For what it's worth, I concur with what Keith, Howard, and David have said
so far about the Dembski Intelligent Design (ID) questions. I haven't read
much ID stuff, so I'm not sure about a couple of points. Perhaps you folks
can clarify.
1) Do ID investigators directly state what their overall objective
is? Which of the following is it?
...a) To determine IF there are patterns of complexity CONSISTENT with
prior design by an intelligent agent. ...b) To determine IF there are
patterns of complexity that CAN ONLY be explained as prior design by an
intelligent agent.
...c) To demonstrate THAT there are patterns of complexity CONSISTENT with
prior design by an intelligent agent.
...d) To demonstrate THAT there are patterns of complexity that CAN ONLY be
explained as prior design by an intelligent agent.2) Do ID scientists
clearly state whether chemical/biological evolution by natural processes
(which, to use Howard's language, assumes that the universe has a robust
formational economy) is the mutually exclusive opposing theory to ID as
they define it?This certainly seems to be the way ID is publicized. As I
understand it, if ID pits itself against natural evolution, they will be
faced with a major problem when it comes to mechanism. Even though
particular cases can be cited in which our knowledge of all the
evolutionary steps involved is incomplete, all data on mechanisms relating
to descent and modification support evolution as understood by the general
scientific community. We know how inheritance works; we know that DNA
mutates; we know that selection and drift occur; etc, etc; And all these
things are "random" and "probabilistic" within the constraints of the
environment. Thus, when patterns of morphological or molecular variation
(complexity) are interpreted evolutionarily, they are done as
extrapolations of KNOWN mechanisms. And these extrapolations are not done
lightly or blindly. I know that systematists and molecular evolutionists
are very careful to make sure interpretations of evolutionary relationships
have "statistical" support.
What known (or even possible) mechanisms does ID have to support it? If
IDologists determine a series of formational steps (Dembski's questions
3-5), doesn't that support natural evolution rather than ID? And if the
determine that something was designed by virtue of there being no
mechanisms that can explain it, isn't that just a Gap argument that leaves
them without an epistemological leg to stand on?
Sincerely,
Doug
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Douglas Hayworth, Ph.D.
(Evolutionary and Population Biology)
Department of Biomedical Sciences
UIC College of Medicine at Rockford
1601 Parkview Avenue, Rockford, IL 61107-1897
Phone: 815-395-5894 Fax: 815-395-5666
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 20 2000 - 12:00:40 EDT