Hi FMAJ,
I'll let you have the last word on other exchanges and offer one more set of
comments here and another set concerning your other reply.
The ARN board is again "open for business" so I will be returning there
after posting these.
FMA: But if ID is not a reliable empirical detector of (intelligent) design
then what use does it have?
The same thing that most non-teleological scientists have - the ability
to contemplate historical hypotheses that generate expectations, data, and
thus a cumulative case. Are you under the impression that non-teleologists
have a reliable empirical detector of non-teleological causation? What
is this detector that has led to the consensus among scientists that life
arose from non-life through non-teleological means? What is this
detector that has allowed the consensus view to emerge that things such
as the flagellum evolved BY random mutation and natural selection?
I just finished reading another paper where some scientists are
arguing that the first life forms were more like a protozoan than
a bacterium. Did they use a "reliable empirical detector" to make this
claim? No. Have they made a claim that has been embraced by
the scientific community? No. They make a cumulative case with
indirect evidence. That's all.
The point is simply this - I do not think we can directly detect
the existence of either a teleological or non-teleological cause
from ancient history. The best we can do is to infer such a
cause indirectly to determine how well those inferences make
sense of the data we have. In my opinion, there is simply no
need for a magic bullet test of detection. Science itself has none,
yet that has not stopped it from speculating and testing about
non-teleological causes.
Consider this perspective. If we have no reliable empirical
detector of intelligent design, then everyone (including science)
is blind to the existence of intelligent design. Science has
no evidence against ID. Neither can it say that its hypotheses
and theories about origins are true or even approximate
truth. All it can say is "given we are blinded to the existence
of ID, here's what we can come up with." Thus, the
lack of such a "reliable detector" has serious implication for
for the non-teleological viewpoint - it means the whole
non-teleological account cannot be tested against its
null hypothesis and is thus a circular account. It's a story
that only happens to reflect our cultural gestalt.
FMA:Certainly we don't know if far better an explanation
than "we don't know".
But what don't we know? The problem with this claim is
that non-teleologists often attempt to smuggle in their
perceptions with such a claim. They are not claiming we
should all admit that we don't know IF life arose from
non-life through non-teleological means. They are claiming
we should admit we don't know HOW life arose from
non-life through non-teleological means. These are
very different claims.
FMA: That abiogenesis happened seems quite inescapable,
how it happened is what is being discussed.
The only thing that seems inescapable is that once upon
a time there was no life on this planet and then there
was. What is not inescapable is the notion that somehow
this all happened by non-teleological means. On the contrary,
the cumulative data patterns better support a teleological
cause at this point (IMO).
FMA: That the flagellum is likely hard to explain by science
hardly means that it therefor was designed.
Agreed. But then if the flagellum was designed, we would
expect any approach that excludes design to be ultimately
without much support.
FMA: In fact some quite plausible pathways for evolution
of the flagellum have been given.
"Plausible pathways" typically exist only in the imagination
and it thus should not be surprising to see non-teleologists
cling to what is merely possible.
FMA: What pathways have been identified by ID?
This question makes no sense. If someone designs an experiment
or device, we don't ask about their "pathway." We ask about
their procedure, their protocol, their recipe. And these things
don't come FROM the world. They are imposed ON the world.
The rather basic problem that many ID critics don't seem to
understand is that ID research is very different, by necessity,
than the type of research used to explore regularities. When
dealing with regularities, you indeed look for "pathways"
from one point to another via these regular happenings.
ID is about detecting points of intervention among the
regularities to determine if a pattern emerges.* Then,
if a pattern emerges, we ask "why does this pattern
exist?"
* Actually, as I have explained elsewhere, ID as intelligent
intervention is only one expression of a teleological outlook.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 22:53:09 EDT