Re: 1. Mike Behe's letter to SCIENCE, 2. Provine & Gish's letters, 3. Less of...

From: Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Date: Fri Jul 21 2000 - 13:24:45 EDT

  • Next message: Huxter4441@aol.com: "Re: 1. Mike Behe's letter to SCIENCE, 2. Provine & Gish's letters, 3. Less of..."

    At 01:07 PM 07/21/2000 -0400, Huxter4441@aol.com wrote:
    >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 reply doesn't follow the preceding discussion. Nothing I said above
    rules out the role of "tangible evidence" to support theories. The claim
    was that Behe did not suggest a method for empirically detecting ID. I
    replied that he did suggest such a method. That is all.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 21 2000 - 13:24:14 EDT