From: Steve Petermann (steve@spetermann.org)
Date: Tue Sep 23 2003 - 12:15:23 EDT
Some forms of variation in evolution are observable like the evolution of
antibiotic bacteria or the insecticide resistance of fruit flies for
instance. From my reading, it appears that some if not most IDers accept
this type of selection on variation. The key issue seems to be the
evolution of complex forms.
When it comes to the evolution of complex forms it seems that both
Darwinians and ID'ers must resort to inference. For complex systems it is
not possible to follow every step of the evolutionary process to verify
causation. It then becomes a matter of Darwinian inference or design
inference. This means that neither group will be able to absolutely "prove"
their mechanism in all cases. However, in order to provide a reasonable
resolution to the question, perhaps an example from the law can be of help.
In the law "proof" can be secured by appealing to the preponderance of
evidence on an issue. But here's the tricky part. Since ID assumes an
external agent and causation not directly observable, it can only offer a
negative preponderance of evidence, i.e. demonstrate satisfactorily(to the
"jury") that many, if not most, complex systems are very inexplicable in
Darwinian terms. Darwinians, however, can provide a positive preponderance
of evidence if they can accurately describe the unintelligent evolution of
some complex systems. However, these Darwinian explanations would need to
be very detailed(not "just so" explanations) to avoid the retort of
inference. This could be akin to reverse engineering the development of a
machine(anyone see the _Connections_ series on PBS?) If this would work, it
seems that the battle will be fought in microbiology where the systems are
both simple enough and complex enough to address the question. Does anyone
know of some complex systems where Darwinians have formulated a detailed
evolutionary path?
Steve Petermann
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 23 2003 - 12:17:54 EDT