In a message dated 7/18/00 10:24:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu writes:
<< At 06:22 PM 07/17/2000 -0400, Huxter4441@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 7/17/00 11:06:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu writes:
>
><< > > but rather it is because he argues that "intelligent design in
biology
> >.... is empirically detectable":
> >
> >Why, then, doesn't he suggest a method? He only talks in generalities.
>
> He does suggest a method. Mike says that ID is detectable by irreducible
> complexity. >>
>
>
>But since IC is little more than an assumption based on the ignorance of the
>history of the system in question, that is no evidence at all. One should
>wonder why nothing tangible is in evidence....
You raise the same issue that David Hume raised about historical
research. The truth it reveals is conditional. But we don't throw history
out because of this. Pointing out a limitation does not invalidate the
system. All science is based on ignorance of certain things, such as the
future. It is also limited because any set of data has multiple
explanations, so deciding on only one means that that truth is
conditional. So what if IC is conditional on the imprecision of historical
knowledge. You set IC to higher epistemological standards than is expected
of other intellectual endeavours.
>>
Asking for tangible evidence of what is being touted as a 'theory' is setting
the bar too high? I beg to differ.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 21 2000 - 13:07:47 EDT