> Greetings Randy:
>
> "So would it be accurate to say that at present science is not able to either confirm or deny the validity of the ID argument?"
>
> That one issue of it, yes. The major problem I have with the ID argument is that it gives results that are indistinguishable from those
of the evolutionary argument, but adds the extra assumption of a "designer" that itself cannot be investigated, tested or confirmed
scientifically. Parsimony alone would require that we accept evolution rather than complicate the issue with claims that can never be
verified.
I think many of the ID argument's most energetic advocates are also
convinced of the inadequacy of the present evidence to support the theory
of evolution.
> "But if this type of life begins then it is already compatible and doesn't need to adapt. This might just be a question of semantics but I
think the use of the word 'adapt' in this context is imprecise."
>
> There are two ways an organism can be adapted to a particular environment: they can either alter their genome as the environment changes
or they can already possess the traits that make them better able to survive these changes than other organisms. Pim is (I think)
suggesting that when life first appears it is so simple that it could be produced by a wide range of constant value combinations, but that
it gradually adapts to fit the current specific value combination more closely. I am suggesting that a wide variety of lifeforms are
produced, but that only a few have the features that make them pre-adapted to a specific value combination. These thrive at the expense of
the others, eventually producing intelligence.
I would agree with what you've said here. My argument is that any form
of life which begins must ALREADY be compatible with the physical
constants in the universe and, if it is not, will be dead before it has a
chance to "adapt". I don't think we're actually disagreeing here.
Randy Bronson