginally helpful prediction, but it is
something.
The failure of "testable, repeatable" (natural) processes to explain the
phenomenon, plus the historical evidence for a non-repeatable processes
which IS capable of producing the phenomenon, should be enough to give
ID a chair at the discussion table, even if its only predictions so far
are negative ones.
Perhaps ID theory is at that stage where Sherlock Holmes has just
perceived the hand of Moriarty in the London underworld. No single
petty crime is suspicious in itself, but the overall pattern --- once
one perceives there is a pattern --- is unmistakenly intelligent, (even
if the processes by which he achieves it are still unknown), and there
is only one mind in all of London capable such a feat. Holmes does not
yet understand the pattern well enough to predict when the next crime
will be or where the loot from previous hauls is hidden, but he knows
there is a pattern there.
Literary analogies. Such fun.
Tom asks:
> So, is it [ID] scientifically useful?
In its current state, ID's usefulness would pretty much be limitted to
warning scientists away from unproductive lines of research, so they can
concentrate on productive ones. If ID is true, its usefulness may
increase as the patterns are better discerned.
Loren Haarsma