At 01:33 PM 04/21/2000 -0400, Howard J. Van Till wrote:
>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
Your point is well taken, Howard, and I agree with your representation of
the claims made by IDrs. In my opinion, however, the IDrs' conclusion that
life could only arise through a nonnatural mechanism is not fully supported
by the evidence they invoke in support of the idea of ID. The evidence,
along the lines of Paley's observation, really says nothing about the
mechanism of fabrication, only that an intelligent agent was
involved. Thus, they indirectly come to the conclusion that nonnatural
forces are responsible for life. As you point out above, their program
provides no direct evidence for this conclusion. Thus, I believe that they
are reaching a conclusion that is not warranted given the data. Since
evidence for the appearance of design, I believe says nothing about the
mechanism of fabrication, I make the claim that you quoted above. I
believe that this is the proper intellectual position of ID, and that
conclusions regarding mechanisms by which life was fabricated are not
adequately supported.
Regards,
Steve
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Human Oncology and
Member, UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine
600 Highland Ave, K4/432
Madison, WI 53792
Office: (608) 263-9137
FAX: (608) 263-4226
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 22 2000 - 16:41:10 EDT