I ran across the meta-list reflector and found some interesting comments that
reflect some of my feelings on intelligent design quite well. But it also
makes for a great discussion document.
http://listserv.omni-list.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind00&L=metaviews&P=R14265
In the following the author argues that recognizing human design does not
mean that one can recognize reliably supernatural design. One of the
arguments made by Wesley also address this:
"This is also my viewpoint on the significance of the SETI
project: SETI identifies certain attributes of radio signals
that are known from human use of radio signals, and SETI does
not show us any detection of a novel design/designer
relationship."
http://x74.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=490853642.2
" This confusion in "intelligent design theory"--both affirming
and denying "recourse to the supernatural"--points to the fundamental
fallacy in the argument as arising from equivocation in the use of
the term "intelligent design." Both Dembski and Michael Behe use
the term "intelligent design" without clearly distinguishing "HUMANLY
intelligent design" from "DIVINELY intelligent design." We have all
observed how the human mind can cause effects that are humanly
designed, and from such observable effects, we can infer the
existence of humanly intelligent designers. But insofar as we have
never directly observed a divine intelligence (that is, an omniscient
and omnipotent intelligence) causing effects that are divinely
designed, we cannot infer a divinely intelligent designer from our
common human experience."
[...]
Larry Arnhart
Department of Political Science
Northern Illinois University
[...]
Here the author complains about the lack of any pathways or research to
support ID's theses. If one wants to provide a scientific alternative to
Darwinism then complaining about Darwinism is not enough.
" Intelligent design poses a direct challenge. In "Darwin's Black
Box", Michael Behe pays lip service to common descent but he did not
show that his ideas compatible with it and in practice they are not
(this is not the principal criticism that has been made of the book).
Dembski himself rejects common descent while also claiming:
"Reinstating design within science can only enrich science. All the
tried and true tools of science remain intact". But mainstream
biologists consider the assumption of common descent to be one of
the best tried and also one of the truest (fact *fact* *FACT!*).
Skeptics are free to complain about dogmatism but it would be much
more productive if instead they devoted their energies to developing
either (1) a version of ID theory that is compatible with common
descent or (2) an empirically validated criterion for differentiating
organisms that do have a common ancestor from those that do not.
The first two chapters of Darwin's "Origin of Species", provide a
compelling argument that it will be impossible to find such a
criterion. I sincerely and genuinely wish the skeptics luck in their
attempts."
[...]
Daniel Falush
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science
Kyushu University
Cliff Hamrick raises some interesting issues:
among which
[...]
"Dr. Dembski, despite his claims of intelligent design as a
scientific theory, is not conducting scientific research. Science is
based on the principle of testable, falsifiable hypotheses. I will
give the proponents of intelligent design credit for having a
well-thought out, perfectly logical hypothesis that the universe and
the living things in it are too specifically complex to have arisen
by random chance alone. I agree with the premise of this hypothesis
and that has bolstered my faith in a divine power. However, it is
not scientific until some means of testing that hypothesis can be
shown. I have never seen, though Dembski and cohorts profess to
possess, any viable means of testing this hypothesis. Dembski makes
claims of a mathematical model based on probability statistics that
can sort out designed objects from undesigned ones. However, I have
never seen any articles that enumerate and explain this model so that
scientists can review it for it's scientific merit. Dr. Dembski also
is quite free with his use of the word 'theory'. As someone who
considers one of his areas of specialization as the philosophy of
science, Dr. Dembski should understand that a theory, in the
scientific sense, is a broad idea with implications reaching into
many areas of science and is based on a long list of scientific
research supported by data. Considering that one of the purposes of
his work is "the promotion and advancement of research involving the
development and application of mathematical tools from probability,
complexity, information, stochastic process and recursion theory.
These tools will be used to analyze various cosmological, physical,
chemical and biological structures and processes, with a view toward
the empirical detection of design, if it is there to be found", I
have to say that the research on how to test the hypothesis has yet
to begin. So how can an untested hypothesis suddenly become a theory?"
Indeed, since ID has been placed on a time schedule (Wedge) I wonder how
science can be forced to follow such a schedule. Especially since science is
tentative and data supporting or falsifying it is often elusive.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 14:37:22 EDT