Steve Petermann notes:
> It seems to me, however, that the notion of an outside intelligent agent
> actually precludes any ID affirming experiments. Unlike the regularities of
> nature which can be measured experimentally, an outside intelligent agent is
> by its nature not experimentally available. An experiment would have to be
> designed essentially to catch God in the act. So it would be reasonable
> that the ID folks couldn't offer specific affirmative suggestions.
But the heart of the ID claim is that "We have convincing empirical evidence
that X was intelligently designed." However, when I asked a leading
proponent of ID to tell me exactly what it means "to be (or have been)
intelligently designed" I got the reply, "To be (or have been) intelligently
designed means to be (or have been) designed by an intelligent agent." What
does that tell me about the action of intelligent design? Exactly nothing!
It's the old problem of trying to define 'horse' by saying that "a horse is
a horsey thing."
> It seems
> to me that because of this, the real issue becomes reasonableness. I don't
> know about Behe's claim that no one has offered viable detailed Darwinian
> explanations for any complex biochemical processes, but if he is right then
> unless the Darwinians are able to show some successes in explaining those
> processes like blood clotting then we're stuck with a reasonableness
> approach.
But is an appeal to ID, where ID remains a totally undefined act, a
reasonable approach? Not in my book.
> It ends up like the anthropic principle. Is it more reasonable
> to explain the extraordinarily rare chance for a life producing universe by
> believing in a designer or infinite universes?
But this is a totally different case. In this case the question is, "Why is
the universe equipped with a set of formational capabilities sufficient to
actualize living forms in the course of time"? To which our theistic answer
is, "Because it is a Creation that was given being by a Creator having
unfathomable creativity (to conceptualize an adequate menu of formational
capabilities) and unlimited generosity (to give the Creation such richness
of being)."
In the typical ID claim, on the other hand, the question is, "How did
specific biotic system X come to be actualized in time?" To which the ID
answer is, "The Intelligent Designer, having chosen to withhold the
formational capabilities needed to actualize X, must have imposed that X
form on the Creation at some specific time." Having withheld certain
formational capabilities at the beginning, the Creator must bridge the gap
by a form-imposing intervention at a later time.
> It seems to me that biochemical processes provide an ideal situation for
> research. They are simple enough to minimize variables and complex enough
> to be good test cases. As a design engineer for more than 25 years, I find
> the ID arguments about irreducible complexity reasonable, but as a person
> who has embraced Darwinian evolution, I await detailed technical responses
> to the ID challenges. There's a lot of high level rhetoric going on between
> the camps, but I hope that something more detailed and substantial will be
> forthcoming.
Frankly, I would bet on the proponents of a universe equipped with a robust
formational economy to win the day. They have the higher expectations
regarding the character of the universe--expectations that fit my conception
of what a Creation is: fully equipped to accomplish the Creators intentions
for the timely actualization of the intended types of creatures.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 29 2000 - 20:49:01 EDT