Cliff wrote:
>I would possibly be convinced by some incredibly magical revelation,
>some big genie in the sky doing fantastic things with a wave of the hand;
>but I'd probably think I was dreaming. I guess I just have a built-in
prejudice
>in favor of naturalistic explanation. ID explanation is more parsimonious
>and much easier, but it doesn't do anything for me. I like to puzzle out
>particulars; the one big all-inclusive answer is boring to me.
In case anyone should think that Cliff is representative of philosophical
naturalists in having a "built-in prejudice in favor of naturalistic
explanation", I'd like to point out that I don't share his prejudice. I
reject the ID explanation precisely because it is *less* parsimonious.
If there was a designer, then there must have been a *first* designer, and
that first designer must have (a) evolved by naturalistic means, (b) sprang
into existence ex nihilo, or (c) existed for all eternity (whatever that
means).
(a) still requires a process of naturalistic evolution, and, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, it's more parsimonious to assume that evolution
occurred here on Earth than that it occurred somewhere else and that living
organisms were then artificially created on Earth. There's no reason for
scientists to a priori rule out the latter, and it's possible to imagine
evidence that would make it the more parsimonious theory: for example, we
might find the remains of an ancient alien civilization, with records of how
they had created and/or manipulated organisms on Earth.
The most parsimonious explanation is not simply the one which can be stated
in fewest words. It's the one which leaves least unexplained. (b) and (c)
are far from parsimonious, because they leave entirely unexplained that
which we want to explain--the origin of conscious beings. As far as science
is concerned, you can't get any more unparsimonious than that, since science
is all about explaining things. That's why science will never settle for
such an "explanation". Even if a big genie in the sky made himself known to
us in a convincing way and claimed to have popped into existence ex nihilo
one day, I doubt that most scientists would accept that claim, though they
might well accept his claim to have created life on Earth.
[...]
>The point is that this is a mechanism that explains how a sudden increase
>in the complexity of an organism could occur. Irreducible-complexity
>arguments depend on the straw man of pure gradualism. If symbionts in
>an ecosystem can suddenly become one organism, that is a leap in
>complexity.
I'm not sure I would call that a sudden leap in complexity. The complexity
existed already, in two separate organisms. All (!) that happened was that
two complex entities were combined into one. But you could say this is a
semantic matter.
[...]
>The general model could apply above the cellular level. It's a little weird
>to think that metazoan organs were once free symbionts, but why not?
I think "weird" is understating it. It's bizarre! Still, I suppose bizarre
things do happen. But have you thought out any plausible scenarios for how
this could have happened in the case of particular organs?
>It's
>logically more satisfactory than thinking these complexes evolved
>gradually.
Why? What's your objection to gradual evolution of organs? Do you deny that
*any* complexity can evolve gradually?
Stephen wrote:
>>I don't understand Cliff's point. I am able to follow the "logical
arguments"
>>that evolutionists make and yet believe that they are "false".
All of us here who are familiar with Stephen's nonsense know this to be
untrue. He is *not* able to follow logical arguments!
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 11 2000 - 07:07:54 EDT