From: Jack Haas (haas.john@comcast.net)
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 09:27:27 EDT
Re: RFEP & IDGreetings:
I insert below a section from a new book by a recent addition to the ID =
group. He offers some ideas related to the question of ID =
fruitfullness.
Jack Haas
From: Cornelius G. Hunter, Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion =
over Science (2003): 122-123.
".. technical journals are full of research that is based on the design =
premise. The design perspective opens up a wide range of research areas =
and predictions in the life sciences. One such area is design topology. =
For example, very different amino acid sequences can make for the same =
protein. Hemoglobin, for instance, can be produced from sequences that =
have practically no more similarity than would be expected from two =
random sequences. And within the family of all globin proteins, there is =
a great variety of sequences. These sequences form clusters. What sort =
of region is defined by the set of all globin sequences? Is there a =
large, single region in sequence space that contains all these sequences =
and more? Alternatively, are these clusters connected by narrow bridges =
such that the known clusters constitute the majority of the region? Or =
do the clusters form isolated islands? Recent experiments and analysis =
argue against the large region model, but there is much more to learn, =
and the results will be relevant to protein design and the biotechnology =
industry.=20
A related area of research involves the question of why those different =
sequences are used. Evolutionists typically view them as the result of =
random changes. In other words, there is no functional reason for the =
differences. This is typical for evolutionary theory. Rather than search =
for a function, evolutionary theory quickly concludes that a design is =
vestigial or perhaps the result of neutral evolution. In this way =
evolutionary theory, not ID, stifles research. The result is an =
"evolution of the gaps" theory. Gaps in our knowledge are explained as =
the result of evolution. If we have no knowledge of a function, then the =
unguided process of evolution created it. But this explanation is =
steadily pushed into the corner as our knowledge increases and we =
continue to find new functions. As we saw in chapter 4, for example, =
Robert Wiedersheim claimed in 1895 that eighty-six organs in the human =
body were vestigial, but twentieth-century biomedical research has found =
functions for practically all of them.=20
ID will encourage the search for function at the morphological as well =
as the molecular level. In our globin example, the question is why all =
those different sequences are used. This is not an easy question, for it =
will require an understanding of the workings of the entire organism, or =
at least an entire cell. At the molecular level it appears that very =
different sequences could be freely substituted, but at the cellular =
level it could be that the sequence differences are there for a reason. =
This research will help us understand the molecular-to -morphological =
connection, a key to a deeper understanding of biology.=20
Designs that are repeated in otherwise different species are not a =
problem for design-based research. There are plenty of such examples in =
biology, and evolution must liberally make use of convergent evolution =
as an explanatory device, An outstanding example is the marsupial =
-placental conv ergence in mammals that we saw in chapter 4. Evolution =
must explain the unlikely set of duplicated designs as evolution =
repeating itself. On different continents and over millions of years, =
the blind forces of evolution. are supposed to have found practically =
identical solutions over and over. These repeated designs are naturally =
explained by ID, without having to resort to just-so stories. At last we =
will have a framework that allows searchers to explore function and =
design without having to force-fit results into an unlikely scheme.=20
Similarly, design -based research can readily accommodate small-scale =
evolution. Instead of having to imagine that small-scale change must =
somehow extrapolate to massive amounts of large-scale change (in spite =
the empirical evidence), we will now be able to see it for what it is =
small-scale change can be viewed as a mechanism for adaptation and =
preservation. And it also can be seen as a great opportunity. Scientists =
n research and implement small-scale change for the good of humanity. =
Higher crop yields, freeze- and pest-resistant crop varieties, =
ecological control and habitat recovery, vaccines and healthier =
livestock are a few examples of what can result when our research =
focuses on the productive uses of small-scale change.=20
Indeed, much of today's life science research work focuses on design and =
function. Because Darwin's theory of evolution is dominant, the work =
into this paradigm, but this is not the natural paradigm. Much of our =
current life science work fits better into the design paradigm. Though =
does not reject the evolutionary process, there are substantial =
difference between the two paradigms. Where evolution will accept and =
even accept for nonfunction, ID will look for function. Where evolution =
will explain away the obvious designs in nature as chance products of =
natural election, ID will simply model the design as design."=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Howard J. Van Till=20
To: Steve Petermann ; michael roberts ; asa@calvin.edu=20
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: RFEP & ID
Michael had asked:
>> Can anyone give me one example where ID has been fruitful in =
science? I
>> cannot think of one example.
Steve answered:
> Sure. It has forced Darwinists to look a lot work harder at how
> microbiological evolution works. Any challenge to current theory in =
science
> creates an impetus for new creativity.=20
Two comments:
1. That's a remarkably generous way of scoring this game. Your are =
saying, in effect, that even the nuttiest of proposals may be given =
credit for stimulating responsible scientists to do better science. =
True, perhaps, but that doesn't make the nutty proposal any less nutty, =
does it?
2. I don't think you actually answered Michael's question. I think his =
question was, Can anyone give me an instance in which ID-based research =
produced a uniquely ID-grounded explanation that could be held up as a =
better scientific explanation than those contributed by conventional =
science?=20
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 28 2003 - 00:03:52 EDT