Stephen E. Jones wrote:
"The power of ID is precisely its minimalism," says Todd Moody, an agnostic
>and professor at St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia. "It travels light,
with
>no theological baggage."
Fine, you can have as minimal a deity as you please. Now, what about the
*scientific* baggage?
>I do not regard exposing the philosophical assumptions of evolution and its
>problems, weaknesses and errors, as ID. Indeed, it is what evolution itself
>should be doing!
>But I do not define ID as merely negatively exposing the assumptions and
>errors of evolution. I see ID also as a *positive* argument for design. That
>is not AFAIK happening in any major way yet (i.e. initiated by the ID
leadership),
>but I look forward to it eventually happening in the early decades of the
>21st century.
Okay, forget about major positive arguments for ID. How about some
*minor* positive arguments for ID?
>><http://www.discovery.org/crsc/CRSCdbEngine.php3?id=48>.
>Thanks to Wesley for posting this. But again it is mainly a critique of
>evolution. I do not see it as a full-blown positive argument for ID.
What *do* you see as positive arguments for ID?
>And as I have pointed out here before, ID in its modern form is still in its
>infancy, dating probably from 1984 with the publication of Thaxton,
>Bradley and Olsen's book, "The Mystery of Life's Origin".
But sciences don't begin with philosophy. They begin with people
hitting upon interesting new discoveries.
>ID's first task is to establish its philosophical base. Much work has been
>done on this by Johnson, Behe and Dembski.
>...
>Then a few hours later I happened to pick up and read the following by
>Phil Johnson which had the answer:
> "The flaw in that logic is that the purportedly scientific
> statement was inferred from the philosophical conclusion rather
> than the other way around.
Contradiction.
>Of course, those who are committed philosophical materialists will deny
>that there *can* be any evidence for ID. As I responded to Wesley's post,
>ID's task IMHO is not to convince this small, but influential minority (that
>can't be done) but to work around them by focusing on the general public.
A frank admission that this is an exercise in demagogy, not science.
>If materialists refuse to admit ID into science, then there probably will have
>to be a split in science, with funding being taken off materialists and
>granted to IDers.
How much funding will be needed to cover the cost of mentioning a few
hoary shreds of ID argumentation? Or will there be expensive apparatus?
>CL>But what would be taught, other than that evolution is wrong? And how would
>>the new model affect biological science in general?
>
>I have just finished Paley's "Natural Theology" (1802). If Cliff hasn't read
>it he ought to, for the *fantastic* layers of design in living things, that
>materialistic-naturalistic science has largely forgone about but has always
>been there.
Since 1802 science has added greatly to our knowledge of the fantastic layers
of biological complexity, no thanks to theology or ID theory.
>I can now understand why Darwin and Dawkins who have both read Paley
>and realised that mutations and natural selection must be gradual and tiny-
>step-by-tiny-step.
So you assert that macroevolution--evolutionary leaps in one generation--
could not occur? Integration of symbionts to form a cell, for example--quite
impossible?
>They realised there is no other way those fantastic layers of design could
>have happened naturalistically.
How can you make logical arguments *for* microevolution while maintaining
that it is false?
>CL>Criticism of evolutionary theory is itself part of evolutionary theory.
>
>Agreed. But it is limited and suppressed. Much creationist/ID critiques of
>evolution come from evolutionists themselves who have been marginalised
>within evolutionary ranks. Even as powerful a figure as Gould is under
>attack by the Darwinists (e.g. Maynard Smith, Dawkins, Dennett, etc) and
>I predict that when Gould retires and eventually dies the Darwinists will
>villify him and write him out of their history like they did to Goldschmidt.
Goldschmidt has a place in scientific history, Gould does not. Science
is about framing questions, recognizing problems, and proposing
solutions. Goldschmidt did these things.
>SJ>The difference is that the methods ID wants to do it by are reasoned
>>arguments and an *open* discussion of real vs apparent design, not by
>>the use of power and the marginalisation of rivals that Darwinism uses.
>CL>Please, discuss real design vs apparent design, in your own words,
>>without the conspiracy theory.
>
>There is no "conspiracy theory". People who have the same general
>philosophical assumptions think and act the same way without having to
>coordinate it.
>
>The fact that Cliff just assumes there *has* to be a "conspiracy theory" just
>shows that he cannot conceive of there being any such thing as "real
>design".
>
>Whatever evidence I put forward for "real design" (and I have been putting
>that evidence on almost a daily basis for over 5 years) philosophical
>materialists like Cliff will just interpret it as "apparent design".
You are willing to devote pages to trivial personal squabbles; won't
you take a moment to spell out a few of these positive arguments
for "real design"?
>CL>And please specify whether 'Darwinism' precludes macroevolution.
>
>Of course it doesn't. Darwinism doesn't preclude *anything*! Dawkins
>called stasis (which is no evolution) "just an extreme case of ultra-slow
>evolution (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," 1991, pp.245-246)".
>Presumably he would call instantaneous creation "ultra-fast evolution"! :-)
But you say above:
>I can now understand why Darwin and Dawkins who have both read Paley
>and realised that mutations and natural selection must be gradual and tiny-
>step-by-tiny-step.
How can you have it both ways?
>But Darwinists are uncomfortable with the distinction between macro-
>and micro-evolution and try to explain it away. For example, Mayr
>tried to rename "macroevolution" as "transpecific evolution" and then
>make out that it was "nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of
>the events that take place within populations and species." (Mayr E.,
>"Populations, Species and Evolution," 1974, p.351).
Mayr exemplifies the 'modern synthesis' in his abhorrence of real
macroevolution. But in the 21st Century, the Cambrian explosion and
its incompatibility with gradualism will come into sharp focus, and
macroevolutionary theories will abound, to the dismay of ID theorists
who find microevolution an easy target.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ 415-648-0208 ~ cliff@cab.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 06 2000 - 05:46:06 EDT