Here Jim and other ID folks use extrapolation for evidence, a practice which
is fraught with problem. I have no problem with the following construct:
because we know that humanly designed things have the characteristic of
being irreducibly complex, it is reasonable to consider that things of
nature that are also complex may also be designed. Such an analogy is the
stuff that hypotheses are made from, but such analogies do not, by
themselves, constitute empirical evidence. Thus, from this groundwork of
analogy --> hypothesis, one must then build with evidence, but one cannot
build a legitimate groundwork from analogy = evidence.
To which I add the following:
Analogy and extrapolation can point one in a particular direction--but do
not constitute empirical evidence for that to which one extrapolates. You
need to obtain empirical evidence for the extrapolated model rather than
rely on analogous situations that do not directly address the situation in
question.
Dennis Durst then responded with this:
> Speaking of "extrapolation as evidence," try this from Charles Darwin:
>
>"As man can produce a great result with his domestic animals and plants
>by adding up in any given direction individual differences, so could
>natural selection, but far more easily from having incomparably longer
>time for action." (p. 55)
>
>"As man can can produce, and certainly has produced, a great result by
>his methodological and unconscious (? sic) means of selection, what may
>not natural selection effect? Man can act only on external and visible
>characters: Nature, if I may be allowed to personify the natural
>preservation or survival of the fittest, cares nothing for appearances,
>except in so far as they are useful to any being...Man selects only for
>his own good: Nature only for that of the being which she tends."
>
>"How fleeting are the wishes and efforts of man! how short his time!
>and consequently how poor will be his results, compared with those
>accumulated by Nature during whole geological periods! Can we wonder,
>then, that Nature's productions should be far "truer" in character than
>man's productions that they should be infinitely better adapted to the
>most complex conditions of life and should plainly bear the stamp of far
>higher workmanship?" (pp. 55-56)
>
> -from _Darwin_ (Norton Critical edition)
Good point Dennis. I have two comments to make:
1. If Darwin says, in the quotes above, that breeder selection proves
natural selection--he is on very flimsy ground. If, on the other hand, he
uses artificial selection to posit an hypothesis about nature, then he is on
solid ground. From this groundwork, however, he needs to provide empirical
evidence for evolution.
2. If ID folk feel that Darwin uses artificial selection as a PROOF for
natural selection (rather than an analogy from which he simply derived an
hypothesis), then you are right to criticise his philosophy of science.
But, it becomes incumbent upon you to not make the same mistake and use
designed computers to prove design in nature. If, on the other hand, you
use design in the human world to make an hypothesis of design in nature--go
for it.
__________________________________________________________________________
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
"Since Ptolemy was once mistaken over his basic tenants, would it not be
foolish to trust what moderns are saying now"? Montaigne, An Apology
for Raymond Sebond, 1580
__________________________________________________________________________