Reflectorites
On Sat, 5 Aug 2000 09:21:37 -0400, Steven P Crawford wrote:
SC>He's got a point, Stephen.
Disagree that Richard has a point (hint: whenever Richard starts off claiming
that what I am saying is "nonsense", then Steven should suspect, as I do, that
Richard is, perhaps subconsciously, covering up a for a weak argument!).
SC>The way you think about design leaves you
>wide open to an unfalsifiability charge. If we formulate notions of
>design so that it will be "detected" no matter what the outcome,
ID is not formulated so that it will be detected no matter what the
outcome. In the case of the origin of life, ID is always falsifiable if
naturalists can show that life arose from non-living chemicals.
But if naturalists cannot show that (and they have been trying for nearly 50
years), and ID *can* show that experimentally that life can arise from non-
living chemicals by the intervention of intelligent human design, then ID
would be established as the only experimentally verifiable explanation to
date.
That would demonstrate that ID theories that require only a human level
intelligence are viable. This does not mean that any Designer inferred did
only have a human level of intelligence (e.g. the Christian God), but it does
mean that some other lesser designer is possible. For example, human level
extraterrestrials and time-travellers from the future could be claimed;
However, if it is found that even a human level intelligence is not sufficient
to create life from non-living chemicals, and naturalists still cannot show
that life arose from non-living chemicals, then ID theories that require a
higher than human level intelligence are still viable. This does not mean that
the Christian God has to be the Designer, but it does mean that some other
higher-level designer is possible. For example, it could still be some super-
human extraterrestrial or advanced human time-traveller, etc.
Of course materialist-naturalists could always say (as they have been doing
for years) that some materialist-naturalist explanation will be found in the
future. But that position is clearly unfalsifiable.
And if materialistic-naturalists do claim that a materialistic-naturalistic
explanation of the origin of life could be found in the future, then they are
saying that ID is falsifiable. At any time, if a materialistic-naturalistic
explanation of the origin of life is found, it would falsify ID's explanation.
The real problem for atheists like Richard is that they seem to be unable to
even *imagine* that materialism-naturalism could be false. Therefore they
rush in on the slightest pretext claiming that ID has either been falsified or
is unfalsifiable. It never seems to occur to Richard that ID cannot be
*both* falsified and unfalsifiable!
Maybe Richard's position is that on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays ID
is unfalsifiable and on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays it is falsifiable?
That leaves Sundays on which ID is *both* unfalsifiable and falsifiable at the
same time? :-)
SC>then
>design is a tautology -- precisely what ID'ers accuse natural selection &
>survival of the fittest as being.
It is not just IDers who claim that "natural selection & survival of the fittest"
are "a tautology". Darwinists have from time to time claimed it themselves:
"The famous philosopher of science Karl Popper at one time wrote
that Darwinism is not really a scientific theory because natural
selection is an all-purpose explanation which can account for
anything, and which therefore explains nothing. Popper backed
away from this position after he was besieged by indignant
Darwinist protests, but he had plenty of justification for taking it.
As he wrote in his own defense, "some of the greatest
contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a
way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave
most offspring leave most offspring," citing Fisher, Haldane,
Simpson, "and others." One of the others was C. H. Waddington,
whose attempt to make sense of the matter deserves to be
preserved for posterity:
`Darwin's major contribution was, of course, the suggestion that
evolution can be explained by the natural selection of random
variations. Natural selection, which was at first considered as
though it were a hypothesis that was in need of experimental or
observational confirmation, turns out on closer inspection to be a
tautology, a statement of an inevitable but previously unrecognized
relation. It states that the fittest individuals in a population (defined
as those which leave most offspring) will leave most offspring. This
fact in no way reduces the magnitude of Darwin's achievement; only
after it was clearly formulated, could biologists realize the
enormous power of the principle as a weapon of explanation.'
(Waddington C.H., in Tax S., ed., "Evolution After Darwin", Vol.
1, 1960, p.385).
That was not an offhand statement, but a considered judgment
published in a paper presented at the great convocation at the
University of Chicago in 1959 celebrating the hundredth
anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species. Apparently,
none of the distinguished authorities present told Waddington that a
tautology does not explain anything." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial," 1993, pp.21-22)
Steve
PS: Richard is right about "in vivo". It was a typo and should of course have
been "in vitro". My apologies.
PPS: May I suggest to Steven that he turn off his HTML formating option?
Some of his messages come to me blank, with an attachment that is the
message. These are not picked up by my filters and may end up not being read.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In suggesting an explanation for adaptation, the theory of natural selection
provides at most a partial explanation for evolution. It is not enough to say
that those traits which are favourable will be selected. We have also to
explain how they arise, that is, to account for the set of alternatives from
which the selection is made. Otherwise we have, in Samuel Butler's (1911)
words, 'an Origin of the Species with the "Origin" cut out'."
(Saunders P.T., "Development and Evolution," in Ho M-W. & Saunders
P.T., eds., "Beyond Neo-Darwinism: An Introduction to the New
Evolutionary Paradigm," Academic Press: London, 1984, p.243)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Steve C.
>
>On Sat, 5 Aug 2000 11:04:24 +0100 "Richard Wein" <rwein@lineone.net>
>writes:
>>I know I promised I wouldn't respond to any more of Stephen Jones's
>>nonsense, but this one is just too good to go unmentioned. ;-)
>>
>>From: Stephen E. Jones <sejones@iinet.net.au>
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>Agreed this is the minimalist ID position. If it turns out that the
>>flowchart
>>>for the origin of life from chemicals up to the first living cell
>>can be
>>>followed by a human level intelligence to create life in vivo, it
>>may be
>>then
>>>realised that the task is far beyond the capacity of unintelligent
>>causes.
>>That
>>>would be sufficient to establish Intelligent Design.
>>
>>So, if life can be created in vivo, that would establish ID.
>>
>>>But it may be that in attempting to do this, it will be found it is
>>beyond
>>>human level intelligence as well. For example, I was reading the
>>other day
>>a
>>>book by a molecular biologist who suggested this might well be the
>>case:
>>>
>>>"In these days of astounding advances in science and technology it
>>>is perhaps rash to declare dogmatically that anything such as the
>>>artificial synthesis of a living cell is impossible. Yet, on what
>>sort of
>>>microloom would a biologist weave the membranes of the
>>>endoplasmic reticulum, or with what delicate needles could a
>>>biologist fashion the intricacies of the cell nucleus? ...Will it
>>ever be
>>>possible for a living cell to be constructed from scratch under
>>>controlled laboratory conditions? Perhaps it is pointless to
>>continue
>>>with such speculations because there seems to be a step beyond
>>>which man cannot go-try as he may. (Price F.W., "Basic Molecular
>>>Biology," 1979, pp.466-467)
>>>
>>>If that is the case, and anyone who studies in detail the
>>*fantastic*
>>>functional complexity of even the simplest bacterial cell would
>>have to
>>>concede that it *might* be, then it would be even more beyond the
>>>capacity of unintelligent causes. Then the only option left is a
>>supernatural
>>>level of intelligence.
>>
>>So, if life *cannot* be created in vivo, that would establish ID
>>too!
>>
>>Richard Wein (Tich)
[...]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 06 2000 - 17:52:55 EDT