Reflectorites
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 13:58:11 EDT, FMAJ1019@aol.com wrote:
[...]
>SJ>But Dembski points out that ID would be compatible with "the most far-
>ranging evolution" because "an evolutionary process can exhibit such
>`marks of intelligence' as much as any act of special creation."
FJ>So my question again to ID'ers is that if ID can detect design but cannot
>exclude "the most far ranging evolution" because en evolutionary process can
>exhibit marks of intelligence then what does ID have to offer that science
>presently does not offer?
How many times do I have to say it? A WAY OF RELIABLY DETECTING THE MARKS
OF *REAL* DESIGN IN NATURE! :-)
>FJ>SE also wrote that:
The name is Steve Jones, i.e. "SJ", not "SE".
SJ>If design is empirically detected it will be public property. *All* religions
>and philosophies which claim there is design would find it confirmatory of
>*their* position, including Christianity as only one among many.
SJ>So design can confirm all positions from evolution to religion alike.
FJ needs to read more carefully. I said "*All* religions and philosophies
*which claim there is design*".
Materialism and Darwinism, for example, deny there is real design.
SJ>But >then ID has no explanatory power at all?
Has FJ some sort of macro which just churns out this stuff mindlesslly?
If he would take the trouble to find out what the various positions in this
debate actually maintain, he would save us all a lot of time.
In future I am just going to say "see above" or "see previous" posts when
FJ has already asked the same question and I have already answered it.
FJ>People already 'detect design' through their faith
*How* exactly do they "'detect design' through their faith"?
And what about those who have no religious "faith"? How would they
detect design?
FJ>and ID changes nothing about the interpretation of this
>"design".
Is FJ's "faith" empirically detectable, i.e. objectively real for everybody?
That is the sort of design the ID movement is trying to establish.
BTW if FJ already believes in design through his "faith" why would
he oppose the ID movement empirically detecting design?
If the design FJ is detecting with his "faith" is real, what is his
objection to ID making design objectively real for everybody?
FJ>SE seems to contradict himself when he claims:
The imnitials are "SJ".
SJ>Only those scientific philosophies which deny design (e.g. materialism,
>Darwinism, etc) would find the empirical detection of design
>disconfirmatory.
FJ>Are you now using the same definition of design Steve?
Yes.
FJ>And what is the value
>of an empirical test for design when design can include all faith, religions
>and science?
I didn't say that. FJ should go back and read what I did say.
FJ>It's clear that the main strength of ID, removing the designer
>from design has also become its main weakness since design can point to a
>large variety of designers, even natural forces.
See above and previus posts. One of FJ's main problem is he just bandies
words around without respect to their meanings.
FJ>ID has become an empty shell
>as has the meaning of the term design and designer.
It certainly has the way FJ uses these words!
Reflectorites
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:26:46 EDT, FMAJ1019@aol.com wrote:
[...]
SJ> `There exists, as well, a generally silent group of students engaged
> in biological pursuits who tend to disagree with much of the current
> thought but say and write little because they are not particularly
> interested do not see that controversy over evolution is of any
> particular importance, or are so strongly in disagreement that it
> seems futile to undertake the monumental task of controverting the
> immense body of information and theory that exists in the
> formulation of modern thinking It is, of course, difficult to judge
> the size and composition of this silent segment but there is no doubt
> that the numbers are not inconsiderable.' (Olson E.C., in Tax S.,
> ed., "Evolution after Darwin," Vol. 1, 1960, p.523)
>
> (Gish D.T., in Ruse M., ed., "But is it Science?", 1996, p.268).
>
>But the problem is that RM&NS is the least falsifiable naturalistic
>theory so the minority of Neo-Darwinists are able to rule the majority.
>
>This is not to say that this silent large minority (or even majority) of
>biologists would agree with ID. Most of them would have their own
>favourite `hobby horse' mechanism, or just assume that it must have been
>some combination of naturalistic mechanisms, even if we don't know what
>they were.
FJ>You seem to be jumping to conclusions here based on a logical leap from the
>quote to an assertion that the minority is large
I said in the context that this was the *heyday* of Neo-Darwinism
and even then it says of "this silent segment ... that the numbers are
not inconsiderable."
That sounds like "minority is large" to me. Obviously it doesn't
to FJ.
FJ>and that their arguments are
>based on scientific rather than emotional arguments.
It is interesting how FJ has just castigated me for "attributing motives to
people you do not know" and here he is attributing motives to people he
does not know!
Olson says they were "students engaged in biological pursuits", so
presumably he thinks their "arguments are based on scientific" grounds.
But it is interesting how FJ can just write off critics of Darwinism by
assuming "that their arguments are ... emotional"! It must be wonderful to
have such certainty!
FJ>Is it btw so bad to assume that which has worked so well in the past
and >admit that we do not presently know all the details.
If science used that argument we would be back with Ptolemy's epicycles
and phlogiston!
FJ>Or should we instead let our ignorance lead us to infer 'design'?
ID is not an argument from what we don't know, but an argument from
what we *do* know:
"In particular this is not an argument from ignorance. Just as
physicists reject perpetual motion machines because of what they
know about the inherent constraints on energy and matter, so too
design theorists reject any naturalistic reduction of specified
complexity because of what they know about the inherent
constraints on natural causes. Natural causes are too stupid to keep
pace with intelligent causes. We've suspected this all along.
Intelligent design theory provides a rigorous scientific
demonstration of this long-standing intuition. Let me stress, the
complexity-specification criterion is not a principle that comes to us
demanding our unexamined acceptance it is not an article of faith.
Rather it is the outcome of a careful and sustained argument about
the precise interrelationships between necessity, chance and
design." (Dembski W.A., "Intelligent Design," 1999, p.223)
"Indeed, the whole point of Michael Behe's irreducible complexity
and my own specified complexity is that these are empirical features
of mundane objects that reliably signal intelligent causation.
Whether these mundane objects trace their causal histories through
mundane or transcendent designers is irrelevant. When we see
irreducible complexity or specified complexity, we know that an
intelligent cause has been present and acted even if we know
nothing else. This is not an argument from ignorance. Behe and I
offer in-principle arguments for why undirected natural causes (i.e.,
chance, necessity or some combination of the two) cannot produce
irreducible and specified complexity. Moreover we offer sound
arguments for why intelligent causation best explains irreducible
and specified complexity. The ontological status of that intelligent
cause simply does not arise in the analysis." (Dembski W.A.,
"Intelligent Design," 1999, pp.276-277).
FJ is like someone who denies that a message received by SETI could not
be designed because we don't know every possible naturalistic cause.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 17 2000 - 18:51:21 EDT