<<Sorry about following up my own post. It is possible that I was too
rough on Jim. When he concluded his post with "Help me out here"
I thought he said "Help me out this here window", and I was only
too happy to oblige ;-). My general approach is to be blunt about what I'm
thinking. I hope this bluntness doesn't detract from the general points that I
was making, points that need to be addressed by ID'ers, and points
I'm going to continue to make until they are addressed. Also, I did not intend
my remarks as a personal attack on Jim, rather an attack on his approach to
the debate.>>
Fair enough, Brian. I think you know I can be a little blunt, too. I just
don't think I should be made the SUBJECT of messages, as in "Abstract: Jim is
a boob." I AM a boob, but I think everyone would like it if we stayed on
non-personal issues. And I don't mind rhetorical flourishes, either, goodness
knows. So have at it.
<<This implies that the lack of a naturalistic explanation is somehow
a test of ID. This is the argument from the false or missing alternative.
The lack of a naturalistic explanation implies only that a naturalistic
explanation hasn't been found. This lack says nothing about ID.>>
I understand your point. I think what is missing is this: we all operate from
a venue of common experience. Without that, science itself could not exist.
The use of "common sense" is merely an outgrowth of that shared experience.
While it sounds pedestrian, it really is as much a part of the scientific
method as anything else. Indeed, we couldn't operate without it. We woudn't
know what questions to ask or tests to perform, etc.
Now, the ID argument, as I see it, goes like this: Using our common
experience, we are by and large able to detect those systems which are
designed and those which are not (that's really all Paley's argument, still
potent for me, is). And Darwin himself lends validity to the argument, as I've
posted elsewhere. It SEEMS well beyond experience to think this was all
unguided (remember, it was the liar Iago who spouted, "I know not 'seems'!")
Thus, the lack of a naturalistic explanation does NOT leave us merely with the
reasonable conjecture that the explanation hasn't been found yet; we operate
from our common sense and experience about complexity...it seems unreasonable
to even SUPPOSE that such an explanation WILL be found. Sure, it is possible;
but so is ANYTHING possible...Madonna might become a nun
someday...super-intelligent, pan-dimensional mice may be running our entire
show (see Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy). In this sense, nothing
is EVER certain. Our old friend Pascal agrees:
"Thus the skeptics insist, everything is open to doubt. But the same applies
to our ordinary experience. No one can be sure whether he is sleeping or
waking, because when we are dreaming we are firmly convinced we are awake."
But can't live that way. And I think evolution is kind of a walking
dream...the people in it are certain they are awake, which is going to make
their eventual waking a very disturbing occurrence.
Jim