Steve Clark commented:
> ID says nothing about the mechanism by which life arose and
> diversified. It only addresses whether this process was intentional or
> not.
On this particular point I must respectfully disagree. Although proponents
of ID have been careful never to provide a candid definition of just what it
means "to be (or have been) intelligently designed" the vast majority of
their argumentation appears directed toward the conclusion that "some bio-X
could not
have come to be formed by any known natural means, therefore it must have
been intelligently designed."
"Intelligently designed" is almost always set up as a category in contrast
to "actualized by natural processes." It's _either_ ID _or_ NP.
The heart of the ID claim is that "natural processes" are unable to
accomplish the assembly of the first living system or the first assembly of
certain particular biotic subsystems. Some supplementary action, I call it
"extra-natural assembly," must have been performed by an intervening agent.
For whatever reason, the universe is presumed to lack key formational
capabilities. The resulting gap in this menu of formational capabilities
must, it is claimed, be bridged by the intervening action of some
extra-natural agent.
You would be correct to note that ID offers no _specific_ mechanism (other
than "some intelligent agent must have done it"), but it does make the
strong claim that "there are no natural processes capable of doing it."
Thus, as I see it, ID does assert something quite substantial about "the
mechanism by which life arose and diversified."
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 13:36:33 EDT