From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Fri Aug 01 2003 - 09:43:09 EDT
>From: "Denyse O'Leary" <oleary@sympatico.ca>
(selected quotations and brief responses)
> There is no scientific explanation for the origin of life.
>
> Translation: We don't have the least idea how life originated.
Wrong. Biologists have a number of ideas on what might have happened, but
are a long way from narrowing the field of reasonable scenarios down to one.
Your translator seems to be very biased.
> Thus, science does not have any special expertise in the matter, at present.
Can you think of any professional community that has has any more expertise
on the possibilities of abiogenesis than the scientific community?
> Of course, science can pronounce on a viable hypothesis, when offered.
> That is what science is for.
What do you mean by "pronounce on"? It sounds like some sort of dogmatic
assertion. It would be less misleading to say, "The task of science is to
evaluate any viable hypothesis that is offered."
> Right now, naturalistic evolution and panspermia are neck and neck in
> what looks to me like a race to nowhere.
It is my understanding that directed panspermia is considered by most
biologists to be an ad hoc hypothesis with little scientific merit. Natural
abiogenesis, on the other hand, is an active research area, although not a
particularly large one.
> ID is not really in the race, as far as I can see, because ID thinkers
> claim that intelligent design is detectable.
ID is not in the race because it offers no explanation other than "some
unidentified, unembodied, form-conferring agent did it." Furthermore, ID's
claims of detectability are, in my judgment, seriously flawed. I do not
believe they have ever been, or will ever be, successful in proving that
some particular biotic structure could not possibly have been actualized by
natural means.
> That does not require a miracle. It only requires that we can detect the
> work of a designing intelligence in at least some aspects of nature.
ID's claim, "does not require a miracle," is as hollow as claims get. If X
is a non-natural form-conferring intervention by an unidentified,
unembodied, choice-making agent, then what sort of non-miraculous phenomenon
could X be?
> Demonstrating that we can detect such an intelligence is their problem.
> Either we can or we can't. It's up to them to provide the evidence.
Agreed.
> The ID people do not need to think about abiogenesis until someone
> hypothesizes a plausible non-intelligent cause.
Why not? Wouldn't it be an ideal opportunity for ID to demonstrate the need
for non-natural form-conferring intervention by an unidentified,
unembodied, choice-making agent?
> Put simply: Because they think that an intelligent cause acts in the
> universe, they can afford to defer their more difficult problems and
> concentrate on the easier, more researchable ones where they might
> detect design.
What is your working definition of "design" here and how would it be
"detected" in an ID research program? What "easy" problems do you have in
mind?
> However, those who want to rule out evidence of detectable design need
> to address the more difficult problems. It's only fair because they are
> asking us to abandon an entire line of reasoning -- that the universe
> shows detectable evidence of design.
Critics of ID do not "rule out" (reject, close eyes to, forbid consideration
of, ....) evidence of detectable "design." Critics of ID, whether theists,
agnostics or atheists, are saying that ID has so far demonstrated nothing
more than the unfinished character of the scientific enterprise.
> Thus, abiogenesis is mainly the problem of those who assert that
> non-intelligent causes can produce life.
Abiogenesis research should be of interest to both advocates and critics of
ID.
> Maybe they can. I don't know. How would I?
Good question.
> Here is what I do know: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the
> light of biochemistry, and nothing in biochemistry makes sense except in
> the light of evidence.
>
> Evidence is always appreciated.
Agreed.
Howard van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 09:44:54 EDT