Hi Chris.
You wrote:
========================================================
Chris
That "Junk" DNA might turn out not to be junk has nothing to do with
purpose or design; it has to do with biological function (if any). That
Mike may have been *motivated* to do something by the design idea also has
nothing to do with whether the design premise itself is *scientifically*
useful. Also, you seem to be confusing purpose with function. A scientist
can look for function without necessarily looking for design.
And design is always a possibility. The question is, When does it become a
viable hypothesis? The answer is: When it becomes *testable*. The
theological version of ID is *defined*, by ID theorists themselves, in such
a way that it cannot be tested or even *scientifically* detected. Put
bluntly, the design theory, as an unqualified idea, with no actual design
principle specified that could distinguish it *empirically* from
non-design, or from other principles of design, *is* scientifically
useless, as the vagueness and emptiness of your own examples show.
Finally, your observation that it has not yet proved productive is an
admission of precisely my point; it is *not* useful in this context. And
there is a reason for it: There's no *evidence* of design in this case. If
a large, smooth, metal spherical object with doors and portholes came from
outer space and landed, gently, on Earth, a design hypothesis would be
viable on a prima facie basis until and unless investigation discounted it,
and, presumably, such a hypothesis would, at least in principle, be
testable. But there is no similar basis for such a hypothesis in biology,
and it is nearly always defined in such a way that it is *not* testable,
because its supporters don't want to risk having it refuted by empirical
facts. Why do you think Behe tried to find evidence *against* evolution
(i.e., "irreducible complexity")? Because he couldn't find any evidence
*for* design.
Let me know when someone *actually* finds ID scientifically useful. It's
main use, so far, has been to *attack* science (and naturalism).
===========================================================
I'd like to explore the example you gave of the large, smooth,
metal object with doors and portholes landing gently on earth.
I appreciate your giving an example of a case where you think it
would be appropriate, as a starting point, to make a design hypothesis.
What I'd like to know is how this differs in any significant ways
from what we see of the microscopic world of the cell from the standpoint
of late 20th century molecular biology. I'm not saying there are
no differences, just asking you to explain why you think a prima
facie design hypothesis should *not* be made about complex biological
systems (take your favorite molecular machine system if you want to
be specific) while it *should* be made for the smooth sphere.
Perhaps one reply would be that once upon a time
(say 200 years ago) it was indeed an appropriate thing to do, but
subsequent research revealed evidence that counted against
the design hypothesis. In response one could argue (as I think Behe
does) that in light of all that we know now about the cellular world
that we did *not* know 200 years ago, it's time to re-evaluate the
design hypothesis. But this is just one reply. What do you think?
You clearly put a lot of time and effort into your posts, and I
appreciate that. I look forward to your response.
Stan Zygmunt
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
Valparaiso University
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 14 2000 - 12:26:25 EDT