MikeBGene@aol.com writes
in message <28.3db9eeb.261c2c97@aol.com>:
> I personally see more than sufficient evidence
> to trigger a suspicion that ID is behind the origin of life: the fact
> that biology not only needs teleological language and concepts, but
> that such concepts really do generate an understanding of life;
> I think life expresses enough CSI such that ID is a better explanation
> for its origin than geochemistry. For me, this evidence goes beyond
> mere suspicion and takes me close the realm of the "most likely."
> Thus, since I have (in my mind) good evidence that life was
> probably the product of intelligent design, the fact that evolution
> is so vulnerable to ID means I need a much more rigorous
> set of evidence to think RM&NS were indeed the only mechanisms
> behind the origin of biological innovations post-abiogenesis.
Okay, then it looks like our only real disagreement is over the
evidence and what possible explanations can be logically inferred
from it. I see no reason to disagree with your philosophy and
I don't see any significant differences between us, although I
should add that your criticism of of the "metaphysics and game
rules" of some scientists is probably without merit because I
suspect those people just don't see the evidence for design that
you do. For example, I've never ruled out teological explanations,
I just don't see the evidence for any such hypotheses. But
that may mean I'm just ignorant.
"Biology needs teological language and concepts" Do you mean
biology *needs* teological concepts or that humans *tend*
to engage in anthropomophizing behavior about things,
be they cars, weather, or molecular machinery?
What is the threshold for CSI and how is it chosen? What is
the nature of non-intelligent processes that they can not produce
CSI? If an intelligent agent designed the laws of physics, why
couldn't CSI be the result?
Some remaining points:
> You might want to check out "Further Experimental Evidence against
> the Utility of Occam's Razor" at http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/
> jair/volume4/webb96a-html/webb96a.html. Here's the abstract:
No amount of experimental evidence can overturn the incredible
success of Occam's Razor, so unless the universe fundamentally
changed while Webb was doing his experiments, he is obviously
criticizing something different than what we normally mean by
it.
Further, we seem to agree perfectly on the appropriate applications
of Occam's Razor. The difference is that the evidence you are
privy to (but that I may not be), makes ID a simpler explanation
and therefore a hypothesis competing with non-ID. Or it could
be the other way around and the evidence I have that you are
not privy to, makes non-ID the simpler explanation to me. It's
all about evidence, not philosophy.
> > 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.
>
> Tedd:
>
> >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.
>
> See? It's "could be as simple." One can always IMAGINE such
> simple, non-innovative beginnings. But do you have any evidence
> that this is indeed how sex began? Your argument seems to be
> this: we have evidence that alleles can vary and increase in
> copy number; major evolutionary innovations could have occurred
> by such hum-drum means; thus we have evidence that all the major
> evolutionary innovations were the result of RM&NS.
No, if you are looking for a "truly major evolutionary innovation"
to vindicate RM&NS, you probably misunderstand evolutionary
theory. This may provide a hint as to why you prefer an ID
explanation.
> >The designed is not capable of understanding the designer?
> >That sounds very ... mystical... but not very logical.
>
> It seems quite logical to me to acknowledge that being
> designed does not entail the designed beings would
> be able to know where their designers came from.
> Perhaps you can explain how being designed *entails*
> such an ability.
It is a fair observation I think that we can gain information about
everything within this universe to an arbitrary degree (how long
that will take is another question). Thus, your designer is
apparently from outside the universe if we can never understand
its origin.
> >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.
>
> Let's pretend ID truly explains the origin of life. From that truth,
> explain why we SHOULD be able to determine where the
> designers came from. How does the ability to acquire this
> knowledge necessarily follow from the truth of life's design?
See above. Entities acting within this universe necessarily
interact with matter and energy leaving precise and permanent
signatures behind that can be read at some present or future
point by human beings. The only entities that leave no trace
in this universe are those that are not part of it, i.e. they're
supernatural, or, simply, they're nonexistant.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 05 2000 - 16:51:31 EDT