There's a section in the latest post I'd like to address...
[Big snips...]
Mike:
:>This need for proof is very interesting. Many deny
:>outright that design is behind any biological feature, thus
:>what is needed (I suppose) is some form of certain proof of design.
:>Isn't there plenty of room between a complete denial of X
:>and certain proof of X? If one is going to eventually adopt
:>a belief about X, doesn't it *begin* with suspicions, then
:>evolves into a growing conviction in light of a pattern of
:>evidence? I've never seen anyone jump from complete
:>denial to certain proof.
:
:>Tim:
:>No?
:
>Mike:
>Nope, I never have.
:Tim:
:>All it takes is a few well-placed data points.
>I don't agree. The human brain employs both
>bottom-up and top-down processing and, because of this,
>well-placed data points that imply explanation X are often open
>to reinterpretation so that they don't imply X.
The recent discoveries of large planets closer to stars than
was previously thought possible seems to counter that suggestion.
Tom Cech nailed the catalytic RNA story pretty tight too, in
a few papers with well-designed experiments (Yeah, Sidney Altman's
work was important but I think Cech's experiments hit the mark
squarely -- Man, they were elegant).
I grant that there are cases where results may ambiguous
for quite some time, but there definitely are others where
the case gets nailed shut in a very short time.
>This
>is all the more true when we are talking about very
>ancient, nonobservable, contingent events. History
>is rarely captured by a few well-placed data points,
>especially when the interpretation of history goes
>well beyond an objective analysis of history (as these
>origin debates do). It's comforting to pretend we humans
>can objectively place data points with everything, but
>I see very little evidence of this.
Yes, there is no one in this thread that meets
these criteria.
:Tim:
:>And we're not starting from complete denial here (at
:>least I'm not), but from an apparent lack of positive evidence.
Mike:
>You may not have complete denial, but I think that this
>is indeed the effective state given what you yourself have
>said to be possible examples of positive evidence. Thus, when
>you claim there is a lack of positive evidence for ID, it
>simply means there are no black obelisks (or something
>analogous). Given what you expect from ID if it is true,
>I'm not sure why you think you would be able to perceive
>positive evidence if it exists. Reread my point. What
>data could exist that would cause you to *suspect* ID?
Well, that is the problem, isn't it? You think there are
conditions where ID may be a possible explanation. I do too
-- ID could be a possible explanation for *anything*. But
given current data, why should one *suspect* ID? You say
"CSI". I say, "natural mechanisms can generate CSI." You
say, "Yes, but perhaps not all". And around it goes.
I just don't see a good enough case to trigger my suspicions.
You do. Either of us could be wrong; my trigger could be
set too high, missing real signals, or yours could be too low,
activating on noise. Tell you what, let's wait a few more
decades and see who is right. I've offered to bet with Johnson
that ID "theory" will not revolutionize the study of life's
historical development and I'll let you go in on the wager
too. (Caveat: Phil hasn't responded).
That said...
Let me suggest some conditions which would could trigger my
suspicions. Correlations across groups where there are no strong
naturalistic reasons to connect the relationships? For example,
if groups of species could be found to fit an arrayed pattern
much like the periodic chart of the elements, then I might say
that there was reason to suspect ID. That's because an arrayed
pattern would be unexpected, assuming common descent with
modification. Signature sequences may also trigger suspicion --
after all, that's how many genetically modified organisms are
currently being identified and tracked. It would depend on how
the sequences come out. This certainly wouldn't be proof of ID,
but it should trigger deeper investigation. Other ID'ists have
suggested mining the sequence database for evidence and I agree
that it would be a reasonable place to look.
If we found evidence of a ancient spaceship, and the date of
burial corresponded to a major shift or emergence in groups of
organisms, then I would also become more thoughtful of possible
intelligent intervention. Note that finding the spaceship
wouldn't be proof of intelligent design, but at least finding
a spaceship (or evidence of past landing) presents us with the
information that an agent *capable* of intervention encountered
the earth in the past. It greatly increases the feasibility
of ID.
>I'm not asking for something that would convince you or
>prove ID, just data that might raise suspicions of ID.
>If you can't cite what it is that would merely raise suspicions,
>I'm afraid your brain might have been conditioned to
>miss any evidence of ID that might exist (you will concede
>only the black obelisks, etc.).
Actually, I'm trying to filter evidence. But I do concede more
than "proofs." BTW - Is it bothersome to you that you can't
produce monoliths or auxiliary evidence of the existence of
a designer to corroborate hunches about design?
>I should make it clear I am not trying to be offensive here;
>I just think we all need to be quite aware of how it is that
>we actually approach the world.
Certainly. And I definitely have a higher threshold for
ID-triggering than you when it comes to biology.
Granted there is the possibility that ID occurred at some point
in earth's history. However, as I've said before, I carry some
prejudice against this explanation because: 1) We have no physical
evidence that a designer actually landed on earth at anytime
in the past -- Hence we haven't seen the designer, 2) No positive
model of how this yet unobserved designer operated has been
presented for evaluation, 3) No truely ID-distinguishing events
have been identified.
So, were we to approach this as a criminal case we still don't have:
1) A suspect.
2) A motive.
3) Evidence that would connect the suspect to the "crime".
4) Identification of the "crime".
Is there a "case"? I'll concede the possibility but you'll have to
do better than what's been presented up until now. Go for it.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)