In a message dated 9/12/2000 3:23:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
<< FJ>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?
ID would have settled the question of whether design is *real* or only
apparent as the Darwinists claim. If FJ thinks that is unimportant, that is
OK by me.
>>
It's not only important it's also wrong. ID cannot exclude 'apparant' or
'natural design' since they cannot exclude a natural designer. Wesley and
others have carefully exposed this. It's perhaps ironic that what seemed to
be the strength of the ID argument namely ID does not say anything about the
designer has become a strong argument against it. SO if it cannot exclude
natural designers then what's the value of ID?
<< But then what is he arguing against ID for?
>>
TO show that it is full of holes.
<< >FJ>If they only
>>realized that since it does not identify the designer
>
>SJ>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.
FJ>Including nature as the designer? Lacking independent evidence of the
>designer what does ID have to offer that presently science does not offer?
Science at present only offers *apparent* design. ID would show that
design is *real*.
>>
No it would not show this IF apparant design refers to design by natural
designers. Since ID cannot exclude natural designers, they cannot exclude
apparant design. Simple as that.
<< >FJ>natural forces could
>>be the designer making ID nothing more than "nature did it".
>SJ>If design is detected and someone wants to claim that "natural forces
>could be the designer" they are welcome to make their case.
FJ>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.
Even if that was true (which it isn't), so what? Most of science involves
"limited offerings".
>>
Indeed but in this case it shows that ID cannot fulful the promise it seemed
to have, identify true design. Unless of course ID'ers are satisfied to
identify design that could have been caused by natural forces. But I thought
that the hope was that it was a reliable detector of the design of the kind
that would require a real designer. If I am wrong about this then fine, ID
merely tells us that nature could have done it or perhaps not. But then we
need independent evidence.
<< >>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.
Evidence *has* been given. That is what scientists like Jerry Coyne and
others are critiquing.
>>
Not really. They are critiquing the claim by Behe. That's not evidence
though. But even if there is evidence of 'design' in nature, this does not
prove anything.
<< >SJ>There *has* been "evidence" given for empirically detectable design in
>nature-Mike Behe's irreducible complexity proposal for example.
FJ>And since natural pathways leading to IC systems have been shown, IC seems
to
>be dead in the water.
FJ contradicts himself. He just claimed that "no evidence has been given"
for design and now he says that Behe's "IC systems" had been critiqued and
"natural pathways leading to IC systems have been shown" (they haven't
BTW). Which is it?
>>
Behe's assertion has been shown erroneous and no evidence has been given that
these structures were designed. Other than by elimination of a single
mechanism or by pointing out our ignorance so far.
<< FJ>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?
Darwin claimed IC as a test of his theory. IF Darwinists want to avoid
falsification by claiming unknown, future "evolutionary mechanisms" that's
fine. It just shows that ID is falsifiable and Darwinism is not.
>>
Darwin never claimed IC as a test of his theory. Feel free to show me wrong
here. Even Behe admits that natural (indirect) pathways to IC systems may
exist. ID is also not really falsifiable, only Behe's IC claim. That Behe
links ICness to ID does not follow logically from his claims and premises.
Darwinism however is falsifiable, but not through claims of ICness. Unless of
course Behe could truely show that no such pathways exist. But Behe already
admits that they may exist.
The ball is in his court and is likely going to stay there for a while.
<< >SJ>I assume FJ is getting mixed up with "evidence" and proof? If FJ is
>actually claiming that this is not even "evidence" then maybe he could state
what
>he would accept as evidence that the ID movement could present.
FJ>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.
Now FJ is getting mixed up between ID and design in general. ID is a
*special case* of design, namely those things which cannot be anything
other than designed (i.e. which have no plausible naturalistic explanation).
>>
Ah, but then Behe's and Dembski's ID are not really the same as "design". It
makes things hard to discuss when equivocation is used. But my arguments
remain as they are:
"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.
"
<<
>>SJ>The first question: "is there empirically detectable evidence for
>>design in nature?", is the primary focus of the ID movement. If it turns
>>out to be true, it will be the public property of all mankind and equally
>>supportive of all religions and philosophies which maintain there is
design in
>nature.
>FJ>Right... In the mean time it is used before even a scientific case has
>>been made to pretend that ID is scientific.
>SJ>A "scientific case has been made" and other scientists have critiqued it.
>>
You mean an attempt for a scientific case has been made and scientists have
shown it to be full of holes. Perhaps you mean to say that a scientific
attempt was made to show that ID/IC could be scientific. But similarly a
scientific attempt could be made to show that the world is 6000 years old,
that does not make the claim itself scientifically interesting. But in the
case of ID there are more problems than this, ID fails to show that natural
designers can be excluded.
<< FJ>Perhaps we differ in opinion on what is considered scientific. Creation
>science has been critiqued but that hardly makes it scientific.
FJ is getting mixed up between "scientific" and wrong. If "Creation science
has been critiqued" on scientific grounds then that "makes it scientific",
even if it's wrong.
>>
Pseudo scientific perhaps. Science is not merely any claim that can be
disproven.
<< >SJ>Again I assume that FJ is getting mixed up with "scientific case" being
>"made" and it being proven.
FJ>Not really.
FJ does not state *why* it is "Not really"!
>>
Again I point out that you assumed.
<< >FJ>And Christians are ecstatic about the
>>possibilities it provides.
>SJ>Not really. Most "Christians" in my experience are not yet interested
>in ID and some are opposed to it (including some in the YEC camp).
FJ>I am glad to hear this. Mixing ID and faith seems quite dangerous.
Why? All that ID aims to show is that design in nature is *real*, not just
apparent. How could that be "dangerous" to religious "faith"?
>>
Because it is exactly that error in logic that seems to lead people to think
that ID can show evidence of true design when in fact it cannot distinguish
between an intelligent designer and apparant or natural designer.
Not to mention the problems in the reliability of the design itself.
<< >SJ>And there are a lot of Christians (maybe even a majority) who think
>that Christians should just preach the gospel and not get involved in
>philosophical issues.
FJ>I could not have hoped for more.
No doubt.
>FJ>The motives of the Discover institute for
>>instance are quite clear but do not do a favor to Christianity or science.
>SJ>That the Discovery Institute may have conservative sociopolitical
>"motives" is neither here nor there. Stephen Jay Gould and Richard
>Lewontin are (or were) Marxists.
FJ>And the relevance of this is? In case of the Discovery institute it seems
>that the sociopolitical motives are more important than a scientific
process.
>You cannot force science to follow a timed path.
What evidence has FJ for this assertion?
>>
Read the Wedge lately?
<< In any event, who cares? If design is shown by the ID movement to be real,
then it will be irrelevant what the "sociopolitical motives" of those who
showed it was.
>>
True but since it seems that ID is far from able to show that design is real,
at least real in the sense they had hoped for, the insistance to get ID into
our schools makes the motives important.
<< >FJ>What is so easily forgotten is that since ID does not identify a
>>designer it cannot exclude a natural designer. So we have gotten nowhere.
>SJ>If ID detects *design*, then it will have accomplished its task.
FJ>What task? Showing that natural forces can design nature? What would ID
add
>to our scientific knowledge?
ID would "add to our scientific knowledge" that intelligent causation in
natural history is *real*, not just apparent as the Darwinists maintain.
>>
It would add to our knowledge that something that we claim is designed might
have an origin in natural forces as the designer? We already knew this. ID
does not add anything to our knowledge. You seem to jump to the conclusion
that ID has shown that intelligence is needed and that nature cannot provide
this intelligence. So far design seems based on equivocation and wishful
thinking more than on actual arguments.
You claim that ID can exclude apparant design but I have shown you it cannot
exclude a natural designer. So natural forces designed something, if you call
it real design then you have a problem, if you call it apparant design then
you have disproven your own thesis. Either way you seem to lose here.
<< >>SJ>If design is able to be empirically detected then that will be a
great
>>help to Christianity in its struggle with those philosophies which deny
>>design, like materialism, naturalism and Darwinism.
>FJ>Darwinism does not deny design. A common fallacy.
>SJ>Since I don't know who FJ is, I for one will not accept his
unsubstantiated
>assertions. Until FJ quotes from leading Darwinists stating that "Darwinism
>does not deny design" I will assume that in this case FJ simply doesn't
>know what he is talking about.
FJ>1. Since design can include natural forces why would Darwinists deny it?
The fact is they *do*!
>>
Some do others hardly deny that 'design' exists, they merely doubt the value
of design if it is unable to exclude natural designers. That's what's really
relevant. Even if Darwinists were to deny design, that is hardly evidence
that this is based on a good reason.
<< The reason is that Darwinism depends *absolutely* on the unproven and
unprovable assumption that *all* mutations in the 3.9 billion year history of
life have been random with respect to adaptive improvement. >>
Randomness is shown through observation. There are some cases where it seems
that the organism can direct the 'randomness' but that is hardly a problem
for Darwinism. Variation and selection is all that is needed.
If it is
<< established that there has been intelligent causation in the history of
life,
then Darwinism's central assumption would be shown to be false. >>
It would disprove that their claim that all arose naturally was wrong. But so
far there is no evidence of intelligent causation and worse ID has been
unable to exclude natural designers as intelligent causers.
<<
FJ>2. Since design can exists together with Darwinism, i.e. God created
through
>evolution why should Darwinism deny design? I am sure that there are
>Darwinists who deny design just like there are design proponents who deny
>Darwinism.
See above.
The real question is are there any leading "Darwinists" who *don't* "deny
design"?
>>
I don't know. Hardly that relevant
<< >SJ>Apart from the "design without a designer" quotes I have just posted
to
>Cliff from leading Darwinist philosophers Susan Blackmore and Helena
>Cronin, I submit the full USA edition title of Dawkins' book as evidence
>that "Darwinism does" in fact "deny design":
>
> "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a
> Universe without Design".
FJ>You are confusing Dawkin''s thesis with Darwinism.
This is the usual `scorched earth' ploy to make out that Dawkins is some
sort of fringe figure. He is in fact one of the world's leading exponents
of Darwinism, and has been appointed the Oxford Professor for the Public
Understanding of Science.
>>
Wow... And that shows exactly what? That he is smart. Does this make him
decide what Darwinism is and isn't? An amazing appeal to authority indeed.
<< In my Biology course the textbook has a two-page interview with Dawkins
at the start of its section on "Mechanisms of Evolution".
>>
Cool. I bet you that it's an interesting anecdote.
<< If FJ knows of any other "Darwinism" which is not "Dawkins' thesis"
then let him state what it is.
>>
Irrelevant. You have to show support for your argument.
<< >SJ>The fact is that the *defining* quality of Darwinism is the denial of
>the *reality* of design and the claim that unintelligent natural forces can
>give the *illusion* of the work of an intelligent designer:
FJ>Ah, but that is not denying design, merely that design can be detected.
Darwinists do in fact deny design, but it is sufficient for my purposes that
FJ concedes that Darwinists are "denying...merely that design can be
detected." The ID movement claims that design *can* be detected.
>>
Sure and they are still working hard to support their claims and even if they
do, they are still going to have to deal with the fact that ID cannot exlcude
a natural designer.
Perhaps in the future?
<<
>SJ>But that is not what FJ said. He said that "Darwinism does not deny
>design", which js clearly false, or at best misleading, because all the
leading
>*Darwinists* claim that "Darwinism" *does* "deny design".
FJ>Note the difference between Darwinism and Darwinists...
>A common confusion.
There is no "difference". What the leading "Darwinists" say that
"Darwinism" *is* Darwinism. >>
Wow, I guess that this appeal to authority is what defines Darwinism? Luckily
science does not work that way.
If FJ has his own private definition of what
<< "Darwinism" is, he is welcome to it. I am only interested in debating the
*public* mainstream definitions of "Darwinism" that is held and promoted
by leading Darwinists like Dawkins.
>>
Aha, that shows where you error lies: Your own interest... Well, that's fine
with me but don't confuse Darwinism with what is promoted by famous people.
Such an appeal to authority is not very useful
<< >SJ>BTW after the above on my web page, I immediately add:
>
> "But if the Biblical God really exists there is no good reason to
> assume in advance that Darwinian (or any form of) naturalistic
> evolution is true! "
FJ>No, that is determined by the data and the explanatory power of the
theory.
There would be no problem if "Darwinian...evolution" was only
"determined by the data". But as FJ's own post shows, Darwinists have
erected elaborate philosophical and epistemological rules that ensure that
Darwinism remains in power *irrespective* of "the data".
>>
Unsupported assertion. Perhaps you can provide us with some evidence? Good
luck.
Rethoric like this hardly is convincing.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 13 2000 - 00:11:05 EDT