In a message dated 6/19/2000 12:42:58 PM, hvantill@novagate.com writes:
<< Before any of these questions can be considered we must know what Dembski
and the other vocal proponents of ID mean by "design," "designed," and
"intelligently designed."
Only when we have been told what it means to be (or have been) intelligently
designed can we ask about its detectability, functionality, transmission,
construction, etc..
ID proponents treat the term as if it had a uniformly understood or
self-evident meaning. It clearly does not. It seems to have nearly as many
meanings as proponents.
>>
Howard,
Let me try once more to deal with your demand for a prior definition of
design. I will do so by giving three examples where a given phenomenon was
difficult if not impossible to define, and yet the difficulty or
impossibility did not stop the process of dealing with the phenomenon. The
first is a rather trivial case, the second and third are more serious.
In the newspaper, USAToday, June 27, 2000, there appeared a front page
article entitled, "Companies rethink casual clothes." The following line
appeared in the body of the article. "Part of the problem is that there are
so many different definitions of casual." Sounds like your complaint.
However, companies concerned with the problems caused by casual dress in the
work place did not take your tack and say, "Only when we have been told what
it means to be (or have been)"... casually dressed, can we do something about
it. They proceeded to give examples of what is commonly acceptable on casual
dress days--polo shirts, jeans and sneakers..What is never acceptable,
spandex, sweat pants, shorts, cutoffs, and in some companies, sleeveless
blouses and T-shirts. So while a formal definition of casual wear was not
forthcoming, it did not stop the process of dealing with casual wear.
Examples served the purpose of getting on with the matter.
A more serious example comes from the study of linguistics and the
difficulties in defining what a sentence is. After giving many reason why it
is difficult to do so the writer states: "Despite all the difficulties, we
continue to employ the notion of 'sentence', and modern syntacticians try to
make sense of it. But they do not search for a satisfactory definition of
'sentence' at the outset -- an enterprise that is not likely to succeed with
over 200 such definitions on record to date. Rather they aim to analyze the
linguistic constructions that occur, recognizing the most independent of them
as sentences. Thus because the following constructions can stand on their
own as utterances, and be assigned a syntactic structure, they would be
recognized as sentences:" Then follows a number of examples of such
utterances. (The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Second edition p. 194).
But with every attempt at definition, exceptions were found.
Third, I have done considerable library research on the process of aging. It
is an extremely difficult concept to define. One researcher wrote, "If you
think cancer is complex, try aging." The problem is that if one tries to
make a truly comprehensive definition of aging, it become so abstract as to
be almost meaningless. But to be anything less than comprehensive, of
course, leaves out important aspects of the phenomenon. So I have settled
for enumerating characteristics of aging--decrease in size, robustness,
mobility; increased susceptibility to infectious diseases; loss of
morphological features--to name some. Not being hung up on the problem of
defining aging, I could get on with the study of it.
You come from the traditions of physics and astronomy where definitions are
possible, even mathematical ones. That is not necessarily the cases in the
biological and social sciences.
I wish you would follow the approach suggested above and use examples of
design as the basis for analysis and action. Check out the examples given by
Behe and others, and call for more examples, if you will, (e.g., the Huygens'
type biconvex lens of the trilobite eye, the remarkable feet of the gecko).
With enough examples on hand the concept of design may begin to emerge. But
if you keep stopping the process of giving and analyzing examples of
intelligent design by demanding an abstract definition up front that will
satisfy you as the condition of continuing, little if any progress on
understanding design will ever be made.
Best regards,
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 07:48:36 EDT