At 12:02 PM 4/19/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >Steven S. Clark wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >SSC>I think that it is appropriate that novel paradigms have a
> >SSC>higher-than-usual hurdle to cross before being accepted by the
> >SSC>scientific collective.
>
>Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
>
> >I thought we were talking about the attempted rescuscitation of a
> >paradigm discarded in the mid-1800's. I think that the hurdle
> >is appropriately placed even higher for such "paradigms".
>
>Thank you for pointing this out! There's a reason that ID is specifically
>mentioned in some anti-creationism court rulings. It's easy to fool people
>like Stephen Jones, but a lot tougher to fool a judge that ID is anything
>but creationism all dressed up in new clothes. They've been forced to dump
>the 6,000 year old earth and forced to accept "micro" evolution, but by and
>large ID is nothing but Biblical literalism. Though, for propaganda
>purposes we are very, very, very careful not to mention that "B" word. I've
>been lurking in the ASA evolution list archives and I've noticed that there
>are a lot of Christians there who are appalled at the dishonesty of ID
>proponents. Can't say I blame them!
I think we need to be a little careful here. As far as I know, biblical
literalism (or anything resembling present day YEC) has never been
an acceptable paradigm in science. It is an injustice to some
really great scientists of the past (Cuvier, Owen etc) to make this
type of association.
I previously mentioned that teleological principles are acceptable
in science (provided they work). Let me illustrate by giving Cuvier's
teleological explanation of form and compare it with the principle
of least action, perhaps the greatest principle of physics.
Principle of least action:
Of all the paths that a particle may take between A and B in time t,
the one actually taken is that which minimizes the action.
Cuvier's teleological principle:
Of all the forms which biological structure x might have in environment y,
the one
which is actually attained is that which optimizes the function.
From a scientific point of view, there is nothing wrong with this
principle. The
problem is that it doesn't work :). In defense of Cuvier, it was proposed
at a time
when few homologies were known. Cuvier was daring enough to predict, based
on his principle, that few would be found. And the rest is history, so they
say.
Most creationists today are not as daring as Cuvier. They talk about re-using
parts etc. to explain homology. Well, yes, of course, the designer might re-use
parts. But the point is that the explanatory power of Cuvier's principle is
lost.
Can one construct a teleological principle to take the place of Cuvier's.
Here's one possibility (which I don't actually endorse, BTW :)
proposed teleological principle:
Of all the forms which biological structure x might have in environment y,
the one
which is actually attained is that which maximizes the reproductive success of
the genes which encode that structure.
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 : Wed Apr 19 2000 - 18:22:32 EDT