MikeBGene@aol.com writes
<snip to a main point>
> Now, as I see it, evolution and life's history is wide-open and
> vulnerable before ID. Even beings as modestly intelligent as
> we can shape and alter evolution through artificial selection (where
> selection is guided) and genetic engineering (where mutations are
> planned). Thus, I am trying to determine if there is solid evidence
> behind attributing major evolutionary innovations to RM&NS
> rather than planned mutations and guided selection.
It seems to follow from your view that *any* science that
concludes that current processes can explain past phenomena is
making a mistake by not allowing teological hypotheses to compete.
So, for example, one perfectly legitimate explanation for the
Grand Canyon should be Intelligent Design despite the existence
of natural processes that can probably do the job. Since I
don't think you would agree with that, you might be holding
evolution to a different standard than other branches of science.
In geology, there is no independent evidence of an ID capable of
restructuring rock formations (besides humans), there is
evidence for natural erosion processes and therefore the
overwhelmingly accepted conclusion is that the Grand Canyon
formed from natural processes. But likewise in evolution there
is no independent evidence of an ID capable of genetic engineering
(besides humans), there is evidence of natural processes that
add novel information to genetic code, and so the same conclusion
follows it seems to me.
> While I admit it's a nice rule of thumb, I personally
> am not convinced that the Razor applies when trying to distinguish
> between the teleological and non-teleological world views. I
> think the Razor is too blunt to be of much help with such a
> large-scale ambiguity.
I interpret Occam's Razor has observing that the simplest
explanation that explains the most is probably the correct one.
This, I believe, is an observation as well as a prediction.
Statistically, the simplest explanation is usually the correct
one.
To say that Occam's Razor is inadequate for a task implies that
in this particular case, the simplest explanation that explains
the most is probably NOT the correct one. On what basis can
one justify that? At first glance, it looks irrational. It
violates both experience and intuition.
I assume that belief in ID is something more than:
"It hasn't been shown to be impossible, therefore it *could*
have happened."
This is certainly true, but it's also true about the inverse
hypothesis of every scientific fact known to man. Scientific
facts simply aren't absolute truth.
> But there are three points worth making.
>
> 1. I am simply arguing that similarities in gene sequences
> are insufficient to rule out ID. Thus, if there are data that
> lead me to infer ID, the mere similarity of sequences fails
> as an argument against that inference.
Similarities alone, yes. However, evolution as a hypothesis
has had mechanisms to explain those similarities since
Darwin.
> 2. History is contingent and evolution is natural history.
> Many people think of evolution as a natural law akin to
> gravity where the discovery of one set of events here
> automatically explains all events. Yet evolution is not
> a law of nature - it is only a series of life events that become
> history, and unlike gravity, evolution is completely vulnerable
> to the intervention of modestly intelligent beings. Thus,
> simply because RM&NS may have been behind the evolution
> of these two alleles is no reason, in my book, to think all
> evolutionary innovations were the products of RM&NS.
Using your analogy to gravity: why does the discovery of the
law of gravity automatically rule out the possible effects of an
Intelligent Object Mover (IOM) operating a long time ago?
For example, if any particular asteriod in stable orbit around
earth today is picked out, would astronomers be justified in
hypothesizing -- in peer-reviewed journals, I might add-- that
an IOM put it into that stable orbit even thought it is plausible
that natural processes alone did the work?
> 3. It doesn't seem to me that this type of change qualifies as
> a truly major evolution innovation (such as the origin of
> sex, endothermy, etc.). This is simply one of many examples
> of tweaking that doesn't appear to entail a significant functional
> acquisition.
But these changes are innovating only in the sense of what
they'll become a billion years later. The first sex could
be as simple as, what ... a hungry cell slurping up bits of
DNA floating in its environment. Nothing innovative
about that.
<snip>
> Tedd:
>
> > I mentioned this because I think a very important thing in the
> > ID debate right now is for the ID side to admit that the evidence
> > shows that the ID must not be an omnipotent being. Thus, we
> > can continue discussion without fear that it is really, beneath
> > the surface, one of those ugly theist -vs- atheist confrontations.
>
> Yes, I think it very important to clarify that a debate about ID is
> not a debate about theism vs. atheism. And I do agree that the
> intelligent designer of ID need not be an omnipotent being. But
> are you saying it is impossible for an omnipotent being to create
> our planet ("ID must not be an omnipotent being")?
Nothing is probably impossible. However, the best chance of
getting at the truth- if the past is any indication-- involves
discarding theories that don't make predictions or permit any
progress. An omnipotent designer falls into that category.
<snip>
> 3. Where did [hypothetical IDs] come from? This is a simply an
> emotive expression that reflects the way we humans desire to
> control our surroundings. We feel that if we can understand
> everything, we acquire control in this often chaotic world. If
> they designed us, we may never be able to know where they came
> from.
The designed is not capable of understanding the designer?
That sounds very ... mystical... but not very logical.
> But it doesn't matter to the investigator, as the
> investigator is simply trying to explain our proximal reality
> and ID agents of unknown origin satisfy this objective fully.
> In fact, I think it would be unproductive to focus all (most)
> energy on speculations of where they came from (especially not
> knowing who they are) simply because this increases the likelihood
> that we will force data into a belief due to the emotive nature
> of this inquiry. In other words, if our objective is to come
> up with an explanation that explains Everything, we are likely
> to be mistaken when explaining something.
However, if the question of the origin of the ID'er can not be
answered, it is also one more piece of evidence that has failed
to turn up to support ID. At some point, absence of evidence
must be taken as evidence of absence.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 03 2000 - 18:04:25 EDT