One thing that seems to be lost in this debate of whether we should
extrapolate our recognition of design in human-made things to believe that
complex things in nature are also designed is that this really says nothing
about the mechanism by which the complex things in nature arise. To believe
that the eye is the result of intelligent design says nothing about the
mechanism of its fabrication. When considering mechanisms, evolution
remains a possible explanation. Thus, recognition of design in nature is
not evidence against evolution.
Steve
======================================================================
I quite agree with this, especially the last sentence, provided that we
understand that "evolution" is the mechanism by which living things arise
and develop over time, and does *not* include metaphysical assumptions that
are often smuggled into the theory.
If one were to admit that we can and have recognized "design in nature", that
would not be evidence against evolution per se, but it *would* IMO count
as evidence against that version of "evolutionism" which holds that the process
is undirected and unanticipated. Of course this is exactly the way the theory
is interpreted and explained by Dawkins, Gould, et al., and the way it
is understood by the majority of practicing scientists, and many in the
general public. So a "recognition of design in nature", if substantiated,
would be (at least) quite significant for a proper interpretation of evolution.
I really think this is one of Behe's main points, Steve. Do you agree?
Stan Zygmunt
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
Valparaiso University
Valparaiso, IN 46383