Me:
>Why must we posture? Yes, I realize that the critics of ID think
>anyone who proposes ID is either intellectually, psychologically,
>or morally troubled. Thus, it is easy for them to equate Dembski with
>an Atlantis proponent. But I thought you agreed there were grounds
>for suspecting ID. What naturally follows a suspicion is an investigation,
>unless one is unwilling.
Richard:
>Only if one has some idea of how to conduct such an investigation. No-one
>has yet come up with a practical programme for searching for evidence of ID.
Not yet, that is. ;)
Me:
>We humans tend to have great trouble giving a serious and open-minded
>hearing to ideas that are both contrary and quite foreign to the way we
>believe. But keep in mind that there are several scientific assumptions/
>claims that may seem so different from astrology only because we have
>become conditioned to see them differently. For example, consider the
>following claims:
>
>-Life arose from non-life by purely non-teleological mechanisms
>
>-Life once existed in a form far more simpler and less sophisticated
>than the bacterial state.
>
>-At one time, life did not require DNA or proteins
>
>-Random mutations and natural selection were the primary mechanisms
>for the evolutionary origin of every biological feature seen on this
planet.
>
>-X (X being any biological feature that arose a very long time ago) was
formed
>by random mutations and natural selection.
Richard:
>The significant difference is that these claims are being investigated by
>scientific means.
ID is easily capable of generating subsidiary hypotheses open to
investigation by scientific means.
>Even if origins of life research can never prove that life
>originated one way or another, it's still useful because it's increasing our
>knowledge of biochemistry.
Indeed, and just as we may never be able to prove that life was designed,
we are just as likely to increase our knowledge of biochemistry by
employing a teleological perspective. After all, I did indeed validly
infer the existence of proof-reading during the biochemical process
of transcription by using ID logic. And in my reply to Tedd, I
suggest that one way to determine if the amount of CSI inherent in
life is best explained by ID is to uncover the minimal complexity
required to sustain a cellular life form.
Me:
>While all of these claims are widely held in the scientific community, all
>of them also have very little/no evidential basis. That is, contrary to
>Steve's
>claim about the conservative nature of science, there are many claims
embraced
>not reluctantly, but as a function of the game rules of science. Yet we
come
>to think that the belief in a non-teleological origin of life/biological
>feature
>is inherently more supported than something like astrology not because
>we can point to gobs of evidence in one case (and not the other), but
because
>the same zeitgeist that is trying to censor the Polanyi Center from
academia
>is
>the one that taught us how to view the world.
Richard:
>I deny that the last two claims "have very little/no evidential basis".
Then let's have the evidence, say, that RM&NS were the mechanisms
behind the origin of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton.
>Of course, we don't have evidence for *every feature*, but, in the absence of
>hard evidence to the contrary, it's reasonable to extrapolate the only
>mechanism that we do know about to the cases that we can't study.
Except that there is no evidence to think such extrapolations are valid.
I discuss this in my reply to Tedd.
>I would agree that the first 3 claims are not supported by scientific
>evidence (though there may be a limited amount of evidence supporting the
>*possibility* of life originating in ths way). These claims are rightly
>treated as being speculative. But they're reasonable assumptions, based on
>parsimony. I would recommend a teacher to teach that "it's widely believed
>by scientists" that life originated in such a way; not that it *did* do so.
Not much to disagree with here.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 17:40:46 EDT