attached mail follows:
Steven>>My follow-up post obliquely addressed this point as well. Again, I agree
with you here. I don't believe that ID has anything to offer besides the
undecidability concept. They try too much to mix the theistic
intepretation of the idea with the idea itself. When, for example,
Michael Behe points out irreducible complexity in certain systems, he is
at best demonstrating that science cannot give an explanation for how
such systems arose through natural processes (undecidability). At the
very most, he has only shown that the scientific method cannot positively
or negatively answer the question of the origin of such systems. But for
him to claim that this is "proof" of intelligent design is taking a leap
of logic. He needs to demonstrate how undecidability implies ID as a
LOGICAL NECESSITY. Of course, any attempt to do so is no longer in the
realm of science but is now a matter of metaphysics. <<
If I understand Behe correctly he is claiming that random mutations and natural
selection have not been demonstrated capable of producing irreducibly complex
biological systems. Since intelligent agents have no problem creating such systems
he concludes that ID is a better explanation than the mutation/selection mechanism
for the existence of such systems. I don't believe Behe has ever claimed to have
proven ID and therefore he doesn't need to demonstrate how undecidability implies
ID as a LOGICAL NECESSITY. Behe is merely making an inference to the best explanation.
ID theory doesn't need to posit the supernatural in explaining how molecular machines may have been designed. All that is necessary is human-like intelligence and human-like intentions. ID theory is not premised on a quest for certainty. It is conceived for people whose thinking lies somewhere between those who think the case for design is obvious and true and those who think it is non-existent. ID is for those who don't buy into the notion that we need to show abiogenesis/evolution impossible before introducing design (as the anti-design folks believe). ID is for those who recognize that if design occurred sometime in the distant past, there would likely be no independent evidence of the designer apart from the properties of the designed thing, which in themselves, are always open to re-interpretation without a designer. ID is for those who seriously *suspect* design for whatever reason.
I suspect design for many reasons: the need to employ teleological concepts and language to understand biology (but not other areas of science); the encoded information in DNA being analogous to a software code according to Bill Gates, the growing appreciation that the cell is far more like a factory of organized molecular machines than a soup; the growing intractability of abiogenesis in light of new knowledge; and the manner in which so much of evolution looks front-loaded with information in such a way that evolution since looks mostly like the shuffling and tinkering of pre-existing endowments. For some people, such reasons may be sufficient to conclude design. For me, such reasons only impart a strong suspicion of design. ID then builds on this strong suspicion by looking for the specific traces of design and also attempting to use design to generate further coherency.
ID is a method that scores things to allow one to either strengthen or weaken their suspicions in regards to the thing in question. Richard Dawkins begins his book The Blind Watchmaker with the observation that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." I agree, therefore I work with the assumption that if something looks designed, it probably is unless there is good reason to think otherwise and if something looks evolved, it probably is unless there is good reason to think otherwise. And the exciting by-product of this approach is the generation of testable hypotheses that have the ability to increase general knowledge about the world. Knowledge that we could never find using a methodology that rejects design.
Sincerely,
Jack Wyatt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 02 2000 - 22:12:08 EDT