>True but it's obvious where the ID movement wants to take it.
SE: It is not "obvious" at all. The ID movement includes Christians
(Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) as well as Jews and at least one
agnostic. Where *could* "the ID movement ... take it" after
design has been empirically detected in nature?
Jones:
Most of these ID'ers fall in the category of a Christian God.
Nelson:
I am an IDer who does not believe in the Christian God.
SJ: Besides, if design is reliably detected in nature, it will rapidly
become *much* bigger than the ID movement. In fact the ID
movement might even cease to exist, becase it would have
accomplished its task.
Jones:
The problem is that even if design could be reliably detected, and the
evidence suggests that it cannot, it cannot exclude natural forces as the
designer. What task would ID have accomplished?
Nelson:
What evidence suggests it cannot? I think the data presented thus far by
Behe et. al. can reliably exclude natural forces.
For example, in Dawkins' book _Clinmbing Mount Improbable_ , we find another
falsification criteria that nicely explains the relevancy of an IC system.
Dawkins is arguing about the evolution of photoreceptor cells:
"The point is that ninety-one membranes are more effective in
stopping photons than ninety, ninety are more effective than eighty-
nine, and so on back to one membrane, which is more effective than
zero. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say there is a smooth
gradient up Mount Improbable. We would be dealing with an abrupt
precipice if, say, any number of membranes above forty five was very
effective while any number below forty-five was totally ineffective.
Neither common sense nor the evidence leads us to suspect any such
sudden discontinuities. "
So 91 membranes
are more effective then 90
which in turn are more effective then 89
which in turn are more efffective then any lower number especially 0
We can't do that with an IC system like F-ATPase.
So 8 parts
are more effective then....nothing. I would fall off the mountain.
FJ>If they only
>realized that since it does not identify the designer
SJL The ID movement *does* realise it. I have previously mentioned Fred
Hoyle's "Intelligent Universe" hypothesis as possibly within the ID
paradigm. The common bond of all members of the ID movement is
the belief in the existence (or at least the possibility) of empirically
detectable *design* in nature. It is *not* agreement on who is the
designer.
Jones:
Including nature as the designer? Lacking independent evidence of the
designer what does ID have to offer that presently science does not offer?
Nelson:
Nature does not "design", it makes designoids. Mike Gene could make the same
argument about "evolvoids".
FJ>natural forces could
>be the designer making ID nothing more than "nature did it".
SJ L If design is detected and someone wants to claim that "natural forces
could
be the designer" they are welcome to make their case.
Jones:
Simple, ID does not identify the designer therefor the designer can be
natural forces.
It's a simple and powerful case that ID has limited offerings.
Nelson:
Non-sequitor. Intelligence can do things natural forces cannot do. You are
comparing apples and oranges.
>SJ>There are *two* separate questions: 1) is there empirically detectable
>evidence for design in nature? and if so; 2) who (or what) is the
designer
>or designers?
FJ>There can be evidence of design, is there evidence of design in nature.
So
>far no evidence has been given that shows this.
SJ: There *has* been "evidence" given for empirically detectable design in
nature-
Mike Behe's irreducible complexity proposal for example.
Jones:
And since natural pathways leading to IC systems have been shown, IC seems
to
be dead in the water. Even worse, IC is infered from the absence of
evolutionary evidence, not from independent data. Why not admit when
evolutionary mechanisms are unsupported by the data that we don't know yet?
Nelson:
Can you give me some examples of "pathways to IC systems have been shown" ?
SJ: I assume FJ is getting mixed up with "evidence" and proof? If FJ is
ac
tually
claiming that this is not even "evidence" then maybe he could state what
he would accept as evidence that the ID movement could present.
Jones:
Then anything could be considered evidence of design. Why just irreducible
complexity? Why not include regular complexity? Design is a placeholder for
"we don't know yet". At least in the case of biological design where no
independent evidence of design or designers exist to allow us to make a
case.
Nelson:
Only if you a priori assume it evolved. "I understand it" does not mean "it
evolved".
felt
that the influence on sociology of the doctrine of 'survival of the
fittest' was
theoretically speaking, unfortunate, chiefly because it seemed to offer an
explanatory short cut, and encouraged social theorists to aspire to be
Darwin's when probably they should have been trying to be Linnaeuses or
Cuviers. As Professor MacRae points out, in sociology the principle
explains too much. Any state of affairs known to exist or to have existed
can be explained by the operation of natural selection. Like Hegel's
dialectic and Dr Chasuble's sermon on The Meaning of Manna in the
Wilderness, it can be made to suit any situation." (Burrow J.W., "Evolution
and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory," [1966], Cambridge
University Press: London, 1968, reprint, p.115)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au |
http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 08 2000 - 13:44:34 EDT