Picking up on the conversation:
Tim:
:>All it takes is a few well-placed data points.
Me:
>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.
Tim:
>The recent discoveries of large planets closer to stars than
>was previously thought possible seems to counter that suggestion.
True, but top-down processing was no obstacle here as
almost everyone has long believed in the existence
of planets outside the solar system.
>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).
This is a little better, as top-down processing led most
to think only proteins could be catalysts. But in this case,
we are dealing with regularities that happen today, thus
direct manipulations led to evidence that was practically
impossible to deny. But when dealing with origins and
the question of ID, we don't have access to such direct
testing. Nor is there a good reason why we should, even
if ID is behind some origin events. Thus, the possible
truth of ID is likely to be blocked by the powerful
top-down processing that excludes ID as an explanation.
[snip]
Me:
>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.
Tim:
>Yes, there is no one in this thread that meets
>these criteria.
It's not just this thread, as I know of no one
who meets these criteria. This is important to
point out as the public tends to buy into the
"objective scientist" myth.
: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?
Tim:
>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*.
My interests do not stop with possible explanations, but
instead move on to plausible explanations (with the hope
of arriving at probably explanations). ID could possibly
be used to explain anything, but I don't think it is a plausible
explanation for many things (such as a pseudogene or random
mistakes in DNA replication).
>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.
No, I don't say that perhaps not all CSI can be generated by
CSI. I raise the question whether original CSI was not generated
by CSI. It's not a matter of what can and cannot happen.
>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.
Well stated! Let that sink in because that is exactly where
I am at. So the question for me is not whether design can
be proved, but whether my trigger is set too low. How do
I determine this? Don't you see it's not by looking for a silver
bullet test? It amounts to this: If my trigger is being set off
by noise, then the things that set off the trigger should not
be useful in creating a larger hypothesis/theory that pulls
things together in a fruitful manner. Noise tends to mean
garbage in - garbage out.
>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).
I wouldn't bet against you on this one. Science will not
be revolutionized by ID simply because ID, even if true,
will never gain access into science. To allow ID into
science is not about something revolutionary *in* science,
but would amount to a revolution *about* science and
thus science as we know it is incapable of conducting it.
It would be interesting if sociologists ever got around to
studying how science is done to determine the extent to
which non-scientific considerations dictate the approach
of science. For example, imagine there was real evidence
that a minority race was genetically inferior in terms of
intelligence. Do you really think these data would be
explored and developed into a theory on the scientific
playing field such that it would be taught in classrooms?
Think about it.
Now, as I see it, ID carries strong theological connotations.
It need not, mind you, but it does. And given that the
majority of scientists are atheists, along with the fact
that methodological naturalism has entrenched itself
as a necessary ground rule of science, ID will no more
likely change science than some grass-roots organization
will once again outlaw alcohol. If Darwin makes it
possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist (as
Dawkins said) and scientists must constantly remind
themselves they are not looking at design (as Crick said),
that is simply NOT an atmosphere which will be changed
by a few well placed data points. Humans are much too
complex than this.
But if you still want to wager, let's deal with something
more realistic. You wrote:
"However, as a research program I don't see ID as viable
alternative at this time."
I'd wager that in twenty years, ID becomes a viable
alternative as a research guide. That is, ID will be used
to suggest experiments whose results will either weaken
or support the general hypothesis of ID. Of course, any
ID scientists would have to conduct and report these
results by dressing them in naturalistic explanations,
but in alternative literature, the same authors might
eventually spell out the role of ID and the implications
of the results as they pertain to ID.
I think that instead of a "revolution," Steve has a
more accurate vision (although I'm not sure about any "triumphs"):
" But all this will take time, maybe several generations. Darwin in his
Origin
said that his theory would not take hold until all the existing scientists
died
off and he was right. Darwinism did mot really take hold until the 1930's,
70 years after Darwin. ID might take as long, or even longer to become
established. Those who complain that ID is not doing anything lack
historical perspective. I am 53 and I doubt if I will live to see ID's
triumph.
But I do expect to see ID steadily making progress."
I'll may respond to the rest later.
Mike