> Pim posted the following quotation from M. Behe:
>
> "One last charge must be met: Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent
> design is not falsifiable. He's wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist
> need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any
> other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that
> happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar
> or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical
> design would be neatly disproved."
Can I first draw attention to Behe's reference to "natural
selection". IMO, it is not the concept of "evolution" per se that
Behe objects to, but he does perceive Darwinian evolution as a
natualistic mechanism that appears to be the antithesis of design.
> Thanks, Pim, for posting this. It makes perfectly clear that what Behe,
> Johnson and colleagues have chosen to label a theory of "Intelligent
> Design" is _in fact_ an hypothesis of "Extranatural Assembly."
I suspect this is an overstatement, and that mechanisms of natural
assembly that were overtly designed would be considered
sympathetically. For example, I woud expect Behe to be sympathetic
to the message presented in Denton's new book: the anthropic
principle does apply to biology and although the mechanisms of
evolution are natural, they are not darwinian.
> In modern usage, to be 'designed' is to be thoughtfully conceptualized for
> the accomplishment of a specifiable purpose. 'Design' is an act of mind
> that is clearly distinguishable from 'assembly,' which is an act of the
> hand (or something equivalent).
I think there is agreement on this.
> The Behe, Johnson, et al, version of ID opens the door to the preachers of
> Naturalism (broad worldview definition) to say, if life forms evolved, then
> there need be no Creator-Designer. The promotion of this version of ID
> will, I believe, turn out to be highly counterproductive for Christians
> (and other theists) in their apologetic engagement with Naturalism.
The door has always been open! Naturalists have been using
the Darwinian mechanism of evolution to object to a Creator-Designer
for a long time! It is possible to have a reconciliation between
"origins according to natural processes" and theism - but in my view
it will look rather like the position developed by Michael Denton:
adoption of the anthropic principle to biology and rejection of
the proposed darwinian mechanisms. Those theists who continue to
seek for a reconciliation of darwinism with the concept of design
will need to come up with something much more substantial than they
have to date.
Best wishes,
David J. Tyler.