Hello Jack:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:52:18 -0500 "Jack Haas" <haasJ@mediaone.net>
writes:
> Bill Dembski has been developing his 'intelligent design' ideas for
> a decade or so.
.... I would propose that the list read his paper (attached) and comment
on
> it. If we get some thoughtful response I'd be willing to pull it
> together and place the article and a summary of responses on the ASA
> web page.
I have a few comments:
#4. I don't understand this paragraph. In what way did Darwin "test"
Paley's ideas? What Darwin did do, as far as I can see, is show that
Paley's claims of an "intelligent causation" could not be taken as the
only possible explanation -- that purely naturalistic causation could
explain the complexities of living organisms jst as well -- with the
added value that such naturalistic explanations could be tested, at least
in part, and could lead to other scientific research programmes,
something Paley's claims could not do. But this is not a "test" as far as
I can see.
Paley's claims were neither "revised" or "refutted," but they were
supplanted, and with good reason. To call all this a "test" is twisting
the meaning of the word.
#8. I, for one, find the argument that Darwinism is unfalsifiable a
persuasive one. That does not make it untrue, of course, but it does
suggest that "Darwinism is a fact" and "gravitation is a fact" seem to be
in two different categories, for we can conceive of observations that
would falsify the second but not any that would falsify the first.
#13 seems like rhetoric -- it does not add to the scientific argument.
#14 likewise.
#18. Here Dembski discusses an "unembodied" designer. But this, to me, is
the weakness of the ID movement. If one posits an unembodied designer,
the intelligent agent (Newton used this word) is necessarily supernatural
-- God, or at least a god or an agent working under a god. Positing the
supernatural is just not necessary. What I see is that the ID movement
does not have to abandon methodological naturalism (which I still firmly
cling to). They do have to posit an intelligent agent, but that's all.
The IA need not be supernatural.
What characteristics do we think this IA might have. For 20 years or so
(on other LISTSERVs) I have argued that we can safely deduce three
characteristics:
1. The IA (which may be IAs) is technically advanced beyond present day
humanity.
2. The IA is at least as intelligent as present day humanity.
3. The IA has a distinct sense of humor.
Not that these characteristics are a lower bound. The IA is probably a
lot more than that.
#20. Dembski writes: "The only reason to insist on looking for non-telic
explanations to explain the complex specified structures in biology is
because of prior commitment to naturalism that perforce excludes
unembodied designers."
As before, the concept of "unembodied designers" is not necessary. To
continue with it hurts the ID cause.
Bill continues: "It is illegitimate, scientifically and rationally, to
claim on a priori grounds that such entities do not exist, or if they do
exist that they can have no conceivable relevance to what happens in the
world."
I would claim that it is NOT illegitimate, scientifically, to ignore the
option that they exist. This is not at all the same as a claim that they
do not exist.
I happen to think what Bill is doing is good philosophy -- whether or not
it is "true,"but bad science. It could be good science.
#21. Bill writes: "Natural selection and random variation applied to
single-celled organisms offers no insight at all into whether we can
expect multi-celled organisms, much less whether evolution will produce
the various body-plans of which natural history has left us a record."
But this is already well known. Assuming Darwinism is true, the known
science of Darwinism actually predicts that one cannot predict. See John
Casti's book, SEARCH FOR CERTAINTY. In this respect it is not unlike
certain other sciences, ones which have little theological impacts. My
point is that Bill uses this as an argument against Darwinism, when it is
simply not a good argument at all. A science, Casti argues, ought to try
to both EXPLAIN and PREDICT. It may do one fairly well, without doing the
other well at all. If you can't check out his book, see by review of the
book in PERSPECTIVES about 7 years ago.
#24. Bill writes: "It's evident, then, that Darwin's theory has virtually
no predictive power." Again, Bill, please read Casti's book. This is NOT
a good argument.
#33. Bill write: "Ultimately, the main question that confronts scientists
working on a theory of intelligent design is whether design provides
powerful new insights and fruitful avenues of research." With this, I
suspect we will all agree. Is it reasonable to place some sort of a
schedule in place for some of this to happen? If 20 years go by and we
are still in the same place relative to ID I suspect most of us will have
relegated it to the dark room where the Phlogiston and N-Ray theories
reside.
Burgy
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 25 2001 - 16:21:57 EST