Re: Philosophy of Science

Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Tue, 16 Jan 1996 17:55:23 -0600

I would like to respond in more depth to Jim's query which, it seems, is
partly in response to my earlier statement that I have some problem with
Phil Johnson's philosophy of science. Unfortunately, I am swamped until at
least March and cannot give as much attention to this topic as I would like.
But I offer a tidbit here.

Jim Bell writes:
>Mike Behe uses the term "irreducible complexity." What he means my this is the
>subject of his forthcoming book, "Darwin's Black Box" (Free Press), due this
>summer.
>
>By this he means "the ordering of independent parts to achieve a function that
>is beyond any of the individual parts." On the bio-chemical level (his
>specialty) we know this is not something that never arises by chance. No paper
>has ever been published which explains these irreducibly complex systems in
>testable detail.

1. We do not KNOW from biochemistry that complex things never arise by
"chance".

2. The fact that no paper has been published to describe the details of the
natural formation of complex things may be true. But I suspect the same can
be said about intelligent design.

3. The fact that we have difficulty explaining the origins of complex
molecular structures means that we have difficulty in explaining them. It
does not provide sufficient grounds on which to conclude design or chance.

>If I understand the logic correctly, once we eliminate "non-intelligence" and
>chance as explanations, we really have only one other direction to explore.
>Thus, "intelligent design."

I must have missed something. Who proved that there is not a naturalistic
explanation for origins? Or to put it differently, at what stage do we KNOW
that there is not a naturalistic explanation for any phenomena? I have
asked this question several times and those who claim that we have
eliminated naturalistic explanations do not answer.

This is one of the areas in which I have problems with Phil's "theological
realism". While I agree in principle with this position and even invoke it
with my students, it seems to me that the position and its limitations are
misunderstood by many. For instance, if Darwinian evolution proves not to
be viable, supernatural explanations is NOT the only alternative. But this
seems to be the position of TR folks, as illuminated by Jim's statement above.

Steve
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792

"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings
to search out a matter." Proverbs

"What, then is time? I know well enough what it is, provided that
nobody asks me" Augustine 'Confessions'
__________________________________________________________________________