Re: The Future for ID

From: Nucacids@aol.com
Date: Fri Oct 06 2000 - 22:52:58 EDT

  • Next message: Nucacids@aol.com: "Re: The Future for ID"

    Hi FMAJ,

    I'll let you have the last word on other exchanges and offer one more set of
    comments here and another set concerning your other reply.
    The ARN board is again "open for business" so I will be returning there
    after posting these.

    FMA: But if ID is not a reliable empirical detector of (intelligent) design
    then what use does it have?

    The same thing that most non-teleological scientists have - the ability
    to contemplate historical hypotheses that generate expectations, data, and
    thus a cumulative case. Are you under the impression that non-teleologists
    have a reliable empirical detector of non-teleological causation? What
    is this detector that has led to the consensus among scientists that life
    arose from non-life through non-teleological means? What is this
    detector that has allowed the consensus view to emerge that things such
    as the flagellum evolved BY random mutation and natural selection?
    I just finished reading another paper where some scientists are
    arguing that the first life forms were more like a protozoan than
    a bacterium. Did they use a "reliable empirical detector" to make this
    claim? No. Have they made a claim that has been embraced by
    the scientific community? No. They make a cumulative case with
    indirect evidence. That's all.

    The point is simply this - I do not think we can directly detect
    the existence of either a teleological or non-teleological cause
    from ancient history. The best we can do is to infer such a
    cause indirectly to determine how well those inferences make
    sense of the data we have. In my opinion, there is simply no
    need for a magic bullet test of detection. Science itself has none,
    yet that has not stopped it from speculating and testing about
    non-teleological causes.

    Consider this perspective. If we have no reliable empirical
    detector of intelligent design, then everyone (including science)
    is blind to the existence of intelligent design. Science has
    no evidence against ID. Neither can it say that its hypotheses
    and theories about origins are true or even approximate
    truth. All it can say is "given we are blinded to the existence
    of ID, here's what we can come up with." Thus, the
    lack of such a "reliable detector" has serious implication for
    for the non-teleological viewpoint - it means the whole
    non-teleological account cannot be tested against its
    null hypothesis and is thus a circular account. It's a story
    that only happens to reflect our cultural gestalt.

    FMA:Certainly we don't know if far better an explanation
    than "we don't know".

    But what don't we know? The problem with this claim is
    that non-teleologists often attempt to smuggle in their
    perceptions with such a claim. They are not claiming we
    should all admit that we don't know IF life arose from
    non-life through non-teleological means. They are claiming
    we should admit we don't know HOW life arose from
    non-life through non-teleological means. These are
    very different claims.

    FMA: That abiogenesis happened seems quite inescapable,
    how it happened is what is being discussed.

    The only thing that seems inescapable is that once upon
    a time there was no life on this planet and then there
    was. What is not inescapable is the notion that somehow
    this all happened by non-teleological means. On the contrary,
    the cumulative data patterns better support a teleological
    cause at this point (IMO).

    FMA: That the flagellum is likely hard to explain by science
    hardly means that it therefor was designed.

    Agreed. But then if the flagellum was designed, we would
    expect any approach that excludes design to be ultimately
    without much support.

    FMA: In fact some quite plausible pathways for evolution
    of the flagellum have been given.

    "Plausible pathways" typically exist only in the imagination
    and it thus should not be surprising to see non-teleologists
    cling to what is merely possible.

    FMA: What pathways have been identified by ID?

    This question makes no sense. If someone designs an experiment
    or device, we don't ask about their "pathway." We ask about
    their procedure, their protocol, their recipe. And these things
    don't come FROM the world. They are imposed ON the world.

    The rather basic problem that many ID critics don't seem to
    understand is that ID research is very different, by necessity,
    than the type of research used to explore regularities. When
    dealing with regularities, you indeed look for "pathways"
    from one point to another via these regular happenings.
    ID is about detecting points of intervention among the
    regularities to determine if a pattern emerges.* Then,
    if a pattern emerges, we ask "why does this pattern
    exist?"

    * Actually, as I have explained elsewhere, ID as intelligent
    intervention is only one expression of a teleological outlook.

    Mike



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 22:53:09 EDT