On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 17:59:36 -0800, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
CC>So far, *all* responses to my "Where's the science?" posts have drawn
>essentially irrelevant and/or evasive posts (such as Stephen's, in which
>Behe's *alleged* elimination of *one* category of possible evolutionary
>paths to certain structures
It is interesting how Chris is changing his tune. Previously he was claiming
that there was *no* scientific evidence for ID. Now he seems to have
accepted that there is at least *one* possible line of evidence for ID,
namely Behe's Irreducibly Complex molecular systems!
CC>is taken as proof
Chris again gets confused between "proof" and *evidence*. I do not claim
that ID can be proved, but I do claim that there is strong *evidence*
for the *inference* of the work of an Intelligent Designer.
CC>that *none* of the *many*
>paths available on the basis of evolutionary theory is possible or likely.
>This is pseudo-science at its worst.)
The point is that Darwinism is a *total* system. Darwin knew that only one
exception would break down his theory as a general, all-purpose
explanation of biological design:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could
not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Darwin C.R.,
"The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection", 6th Edition, 1928,
reprint, p170)
Once it is granted that there are a class of complex molecular structures
which could not have been formed by stepwise cumulative selection, then
inevitably other areas where Darwinian mechanisms have difficulties in
explaining the evidence (and there are *plenty* of these) would be eligible
for reconsideration.
That is why the most sophisticated of the scientific materialists, like
Harvard's Richard Lewontin, realise that they must absolutely exclude the
supernatural from consideration, and stick to a dogmatic metaphysical
naturalism, even though there might strong evidence for supernatural
causes and weak to non-existent evidence for natural causes:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense
is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the
supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of
some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant
promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific
community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior
commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation
of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a
priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation
and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how
counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover,
that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
door." (Lewontin R., "Billions and Billions of Demons", review of "The
Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan,
New York Review, January 9, 1997, p31
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?19970109028R@p6)
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I now wish to give some reasons why I regard Darwinism as metaphysical,
and as a research programme. It is metaphysical because it is not testable.
One might think that it is. It seems to assert that, if ever on some planet we
find life which satisfies conditions (a) and (b), then (c) will come into play
and bring about in time a rich variety of distinct forms. Darwinism,
however, does not assert as much as this. For assume that we find life on
Mars consisting of exactly three species of bacteria with a genetic outfit
similar to that of three terrestrial species. Is Darwinism refuted? By no
means. We shall say that these three species were the only forms among the
many mutants which were sufficiently well adjusted to survive. And we
shall say the same if there is only one species (or none). Thus Darwinism
does not really predict the evolution of variety. It therefore cannot really
explain it. At best, it can predict the evolution of variety under "favourable
conditions". But it is hardly possible to describe in general terms what
favourable conditions are except that, in their presence, a variety of forms
will emerge." (Popper K., "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography",
Open Court: La Salle Ill., Revised Edition, 1982, p171)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------