At 01:25 PM 3/7/00 -0800, Bert wrote:
> >
> > It is interesting that while we have grown accustomed to seeing this type
> > of challenge applied to scientific theories, we seldom if ever see a
> similar
> > challenge made to ID. What might such a challenge look like? How about
> > this for starters:
> >
> > What evidence do you have that an intelligent designer
> > would be able to design and build something like a cilia?
> > Do you have the blueprints?
> > Technical memos?
> > A description of the manufacturing procedure?
> > A patent?
> > Where is the design mechanism which ties the designed object
> > to the designer?
>******************************
>I would be pleased to answer.
>
>ID is not a scientific theory it is a philosophical conclusion from an
>arguement that current scientific theories are inadequate.
OK, I made my usual mistake of generalizing. I had thought most in the
ID "camp" would say that ID is a scientific theory. Sorry about that.
[These kind of differences are refreshing, actually]
But what I fail to see is the connection between "...current scientific
theories
are inadequate" and ID.
Also, there is real danger here in setting up this kind of either/or situation.
The logical conclusion from what you write above (IMO) is that adequate
scientific
theories negate ID. Exactly this point came up when Mike Behe visited
Ohio State a few months ago. During the question period some asked Mike
about falsifiability of ID. Mike replied that ID would be easy to falsify,
all you
have to do is show some gradual process for achieving the irreducible complex
structures that he talked about. Then ID is falsified. A rather disturbing
conclusion,
IMHO.
>I do not have evidence of an ID outside of my understanding of the
>revelations of God as understood from the scripture.
In view of my erroneous generalization above, I'm curious now what you mean
by an Intelligent Designer. Is this just a metaphor for God? If so, it seems to
me a poor one. I think we can sometimes get trapped in our metaphors.
For example, have you considered the possibility that there may not be
a Watchmaker (blind or otherwise)?
>Irreducible complexity does not tell us that a God exists but it does
>make the material process only explanation hard to accept and leaves one
>to search for another explanation.
>
>The blueprints are being understood through daily research and I do not
>know what they are exactly and the IDer has no obligation to give them
>to us.
>
>There is no contention that the ID has given us any details or wants to
>or that the theory of an ID needs this level of detail to be forwarded
>to us. It is not a scientific theory.
>
I appreciate your comments very much, thanks.
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 08 2000 - 17:10:05 EST