Thanks for the feedback, Brian. I am not averse to what you have
said. If ID is not useful in research, it has little to commend it.
It is my assessment, however, that the dominant reason for
"abandoning" design is metaphysical prejudice: "we cannot allow the
divine foot in the door", "ID can only offer the thought that God did
it and so we don't need to do any more research".
I see ID being useful in that it has a richer view of information
than non-ID paradigms, it does justice to design in living things
(in a way that neoDarwinism never has), and it explains the design
features of the Cosmos far better than the multi-universe hypothesis.
> Now, let me offer another paradigm which might overcome some
> problems encountered by the reductionist approach. This paradigm
> would be based on nonlinear dynamics. One reason that a reductionist
> approach might fail methodologically is that it is tied to linearity
> and most complex biological systems are most likely highly nonlinear.
> [snip]
> Is it possible then that a failure of methodological reductionism
> reflects only the fact that complex biological systems are
> highly nonlinear? How would an ID approach be better than just
> trying to gain a better understanding of nonlinear dynamical
> systems?
It is possible. I approach your hypothesis in the same way as you
have approached mine: "If the approach you are suggesting turns out
to be useful, for example it yields some advances in the knowledge
and understanding of developmental biology say, then I think many
people will start to change their minds."
Let all rational approaches to these matters be permitted an
opportunity to show what they can do. ID folk still face an uphill
struggle against people who will not permit this approach within
academia.
Best regards,
David J. Tyler.