From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Fri Nov 07 2003 - 08:46:40 EST
>From: "Denyse O'Leary" <oleary@sympatico.ca>
> Gary Collins wrote:
> 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.
>
Denyse replied:
> 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.
All that Behe has done is to argue that IF you limit the meaning of the term
"Darwinian processes" to known and extremely gradualistic processes alone,
THEN it has not yet been shown that these "Darwinian processes" could have
produced certain biotic systems. Even if that were true (and I'm not saying
it is), that does NOT establish the case that ID advocates claim.
What ID advocates like Dembski claim is that they have empirical evidence
that certain biotic structures could not possibly have been assembled by the
joint effect of all natural causes, both known and unknown, and must
therefore have been assembled in a way that required one or more episodes of
non-natural, form-imposing action by an unidentified, unembodied,
choice-making agent.
The demonstration of this claim, however, requires the computation of a
probability that is, and always will be, humanly impossible. As it stands,
the fundamental ID claim is simply vacuous. Gary Collins is correct. ID HAS
NO SCIENTIFIC CASE, PERIOD.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 07 2003 - 09:58:25 EST