Tim:
>>If you can find Sober's work on the subject (Philosophy of
>>Biology), you might see where I'm coming from.
Mike:
>I have too much on my plate of things to do, so perhaps
>you can provide a synopsis of these views so that I
>might better understand where you are coming from.
Tim replied:
>Cheat: Go to a local Borders or something and browse the
>second chapter. It's short but direct.
>Basically: Lacking direct evidence of a designer, creation
>theorists can only test their ideas (and make them
>distinguishable from natural mechanisms) by making additional
>assumptions about how a designer may behave (Sober calls
>these: "auxilliary assumptions"). These auxilliary assumptions
>are hard to defend for an agent with intelligence and so far
>no one has succeeded in generating a coherent, testable package.
>Sober doesn't rule out the possibility that someone will
>be successful in the future but notes that the track record
>of creationist theories are poor.
I have already outlined one auxilliary hypothesis, namely,
the intelligence reflected by design should be *rational*
from the perspective of engineering (this doesn't mean
irrational design cannot exist - it means only that
ID would be incapable to detecting irrational design
behind life similar to the way science is incapable of
detecting intelligent design behind life). This assumption
clearly can lead to a coherent and testable packages (as shown
by my discussion of proofreading and the eye).
In fact, the great thing about this auxilliary hypothesis
is that it is a working assumption of science that was
originally dependent on Judeo-Christian theology/philosophy.
In fact, when you claimed:
"I am not Christian. I am a scientist and my working assumption
is that empirical reality is rational."
that's probably not entirely true. Go back to the backward
wired eye. The common scientific claim is that this design
is irrational and it has often been used as an argument against
ID (even in scientific textbooks). The eye is clearly part of
empirical reality, yet its construction entails an inherent
irrationality that is quickly embraced when one invokes
an irrational designer, like natural selection. Thus, in
an odd way, Darwin's theories allow scientists to
disengage from the working assumption that helped birth
(and maintain) modern science. ID is the notion that truly continues
on with the assumption that empirical reality is rational as far
as these matters are concerned.
Tim:
>>I think that myoglobin was the product of evolution, but
>>I do not know the origin of its ultimate globin precursor.
>>I _propose_ natural mechanisms because:
>>1) I haven't seen any other "interventionist intelligence" at work.
Mike:
>That's reasonable, but should we expect to see "interventionist
>intelligence" at work today if it was at work long ago? Unless
>we can answer this with a clear "yes," such a failure to see is
>not very meaningful beyond the conclusion that an
>"interventionist intelligence" is not at work today.
Tim:
>No, I think it tells you something about the operating
>procedures of a creator. But let me ask you something;
>why shouldn't we expect to see evidence of an interventionist
>designer in the recent past? This is the religious bias which
>I discussed previously with Paul.
I don't think this is a religious bias. Even without
Christianity, I don't see any good reason why we should
expect to see such evidence. It's not a matter of why
we shouldn't expect to see evidence, but a question of
why we should see evidence. For only if we have reason
to *expect* evidence does the lack of that evidence
become meaningful.
>I agree that we can reach no conclusion about design if we
>didn't see it in the recent past. But we shouldn't we look to
>the recent past? That's where the "tracks" are likely to be freshest.
Sure, but the easiest approach is not necessarily the one
that will work. I personally don't expect recent evidence
of past intelligent intervention because I have no reason
to expect it. As I said before, my views are a modest
extrapolation of Howard's, where I am willing to go
beyond the origin of the universe to the origin of the
next big step - the origin of life. Since life is defined
by CSI and intelligence (IMO) is a better explanation
for CSI than the non-biotic world, it is here where I
expect to find fingerprints. If they don't exist, there is
no reason to look any more recently and I can more
seriously entertain Howard's views as the best explanation.
If they do, I can extend my focus to more recent times
to see how far out the fingerprints extend. But beginning
with the most recent past just seems backwards to me,
as failure to find design here says very little to me for
two reasons:
a. I am by far more sympathetic to a view that postulates
original design events that serve to stack the evolutionary
cards, meaning that a "design, then evolution" view would
not expect to find design recently;
b. The origin events of more recent times are trivial
compared to those associated with life (or cell types).
Me:
>It's important to remember that ID is not like a law of
>nature, as ID would be much more like a singularity than
>a regularity (unless one posits a puppet-master-designer).
Tim:
>Well, you've brought up the intial creation of life,
>the globin gene family, the emergence of eukaryotes and
>the wiring of the invertebrate eye as possible examples
>of ID. That's 3-4 events right there, spread out over a few
>billion years. And if we're going to postulate ID involvement
>in vertebrate eyes, there must be many, many examples of
>involvement in other events for other organisms.
Don't confuse speculations about what ID has to offer
scientifically with specific design claims. I make
no claim about the vertebrate eye being directly
designed; I simply used the well-known example to
illustrate one way a ID proponent could use ID in
a scientific manner. The same basic logic, for example,
could be employed with Rubisco. My personal views
would keep ID close to the origin of life and employ
teleological notions of evolution.
Me:
>ID could very well be used to construct a just-so story that gets
>validated in the sense where its auxilliary hypotheses (that are
>contrary to non-ID hypotheses) receive support and provide
>further direction for further work.
Tim:
>Excellent. Let us know when it's successful.
[snip]
>I haven't concluded that the project is doomed, although I'm
>willing to bet it won't fly.
>Tell you what, try some research yourself and get back to us.
Sounds like good advice to me.
I've enjoyed the discussion and wish you happy holidays!
Mike