>Reflectorites
>
>Apologies this is late. I had a large Lab write up to do on the
>Structure and Function of Plants (what an argument for Design!).
>
>On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 16:35:07 -0500, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:
>
>If Susan doesn't mind but I am going to keep using her old intials
>"SB". If I used "SC" there would then be *three* "SC's" on the
>List. I could use "SBC" if Susan wished.
SB is just fine
Stephen:
>One big difference is that strictly speaking the ID movement is only trying
>to establish *design*, not that there is any particular Designer. So
>comments like Susan's above about the "designer" are going beyond the
>scope of ID.
You must somehow wiggle out of the "who is the designer" question because
it proves that the whole thing is a facet of religion. A cursory glance at
the proponents will tell which religion it is a facet of.
>SB>but that would not *falsify* ID. Scientific theories must have concievable
>>conditions under which they could be proved untrue.
>
>So under what "conceivable conditions" could Susan's materialistic-
>naturalistic origin of life position "be proved untrue"?
Any old miracle would do. On television at high noon in the middle of Times
Square. Turning a yellow cab into a giant eggplant (aubergine) would do the
trick.
>SB>For example if we *did*
>>find a reliably dated fossil of a human in cambrian strata, that would
>>prove evolution to be untrue.
>
>This is such a weak test that Susan knows it is not ever going to happen.
>Not even the YEC Flood Geology model has humans in the lowest strata.
however, it would falsify evolution. Even better if all plants and animals
of all kinds were jumbled in together throughout the fossil record.
>Susan's so-called `test' is like a Christian saying that his belief in
>Christianity would be falsified if he died and he did not wake up in heaven!
>
>So what *risky* test does Susan propose for "evolution", such that if it
>failed it, Susan would cease believing in "evolution"?
if genes had never been discovered would have done it. Or if after DNA was
discovered there was no pattern to genetic relatednesses, that would have
done it. The problem with falsifying evolution is that it's a very
well-established science. There are many areas where it could have been
falsified but it wasn't.
>SB>So what would prove ID to be untrue?
> Simple. Showing that unintelligent natural causes can do the job.
no, that proves it to be true. What would prove it to be *un*true?
>In fact as Mike Behe points out, it is *ID* which is making the risky,
>falsifiable predictions, not Darwinism:
>
> "It seems then, perhaps counterintuitively to some, that intelligent
> design is quite susceptible to falsification, at least on the points
> under discussion. Darwinism, on the other hand, seems quite
> impervious to falsification. The reason for that can be seen when we
> examine the basic claims of the two ideas with regard to a particular
> biochemical system like, say, the bacterial flagellum. The claim of
> intelligent design is that "No unintelligent process could produce
> this system."
at least one of the IC examples in his book (as I recall, can't remember
where I read it recently) was indeed proved false when an evolutionary
pathway for it was discovered. IC, however, is not ID. IC merely waits to
be falsified because it is an argument from ignorance (I can't *imagine*
how it could be!) all that is needed is to find out how it actually
happened.
>The claim of Darwinism is that "Some unintelligent
> process (involving natural selection and random mutation) could
> produce this system." To falsify the first claim, one need only show
> that at least one unintelligent process could produce the system. To
> falsify the second claim, one would have to show the system could
> not have been formed by any of a potentially infinite number of
> possible unintelligent processes, which is effectively impossible to
> do. I think Professor Coyne and the National Academy of Sciences
> have it exactly backwards. A strong point of intelligent design is its
> vulnerability to falsification. (Indeed, some of my religious critics
> dislike intelligent design theory precisely because they worry that it
> will be falsified, and thus theology will appear to suffer another
> blow from science. See, for example, (Flietstra 1998).) A weak
> point of Darwinian theory is its resistance to falsification. What
> experimental evidence could possibly be found that would falsify
> the contention that complex molecular machines evolved by a
> Darwinian mechanism?" (Behe M.J., "Philosophical Objections to
> Intelligent Design: Response to Critics," Discovery Institute July
> 31, 2000.
> http://www.discovery.org/embeddedRecentArticles.php3?id=445).
in the paragraph above Behe makes the same mistake you do in conflating ID
with IC. The answer to his question in the last sentence, is that proving
evolutionary mechanisms false would not help his case.
>>SJ>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.
>
>SB>all that means is that it hasn't been done *yet* or there are perfectly
>>natural means that can't be reproduced..
>
>So how could Susan's position ever be falsified?
how do you falsify "I don't know"? You are making Behe's mistake. If we
never find out how abiogenesis occured, it will not prove a thing about ID.
>SB>I'm sure we will hear from Richard on this point, but I think that ID is
>>outside of science on account of it being religion. It's an assertion. It
>>can't be proved or falsified, it must simply be believed--or not.
>
>"ID" has proposed falsifiable tests that if they are falsified ID will be
>wrong
>(see what Mike Behe said above about testing his Irreducible Complexity
>ID claim.
But Behe has already been falsified.
>And evolutionists have tried to falsify Mike Behe's Irreducible Complexity
>by his own tests and have to date failed. But Behe (and I) concede that
>they could succeed at any time.
>
>But where are the falsifiable tests that would prove Susan or Richard's
>atheistic faith in *their "religion" (i.e. materialistic-naturalistic
>"evolution")
>wrong?
we are back to that Yellow Cab turning into an eggplant at high noon in
Times Square.
Susan
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 11 2000 - 17:52:50 EDT