Reflectorites
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 09:44:56 -0700, billwald@juno.com wrote:
[...]
>SJ>to be a split in science, with funding being taken off materialists and
>>granted to IDers.
BW>Funding to do what? Do a computer search of junk DNA to see if somehow
>the first 3 chapters of Genesis is encoded?
[...]
I thank Bill for this question, which gives me the opportunity to lay out
what I see as ID's exciting, comprehensive, publicly funded scientific
research program for the 21st century! I would state however that I am not
among the leadership of the ID movement, so the above is just my personal
vision for the ID movement:
Materialistic-naturalistic science's (NS) basic assumption is that prior to the
advent of humans there were only unintelligent causes.
ID's basic assumption is that prior to the advent of humans: 1) there were
*both* unintelligent and intelligent causes; and 2) the latter are, at least
in principle, empirically detectable.
Therefore, ID's research program will be to look for emprical evidence of
intelligent causation prior to ~100 kya. The obvious place to look is where
NS is having major problems with explaining the evidence.
So *positively* ID's research program will include:
1. The origin of the universe-the evidence of `fine-tuning'. ID will seek to
develop a testable model of the origin of the universe by intelligent cause
(e.g. a single Intelligent Designer) that will fit all the known facts, and
resolve all known problems, without having to resort to the infinite number
of universes or shifting the problem elsewhere as NS does.
2. The origin of life. ID will seek to develop a testable model for the origin
of life on Earth by intelligent cause (e.g. a single Intelligent Designer) that
will fit all the known facts, and resolve all known problems, without having
to resort to origin of life simulations that illegitimately smuggle in
intelligent causes as NS does.
3. The origin of the genetic code. ID will seek to develop a testable model
for the origin of the genetic code by intelligent cause (e.g. a single
Intelligent Designer) that will fit all the known facts, and resolve all known
problems, which NS has not done.
4. The origin of the complex biomolecular systems. ID will seek to develop
a testable model for the origin of complex molecular systems by intelligent
cause (e.g. a single Intelligent Designer) that will fit all the known facts,
and resolve all known problems, which NS has not done. Particular
attention will be paid to complex systems where all the components have to
be in place simultaneously, to work properly at all (i.e. irreducibly complex
systems).
5. The origin of new designs. ID will seek to develop a testable model for
the origin of the new designs by intelligent cause (e.g. a single Intelligent
Designer) that will fit all the known facts, and resolve all known problems,
which NS has not done.
6. The origin of human consciousness. ID will seek to develop a testable
model for the origin of human consciousness by intelligent cause (e.g. a
single Intelligent Designer) that will fit all the known facts, and resolve all
known problems, which NS has not done.
In addition, since NS claims that only unintelligent causes produced all the
evidence for design in: a) the universe, and b) life; a major part of
ID's research program will be to *negatively*:
7. demonstrate the inadequacy of unintelligent causes alone in explaining
1-6 above.
In particular, since Darwinism claims that its mechanism of random
variation and cumulative natural selection is the only possible NS
explanation, even in principle, of how life's complex designs could arise,
without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer; part of ID's research
program will also include:
8. showing that the Darwinists mechanisms: a) could not realistically; or
at least b) did not actually; account for items 1-6.
In choosing between the two models (NS or ID), the test should be which
model can actually explain the most data with the fewest assumptions.
Even if a fully naturalistic explanation is eventually supplied for any of
items 1-6, the ID explanation should still be preferred if it makes fewer
assumptions. For example, a NS explanation of the fine tuning of this
one universe, by the postulation of an infinite number of unobservable
universes, is less preferable to the simpler hypothesis that a single
intelligent agency (i.e. an Intelligent Designer) was the cause.
In the unlikely event of a tie, the tie-breaker would be which model
could explain more of the items 1-6 by an overall simpler explanation.
For example, if Darwinian mechanisms could explain 5., but other
explanations were needed for 1-4, and 6, and ID could explain all of
1-6 by the one comprehensive explanatory principle, namely intelligent
causation, then ID's explanation for 5. should be accepted.
I would point out that NS is on a hiding to nothing on this. No materialist
would presumably dispute that intelligent causes can usually do more and
faster, than what unintelligent causes can do, *other things being equal*.
That is in fact the basic assumption behind the eugenics/genetic engineering
movement, that intelligent humans take control of too-slow/too weak
unintelligent evolution.
Therefore, I presume that no materialist would deny that if intelligent
agency is admitted into science as an explanatory principle, that all the
intractable problems above could all be solved in a way that fits all the facts
and is testable, as far as it is possible to test unique events in the far
distant past.
In fact ID is routinely used in NS now. Apart from archaeology and
SETI, Darwin himself appealed to ID (he wrongly called it "Artificial
Selection" when it was *real* selection, ie. *Intelligent* Selection) to
support his theory of so-called "Natural (i.e. *Unintelligent*)
Selection". Moreover, as Thaxton, et al. have pointed out, the common
factor behind all the successful origin of life simulations has been the
illegitimate interference of the investigator
"Over the years a slowly emerging line or boundary has
appeared which shows observationally the limits of what can be
expected from matter and energy left to themselves, and what
can be accomplished only through what Michael Polanyi has
called "a profoundly informative intervention.". When it is
acknowledged that most so-called prebiotic simulation
experiments actually owe their success to the crucial but
*illegitimate* role of the investigator, a new and fresh phase of
the experimental approach to life's origin can then be entered.
Until then however, the literature of chemical evolution will
probably continue to be dominated by reports of experiments in
which the investigator, like a metabolizing Maxwell Demon,
will have performed work on the system through intelligent,
exogenous intervention. Such work establishes experimental
boundary conditions, and imposes intelligent influence/control
over a supposedly "prebiotic" earth. As long as this informative
interference of the investigator is ignored, the illusion of
prebiotic simulation will be fostered. We would predict that this
practice will prove to be a barrier to solving the mystery of life's
origin." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The
Mystery of Life's Origin," [1984], 1992, p.185. Emphasis in
original.)
In fact in my final Biology lab, we simulated natural selection by us
humans intelligently selecting out green and yellow beads from a large
number of little containers. So there can be no viable argument against
intelligent selection being used by ID in origin of life biology
experiments, when it is already used routinely (but illegitimately) in
NS.
As ID steadily solves all the above problems, fitting all the known facts,
with fewer assumptions, NS will be forced to drop all pretense at scientific
objectivity and assert as its last stand an absolutist, dogmatic atheism,
which will be revealed to be based not on science but the *personal
philosophy* of the scientists. Even MN (Methodological Naturalism) will
look foolish-why keep assuming there was no intelligent cause, when
that assumption is so unfruitful in items 1-6, while the assumption of
intelligent cause works so well? If science is about what works, then
ID will work, and *better*!
I have no doubt that this will happen. NS in items 1-6 is showing all the
signs of a degenerate research program, unable to solve the problems
(note Thaxton, et al's prediction above was made in 1984 and has
held true), but like the proverbial dog in the manger, fiercely determined
to stop ID solving them.
But this is a lost cause by NS. If it cannot solve these problems then
inevitably the granting agencies are going to divert funding elsewhere.
And because ID *can* solve these problems, it *will* steadily solve them,
even if it does so with private funding. Thus ID will continue to gain
ground in items 1-6, while NS will still, which is effectively to lose
ground.
Therefore, sooner of later the following situation will arise:
"`The Creation Hypothesis' received a remarkably respectful review in
Creation/Evolution, a strongly anticreationist journal. Reviewer Arthur
Shapiro, professor of zoology at the Davis campus of the University of
California, concluded with this paragraph:
`I can see Science in the year 2000 running a major feature article
on the spread of theistic science as a parallel scientific culture. I can
see interviews with the leading figures in history and philosophy of
science about how and why this happened. ... If they are
successful, the day will come when the editorial board of Science
will convene in emergency session to decide what to do about a
paper which is of the highest quality and utterly unexceptionable,
of great and broad interest, and which proceeds from the prior
assumption of intelligent design. For a preview of that crisis,
you should read this book. Of course, if you are smug enough to
think "theistic science" is an oxymoron, you won't.'
(Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance," 1995, p.239).
The above prediction for "the year 2000" might be wrong on the
exact timetable, but it is starting to happen.
If the NS establishment continues to be intransigent and rejects ID
explanations, even when they are "of the highest quality and utterly
unexceptionable," and moreover can solve problems 1-6 that are
intractable for NS, then ID, which has a potential majority public s
upport of the order of 10:1, will probably simply go over the heads of
the NS elite and request that public science funding be redirected to it.
I hope this will not have to happen.
But I repeat again that these are my views alone, and not necessarily those
of the ID leadership, or even of the ID movement. I take full responsibility
for them.
Once again I thank Bill for his question, which has given me the opportunity
to state my personal vision as to what I see as ID's exciting, comprehensive,
and publicly funded scientific research program for the 21st century!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The first assumption was that non-living things gave rise to living
material. This is still just an assumption. It is conceivable that living
material might have suddenly appeared on this world in some peculiar
manner, say from another planet, but this then raises the question,
"Where did life originate on that planet?" We could say that life has
always existed, but such an explanation is not a very satisfactory one.
Instead, the explanation that nonliving things could have given rise to
complex systems having the properties of living things is generally
more acceptable to most scientists. There is, however, little evidence in
favour of biogenesis and as yet we have no indication that it can be
performed. There are many schemes by which biogenesis could have
occurred but these are still suggestive schemes and nothing more. They
may indicate experiments that can be performed, but they tell us
nothing about what actually happened some 1,000 million years ago. It
is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis
did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens
to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not
available." (Kerkut G.A., "Implications of Evolution," in Kerkut G.A., ed.
"International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology,
Division: Zoology," Volume 4, Pergamon Press: New York NY, 1960,
p.150)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 10 2000 - 19:58:11 EDT