Nucacids wrote:
<< OOL researchers are *not* claiming to have scientific evidence of OOL.
Dembski *is* claiming to have scientific evidence of ID. Important
difference. >>
NA>Yet most scientists embrace OOL claims, even to the point of
NA>teaching it in text books.
Another quantitative claim. Where is the data that shows the
numbers concerning "embrace" of OOL claims among scientists,
and what was the method used to collect these numbers? If,
indeed, any such numbers exist.
NA>Another point to make in support of DNAunion's point is that
NA>it took about 60 years to turn Darwin's thesis into a robust
NA>science (the Modern Synthesis). Darwin and his followers were
NA>not obliged to concede to their critics and abandon their
NA>ideas during these 60 years. Expecting Dembski to do in one
NA>year what their community did in 60 years is unreasonable.
Oh, a tu quoque. How original.
Is it "unreasonable" to request the data that must exist if
a particular claim is true? I'm not asking that Dembski
convince me of anything, much less produce a "robust
science" on the spot. Rather, I am asking to see what, if
anything, lies behind a particular claim. If Dembski
produces a set of calculations that, to his mind, justifies
the claim, then my particular request will have been
satisfied. We will then be able to go on to analysis of
the data, to see if we agree about the content of the
calculations. Is that unreasonable? I don't think so.
Let's compare Darwin and Dembski. Read Darwin's OoS and
you'll find many instances of the form, "If the reader does
not agree with my argument on this point, he will reject my
theory." Contrast that to Dembski's attitude in "Intelligent
Design" and various online essays. If Dembski included in
those even one statement similar to what I described out of
Darwin, I must either have missed it or forgotten it. I will
appreciate any citation of actual instances.
Here's Dembski's claim again.
[Quote]
There exists a reliable criterion for detecting design. This
criterion detects design strictly from observational features
of the world. Moreover it belongs to probability and
complexity theory, not to metaphysics and theology. And
although it cannot achieve logical demonstration it does
achieve statistical justification so compelling has to demand
assent. This criterion is relevant to biology. When applied
to the complex, information-rich structures of biology, it
detects design. In particular the complexity-specification
criterion shows that Michael Behe's irreducibly complex
biochemical systems are designed.
[End Quote - WA Dembski, "Intelligent Design", pages 149-150.]
The fact is that Dembski has made a claim. As such, Dembski
has an obligation to put his data up for review. This is true
regardless of whatever else might be happening in science, or
have happened in science.
Whining that naturalists are hypocrites isn't going to prove
illuminating as to how well or poorly Dembski's claim stands
up. That claim is only as good as the evidence that underlies
it, and at the moment it is unclear that any evidence
whatsoever underlies it. Dembski tells others to "do the
probability calculation" at the end of TDI. The claim above
says that a set of probability calculations exist for a
variety of biological systems. This could turn out to be the
ID version of "cold fusion". Where's the data?
Wesley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 07 2000 - 16:29:10 EDT