The discussion between Mike and Ted has been enormously interesting.
I wish I had time to keep up with it all, you guys can really produce
volumes :).
I just want to respond to one part of Mike's post. Before I do that I want
to say I probably agree quite a bit with some of Mike's main points.
For example, I am extremely skeptical about any claim that RM&NS
explains all or even most of the history and evolution of life.
What I fail to see is what ID has to do with it. What contribution will it
make to understanding the history of life? Yes, I know Mike has
written volumes on this, but I'm still skeptical :). But not because
I'm prejudiced against teleological principles. I teach a graduate
course that is literally crammed with teleological principles. I adore
teleological principles. We know they work in mechanics, do they
work in biology? That seems to me to be the question. From my
limited understanding of the history of science, it seems to me that
teleological principles have been rejected not from metaphysical
prejudice, but because they don't work.
I've read several historians that characterize the debate prior to
Darwin as teleology vs non-teleology instead of evolution vs
creation. The reason being that many creationists took the
non-teleology position. Reflect, for example, on the fact that
Richard Owen used the argument from poor design long before
Darwin.
OK, now to specifics:
At 08:01 PM 3/29/00 -0500, Mike wrote:
[...]
>Reusing existing parts makes darn good design sense to me.
>In contrast, you seem to insist that a *real* designer would
>invent the wheel a million times over. And a *real* designer
>would use the wheel in only one of his/her designed
>constructions. Why?
Speaking as an engineer (putting on my priestly garments :),
reusing existing design parts does not make good *design*
sense, it makes good economic sense, i.e. economy of either
money or time.
Well, my intention is not to quibble about semantics. The main
point is that the re-using of existing parts, in engineering practice,
does not reflect the application of design principles, but rather
the constraints imposed upon design by other factors.
Now, one can make sense of the history and evolution of design
by understanding these constraints. If these constraints are
understood then one can make sense of (provide an explanation
for) the re-using of parts. One can evaluate whether it makes
good sense or not. If, on the other hand, one does not know
what constrains the designer, one cannot make sense of the
re-use of parts.
With this in mind, my question is: What are the constraints imposed
upon the Intelligent Designer?
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Mechanical Engineering
The Ohio State University
"How come stealing from one book is plagiarism,
and stealing from many is research?"
-- Alfred E Newman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 17 2000 - 22:27:39 EDT