From: Chris Cogan <ccogan@telepath.com>
[...]
>And that is why it is invalid. It has essentially no objective,
>factual basis. ID simply *makes up* a concept (or, more
>accurately, a *pseudo_concept* of design) and then
>reinterprets the world by it.
>
>So, my challenge to ID theorists is to come up with a concept
>of design which is objectively founded on observable facts
>and that does not, in effect, *assume* that life or Nature is
>designed. Obviously, a concept of design *based* on the
>assumption that life is designed is of no value, because it
>begs the question. Good luck to all who make the attempt.
Behe defines design as "the purposeful arrangement of parts" (DBB p.193),
and there can be no doubt that he's talking about the purpose and action of
a conscious being. Although Stephen claims that ID does not require a
designer, the major ID proponents make no such absurd claim, as far as I
know. Behe has no compunction about referring to a designer. For example, he
writes: "The function of a system is determined from the system's internal
logic: the function is not necessarily the same thing as the purpose to
which the designer wished to apply the system." (DBB p. 196)
Providing you take the involvement of a conscious being to be part of the
definition, and I think this is implied if not explicitly stated, then the
definition is meaningful. To demonstrate the presence of "design" in this
sense, IDers must show the involvement of a conscious being, and I think
this is what they attempt to do. (Unfortunately, Dembski attempts to draw a
distinction between "design" and "intelligent agency", which only confuses
the issue, but he fails to establish such a distinction, and I think it's
best to ignore it. In any case, it's clear that what he's ultimately trying
to establish is "intelligent agency", and that this corresponds to the more
widely used term "intelligent design". Of course, this type of equivocation
is common among IDers, and adds to the difficulty of clearly exposing their
logical fallacies.)
Given this implicit definition of "design", we can and should proceed to
showing the logical fallacies in the "scientific" arguments for ID.
Otherwise, we're in danger of making this look like a philosophical
argument, when it's actually an argument between science and pseudoscience.
By the way, as you might guess from the above, I have now purchased a copy
of Darwin's Black Box. I hated to contribute to the sales of ID propaganda,
but I felt it was worthwhile if it helped me to counter that propaganda. I
am in the process of writing my critique of Behe, which will cover some
important points that seem to have been overlooked by other critics. ;-)
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 02 2000 - 05:45:27 EDT