On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:21:06 -0800, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
CC>...That's why Stephen's notion that ID theory is in
>its infancy is so silly. ID theory has been around since long before Christ.
>It's changed its name, but its the same idea, with added pseudo-scientific
>window-dressing.
[...]
My point is that the *modern* ID movement is still in its infancy. AFAIK
no other earlier design advocates have ever claimed to be a design
*movement*.
While there have always been philosophers and theologians who have
written for and against the various arguments from design, ID has not been,
AFAIK, proposed seriously as a *scientific* theory since the early 19th
century.
An exception might be the excellent writings of R.E.D. Clarke in the
1950's. But he seems to have been a lone voice in the wilderness. The
modern ID movement does not seen to have been aware of Clark, so it
cannot fairly be dated from him.
The modern ID movement is generally dated from Denton's "Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis" (1985), or Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" (1991), or maybe
from J.P. Moreland's, "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an
Intelligent Designer" (1994).
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------