From: Denyse O'Leary (oleary@sympatico.ca)
Date: Fri Nov 07 2003 - 06:56:40 EST
Gary Collins wrote:
>
> I generally agree with this. I'm not especially an advocate of ID myself. I sympathise with
> their views to the extent that I believe it is certainly possible that God (aka the IDer)
> specifically intervened in some way at some points in evolutionary history. If this is the
> case, then in my opinion - and it is only my opinion - this would most likely have been
> accomplished by 'rigging' probabilities, such that an extremely improbable event
> becomes actualised, and as such would not be distinguishable from a 'purely natural
> process' (another loaded phrase).
Yes, that is certainly one way. And, if so, you would be able to detect
it as evidence, not only through the eyes of faith.
ID should not, in my opinion be viewed as part of
> science, because it seems to me that it will never be possible to show that something IS
> intelligently designed - in the sense of being specifically manipulated in some way.
The substance of Michael Behe's argument is that irreducibly complex
features of a cell are just such an example, and, conveniently, they can
be studied in detail.
As a
> result, (a) if something is declared to be 'IDed' the research effectively stops there, as you
> can't then investigate the details, at least not by a scientific process; and (b) wouldn't
> they look sheepish if someone subsequently shows the example to be not ID after all.
Well, first, irreducible complexity (IC) is an ID prediction, and, as
you have just asserted, it is falsifiable. That is the risk of making a
real prediction.
Please do remember this e-mail exchange the next time that someone tells
you that ID does not make testable or falsifiable predictions.
You seem more worried about them making predictions than I am, and I am
a supporter.
I am not clear why research would stop in any event. There is lots to
know about the bacterial flagellum other than the fact that it may be
irreducibly complex. The only sort of research I can think of that would
likely be useless, if the flagellum is indeed IC, is the time spent
trying to figure out how it could have happened by a slow series of
natural selections operating on random mutations. We would be just as
well off to try to figure out how computers evolved that way.
> OTOH I think it is extremely important to avoid dogmatism, and to keep in mind at all
> times that all our theories, even the best ones, are not as watertight as we might like them
> to be, and perhaps to think a bit more about what the confidence levels for a particular
> theory, or part of a theory, might be. To weigh up pros and cons a bit more. I'm sure we
> all know this and assume it as an 'unsaid' but sometimes in our discourses we might
> speak as though we have forgotten this, and I am, I think, as guilty in that regard as
> anyone else! And it's important too that when we don't know something, for scientists
> to honestly admit as much. Our methodological naturalism, whilst extremely useful,
> even indispensible, may in the end turn out to have its limitations.
Well, now you've hit on a key issue, in my view, Gary. The main point of
MN is that it excludes design from the definition of science, and posit
law and chance instead. Either a thing "must happen" or it "just
happened." The key question is, if design exists, is the exclusion of
design useful? Is it even defensible?
Denyse
>
> /Gary
>
>
>
-- To see what's new in faith and science issues, go to www.designorchance.com My next book, By Design or By Chance?: The Growing Controversy Over the Origin of Life in the Universe (Castle Quay Books, Oakville) will be published Spring 2004.To order, call Castle Quay, 1-800-265-6397, fax 519-748-9835, or visit www.afcanada.com (CDN $19.95 or US$14.95).
Denyse O'Leary 14 Latimer Avenue Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M5N 2L8 Tel: 416 485-2392/Fax: 416 485-9665 oleary@sympatico.ca www.denyseoleary.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 07 2003 - 06:53:12 EST