At 03:44 PM 09/13/2000, you wrote:
> >Chris
> >Can you, or anyone else, name *one* person who is finding it
> >*scientifically*
>
> >You've made this same unsupported assertion before, and others have made
> >similar points in response (as have I). As far as I know, you did not
> >provide an instance of anyone finding it useful *then*, either. *This*
> >time, could you provide one such instance?
>
>
>Hi Chris.
>
>I believe Denton suggested "Junk" DNA would turn out not to be junk. Mike
>Gene has claimed that design has motivated him to look for purpose in systems
>that were thought to have no purpose. Whether true or not, Mike Gene claims
>to find a design inference useful. I should think any scientist who looks
>for a purpose for a seemingly useless piece of biology, might well be using
>a design inference. Any scientist who looks for something beyond random
>processes is probably using a design inference. Any ecologist looking for
>meaning in a biosphere that was once thought to be a random collection of
>unrelated parts might be using a design inference. I'm not about to conduct
>a survey of scientists just to satisfy critics. However I assume any
>scientist who considers design a possibility finds it useful. There are
>some, in spite of the disapproval of critics. If it proves productive, there
>will be more. (Please don't tell me "yes but anyone who works under
>different assumptions than I do is not a "real" scientist.)
Chris
That "Junk" DNA might turn out not to be junk has nothing to do with
purpose or design; it has to do with biological function (if any). That
Mike may have been *motivated* to do something by the design idea also has
nothing to do with whether the design premise itself is *scientifically*
useful. Also, you seem to be confusing purpose with function. A scientist
can look for function without necessarily looking for design.
And design is always a possibility. The question is, When does it become a
viable hypothesis? The answer is: When it becomes *testable*. The
theological version of ID is *defined*, by ID theorists themselves, in such
a way that it cannot be tested or even *scientifically* detected. Put
bluntly, the design theory, as an unqualified idea, with no actual design
principle specified that could distinguish it *empirically* from
non-design, or from other principles of design, *is* scientifically
useless, as the vagueness and emptiness of your own examples show.
Finally, your observation that it has not yet proved productive is an
admission of precisely my point; it is *not* useful in this context. And
there is a reason for it: There's no *evidence* of design in this case. If
a large, smooth, metal spherical object with doors and portholes came from
outer space and landed, gently, on Earth, a design hypothesis would be
viable on a prima facie basis until and unless investigation discounted it,
and, presumably, such a hypothesis would, at least in principle, be
testable. But there is no similar basis for such a hypothesis in biology,
and it is nearly always defined in such a way that it is *not* testable,
because its supporters don't want to risk having it refuted by empirical
facts. Why do you think Behe tried to find evidence *against* evolution
(i.e., "irreducible complexity")? Because he couldn't find any evidence
*for* design.
Let me know when someone *actually* finds ID scientifically useful. It's
main use, so far, has been to *attack* science (and naturalism).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 14 2000 - 09:42:12 EDT