Howard wrote:
>>Although proponents of ID have been careful never to provide a candid
>>definition of just what it means "to be (or have been) intelligently
> designed"
>>the vast majority of their argumentation appears directed toward the
>>conclusion that "some bio-X could not have come to be formed by any
>>known natural means, therefore it must have been intelligently designed."
I replied:
> I should clarify that this is not how I use ID.
Howard replies:
>OK, no problem. Then what is _your_ operative answer to the question, What
>does it mean to be (or have been) intelligently designed? [What kind of
>action by what kind of agent?] If I recall correctly from your previous
>posts, you often use the expression "intelligent intervention" in place if
>"intelligent design." I happen to think that your term is a more accurate
>label for what Mike Behe, Bill Dembski, et al are promoting.
What does it mean to have been intelligently designed? Much the
same as it means to say that your communication to me was intelligently
designed. That is, an intelligent agent imposes some form of organization
on reality to facilitate an objective.
Me:
> Since I am talking
> history and not philosophy, it's not a question of what is possible or
> not, it's a question of what happened.
Howard:
>We're all interested in that. It's a matter of how we approach a topic for
>which the number of interesting questions far exceeds the number of firm
>answers.
From where I sit, I see no evidence that you are interested in history
rather than theology/philosophy (sorry). The theme you consistently pound
on revolves around what is possible or impossible. You dislike ID because
you think it entails the notion that it is impossible for nature to
spawn something and a nature that is so constrained is something that
you find theologically repugnant.
It is indeed a matter of how we approach the topic. And most approach
this topic from a philosophical/theological angle, where the question
that is central revolves around what is merely possible, as if the key
to history is a function of the answer to this question.
Me:
> If Howard wants to deduce
> the happening of abiogenesis with theology and philosophy, that's
> fine with me.
Howard:
>Thanks for the encouragement.
Me:
> But if Howard wants to convince me that abiogenesis
> actually happened in accord with his belief system, he'll need some
> old fashioned evidence that points beyond the inherently weak claim
> of "it's possible."
Howard:
>OK, that's your prerogative. In the meantime, biologists and biochemists are
>daily adding to our knowledge of the formational capabilities of biotic
>systems in the universe.
So you say. From where I sit, a very large chunk of that knowledge increases
my suspicions that ID was indeed involved behind the origin of life. In fact,
if it was 1960 rather than 2000, I think we'd have a better case for
abiogenesis.
But the main point is that you miss my point. Even if we pretend there is
some evidence out there that is relevant to "capabilities" that might spawn
life,
this is not evidence that abiogenesis happened in accord with your belief
system.
>My suspicion is that the full list of these
>capabilities will be found to have no gaps that would have required
>"intelligent interventions" to bring us to the present state of affairs.
Note again how your views revolve around what is merely possible.
Supposedly, it's a question of whether or not intelligent intervention
is "required." In my mind, this is not a question of "gaps" that speak
to what is required. It is a question of the nature of the evidence and which
explanation best accounts for the existence of that evidence. For example,
I simply don't see the evidence that clearly indicates geochemistry is a
better explanation for the origin of molecular codes and molecular
machines than intelligent intervention.
>I freely admit that this expectation proceeds from my belief that the
>formational economy of the universe was conceptualized by a Creator for the
>accomplishment of a comprehensive purpose, and that the robustness of this
>menu of formational capabilities is a manifestation of the Creator's
>creativity and generosity.
That's fair, but I don't have any beliefs about how nature should be.
Thus, I don't have such large scale expectations when I look to nature
and wonder about its history. I mean, what if you are wrong? How
would you ever suspect it?
>It is also encouraged by the growth of scientific
>knowledge of the formational capabilities that contribute to this "robust
>formational economy."
Is it? What scientific knowledge allows me to think the robust formational
economy of the universe was indeed behind the origin of the eukaryotic
cytoskeleton (just one among countless examples)? Granted, we can
always use such knowledge to invent imaginary stories about the past
that are beyond falsification, but I am trying to put my finger on what
is so encouraging.
Furthermore, if you can be encouraged by what science finds, what can
science find that would discourage your views?
>I find it far more fitting (for me, at least) to celebrate the robustness of
>the Creation's formational economy than to be engaged in a search for
>empirical evidence of formational capabilities that may have been withheld
>from it.
That's fair. For me, I choose to adopt an open and fair-minded approach
which allows me to speculate along any lines in order to come up with
what appears (for now) to be the best provisional explanation for the
origins of our ambiguous and mysterious reality.
>You are welcomed to adopt a different perspective and to articulate it
>candidly.
Thanks. I've been doing this for a few months now. However, since
my perspective does not begin with an a priori expectation, it currently
exists in fragments.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 22 2000 - 13:45:49 EDT