In a message dated 10/1/2000 9:11:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ralphkru@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU writes:
> >a component of all life, perhaps its defining characteristic. I understand
> >Margulis believes a degree of consciousness is characteristic of all life.
> >(Margulis, having paid the obligatory lip service to natural selection, is
> >still recognized by the establishment. Right?)
>
> ID, then, is just about anything except Darwinism? "Anyone" with an
> alternative is welcome? I have to give more weight to the criticism
> I've seen that ID is so amorphous it can't even define itself except in
> terms of anti-Darwinism.
>
That's an interesting comment but in light of Behe's IC it seems indeed that
IC/ID can only exist in terms of non-Darwinian.
From Behe's Empty Box (http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/box/behe.htm):
"But read this argument carefully. Behe is not offering a way to detect
design, he is offering a way to falsify gradual Darwinian evolution,
and by elimination, conclude design. But there is one big problem- his
falsifier has been falsified. The conclusion that an "irreducibly
complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight,
successive modifications of a precursor system" is simply wrong. "
>Bertvan:
>
> >Devices were added. (either by chance or as the result of intelligence) I
> >see no reason for any awareness of a goal. Creative ability, and awareness
> of
> >increased efficiency might be enough.
>
> Are we not talking about ID--Intelligent Design? If there is no overall
> goal, if the organism has no idea how these new changes will be used,
> how is this different from Darwinism? Where does the intelligence
> come in?
>
If I remember correctly, Bertvan has accepted natural forces as the designer
of ID.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 00:15:44 EDT