>LH > "... The more speculative the naturalistic
> explanations, and the stronger the scientific objections, the
> stronger the case is for adopting the ID-paradigm".
And Bill Hamilton asked,
> While I most definitely agree that ID doesn't have to wait to be involved
> in the discussion, Loren's final sentence makes me a little nervous. What
> makes me nervous is the implication that some threshhold exists such that
> if our knowledge of a process exceeds that threshhold we count it explained
> naturalistically, but if our knowledge is below the threshhold we admit ID.
> It seems to me better to admit that our understanding of most natural
> processes is imperfect and therefore admit ID from the getgo. In part my
> reasoning is based on tactical considerations: among a group of scientists
> who are committed to naturalistic explanations, ID would be, at best, a
> last resort -- one which they would endeavor at all costs to avoid. Isn't
> it better to admit that there are mysteries even in fields that are
> considered fairly well-understood, and that the human process of
> investigating nature frequently results in at least as many new unanswered
> questions as it settles. I don't think there is any danger of filling in
> the gaps. Rather, we simply discover more fine gap structure as we
> progress, and find it is exqusitely detailed.
I agree with two of your points. First, our undertanding is always
incomplete, and we continually discover new gaps in our knowledge.
Second, Intelligent Design should always be admitted to our considerations
and explanations.
My quote, above, was in the context of one SUB-question of ID, namely,
"method-of-assembly" or "physical history." Within the sub-question of
physical history, "naturalistic explanations" and Intelligent Design are
quite compatible. The choice is rather between self-assembly and
intervention-assembly. In this context, I would argue that there IS "some
threshhold ... such that if our knowledge of a process exceeds that
threshhold we count it explained naturalistically, but if our knowledge is
below the threshhold we admit intelligent [intervention-assembly]."
(With, of course, the proviso that even our best models can be overturned
by new discoveries.)
I hope this makes you less nervous, rather than more....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't ever speak more clearly than you think." | Loren Haarsma
--attributed to Neils Bohr | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu