In a message dated 10/6/2000 7:53:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Nucacids@aol.com writes:
> 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
>
The problem is that IDers were making claims that they had a reliable
empirical detector of intelligent design. If we agree that they don't then we
can at least put that claim to rest as wishful thinking. It's important for
ID to have a reliable detector for design because they infer design from the
absence of evidence, or elimination of other causes.
> 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?
>
Plausible pathways that explain the evolution of the flagellum as opposed to
lack of plausible pathways that show an ID explanation?
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.
ID is back were it started, no evidence in favor, no evidence against. It's
back where it imho belongs, faith.
> 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.
>
Sure, if there is ANY evidence of a teleological means ... But I doubt that
teleology will ever be testable so in the end it remains faith. Should
scientists therefore accept faith based explanations as a scientific
hypothesis? Unlikely.
> 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).
>
With no pathways identified for the teleological cause and potential pathways
for the non-teleological cause, I doubt your claim.
> 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.
>
That's so far wishful thinking. Why should we include design when design is
scientifically unsatisfactory? Behe and Demsbski realized that in order for
design to be scientifically acceptable it would need a reliable detector. Now
that the detector is shown to be less than reliable, what's left?
> 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.
>
It's far better than that which ID has provided us with. Plausible pathways
can be tested and rejected. Can we expect ID to provide similar use?
> 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.
>
You know what I mean. How was it done? Why was it done? Without pathways,
without numbers there is no science.
> 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?"
>
So ID is merely trying to detect something that looks like an intervention
but it cannot exclude natural forces as the interventionists? What is then
the usefulness of finding "design"? So it looks like an intervention....
Fine, what does ID contribute to scientific understanding? Or is that too
much to expect from ID?
> * Actually, as I have explained elsewhere, ID as intelligent
> intervention is only one expression of a teleological outlook.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 07 2000 - 15:18:18 EDT