On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:54:42 -0800, Chris Cogan wrote:
>CL>...Irreducible complexity may be just the
>>old problem of incipience, but discussion of it has got to be of more
>>scientific interest than ad hominem arguments in a context of old-style
>>creationism-bashing.
>CC>>That's true, I think. I was talking with someone just yesterday about this,
>and that's almost the conclusion I've been approaching. Trying to get
>Stephen to quit misrepresnting Gould, Dawkins, myself, Susan, and anyone
>else who's handy may be a waste of time. In fact, even bothering to point
>these occurrences out to people may be a waste of time.
No "may" about it. It *is* a "a waste of time". It does not matter in the
slightest what Chris imagines my character to be.
All that matter is my *argument* and the most effective thing that Chris
can do is defeat *that* (if he can).
CC>So, in the future, I think I'll just skip over such outrages and go on to
>other issues, etc.
Good! I will remind Chris if he departs from this New Millenium resolution!
CC>I've been thinking about the irreducible complexity issue. *If* some complex
>structure could be shown to be necessarily constructible only in ways that
>are definitely not accessible to evolution, it *would* be proof that
>*something* odd was going on.
Indeed, it would refute *Darwinism*, at least as a general theory for
building biological design.
CC>It would not, of course, support
>non-naturalistic ID theory, but it *could* support naturalistic ID theory.
*Why* would it "not, of course, support non-naturalistic ID theory"? If
Darwinism claims to be the only theory that *even in principle* can
explain the origin of biological design, without a Designer, then if
Darwinism fails to explain design at the molecular level, why is that
not support for the Designer?
And what, pray tell, *is* "naturalistic ID theory"?
CC>In any case, this is an area for research. But it does not help that Jone's
>and Behe pretend to have proved something when they've only just barely
>*begun*.
No one is claiming that ID is "proved". It is a design *inference*. (as
the title of Dembski's book "The Design Inference" make clear).
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I now wish to give some reasons why I regard Darwinism as metaphysical,
and as a research programme. It is metaphysical because it is not testable.
One might think that it is. It seems to assert that, if ever on some planet we
find life which satisfies conditions (a) and (b), then (c) will come into play
and bring about in time a rich variety of distinct forms. Darwinism,
however, does not assert as much as this. For assume that we find life on
Mars consisting of exactly three species of bacteria with a genetic outfit
similar to that of three terrestrial species. Is Darwinism refuted? By no
means. We shall say that these three species were the only forms among the
many mutants which were sufficiently well adjusted to survive. And we
shall say the same if there is only one species (or none). Thus Darwinism
does not really predict the evolution of variety. It therefore cannot really
explain it. At best, it can predict the evolution of variety under "favourable
conditions". But it is hardly possible to describe in general terms what
favourable conditions are except that, in their presence, a variety of forms
will emerge." (Popper K., "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography",
Open Court: La Salle Ill., Revised Edition, 1982, p171)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------