Cliff:
>>I must presume that ID
>>advocates much prefer a construction that puts the emphasis on the
>>inexplicability (thus far) of complexities in nature, and avoids an
>>emphasis on what they are really about.
Me:
>Let me guess. If something is explicable, by definition, it entails an
>explanation with reference to nothing more than physical laws, chance,
>and natural selection. For some reason, ID is rejected as a plausible
>explanation, thus ID necessary fails to resolve the inexplicable.
>Of course, this reasoning begs the question.
Cliff:
>The reason that ID is rejected is that ID is an explanation that doesn't
>explain, according to the suggested definition of explicability, which is
>the one that scientifically-minded people adhere to.
The definition of explicability that is held by scientifically-minded
people is one that conforms to methodological naturalism. However,
explaining something from within the constraint of this game rule
does not mean no other explanations are valid. So of course if we
begin with the assumption of MN we will have to exclude ID.
I have no more problem with this than the fact that one gets $200
of play money every time they pass Go in Monopoly. That is,
if the game is to come up with explanations that make no reference to
ID, one can consider those explanations in this light. But if we are
trying to determine what happened, that's a different story.
Me:
>For example, maybe the
>reason abiogenesis is inexplicable is *because* such explanations
>ignore ID. From the ID perspective, the origin of life is not nearly as
>inexplicable as it is for those whose minds are closed to ID. Sorry, Cliff,
>but your observation is nonsense.
Cliff:
>The explanatory power of ID is too great to be of any value. Couch it
>any way you like, it's still deus ex machina.
I disagree. Since ID can help one to understand the world (see my
messages on proof-reading), it clearly has value. Of course, ID
can be misused as an after-the-fact explanation for anything we
see. But this is no different from the way Darwinian explanations
are usually employed. As long as one is free to invent imaginary
molecules, imaginary life forms, imaginary functions, imaginary
seletive advantages, and an imaginary environment, all situated in
the unobservable ancient past, it too has an explanatory power that
"is too great."
>Abiogenesis will be explained someday, like so many other things that
>once were inexplicable but now are not. Unfortunately, when this occurs,
>those whose religious views depend on inexplicability will be put out,
>their religion undermined by an advance of knowledge.
Any religious person who makes his/her views *dependent* on
phenomena not explained from within the confines of MN is
indeed playing with fire. But this does not hold true of me.
I simply don't have your faith in the belief that abiogenesis will
be explained someday. As I see it, it's not a question of some
details to be worked out. The whole approach is flawed at the
core (even Paul Davies concludes we'll need to uncover new
laws of nature to explain it in his most recent book). In fact the
state of research in abiogenesis has been taking steps backwards, not
forwards, in the last few decades. More significant is that good
solid positive evidence exists to indicate that life itself was the
product of intelligent intervention.
One more thing. Simply coming up with an explanation is not
good enough for me. This explanation must be more than something
that is possible or plausible. It must be an explanation about history,
and all historical claims require evidence that indicates the claim is
most likely to be true.
>How does ID theory distinguish between things which might be explained
>in the future and things which can never be explained naturalistically?
>How do you judge what is a proper object of research and what is not?
I don't presume to be in a position to judge what is "proper" for others
to study. I am the one who is open-minded on this whole issue. You
have the roles reversed, as the status quo clearly shows that there are
those who put on the judge robes and declare ID research is not proper.
I am not the censor here.
Furthermore, I would not make the type of distinction you ask about.
It's not a question of things that "can never be explained naturalistically."
I am not all-knowing enough to make such claims. I simply don't think
any persuasive case for abiogenesis will be made. I could be wrong, but
then again, maybe I am not.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 17:59:57 EST