Paul Nelson, appealing to Bill Dembski's argumentation for support, favors
the Intelligent Design movement's strategy of looking for reasons to
conclude that "it couldn't have happened naturally," where "naturally" means
"without occasional episodes of form-conferring extra-natural intervention"
(my words, not Paul's). In Paul's words, "As intelligent control or
intervention is removed, the results cease to be biologically relevant," or
"No mRNA by that route."
Underlying the ID approach seems to be the presumption that if atoms,
molecules or cells are doing something, God should get less credit. That is
exactly what the preachers of naturalism say, of course, but why, Why, WHY
should a Christian want to adopt the same line of reasoning? I just don't
understand it. (Unless, of course, the form-imposing interventionist picture
of God's creative action must be defended at any price.)
If atoms, molecules and cells are members of a Creation given being by God,
then everything that they are and everything that they are capable of doing
is a God-given gift of being. The richness of that being stands as a vivid
testimony (in the spirit of Romans 1:20) of God's creativity (in
conceptualizing the Creation's system of resources, capabilities and
potentialities) and God's generosity (in giving the Creation such functional
integrity, or wholeness of being).
Why, then, be engaged in an enterprise that searches for evidence that the
Creation is unable to accomplish a few molecular assembly feats? Why search
for evidence of gifts withheld from the Creation? Is the Creator's
signature really best seen in what the Creation _cannot_ accomplish, or is
it better seen in the astounding things that it _can_ do with its God-given
gifts for actualizing some of the structural potentialities that have been a
part of its being since the beginning?
And why call the enterprise that celebrates empirical evidence for gifts
withheld from the Creation by the misleading label INTELLIGENT DESIGN when
in actuality it is an enterprise to promote the proposition that certain
structures/forms could be actualized only by intervening acts of
EXTRA-NATURAL ASSEMBLY to compensate for key formational gifts withheld by
the Creator? If FORM-IMPOSING INTERVENTION is the picture of God's creative
work that you want to promote, then why not have the courage to say so
candidly? You have every right to promote that point of view. Why not accept
a "truth in labeling" approach?
Howard Van Till
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Paul Nelson's note:
Bill Dembski deals with experiments like this (as I
recall, he looks at ribozyme engineering) in his
forthcoming book, _No Free Lunch: Why Specified
Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence_.
Pools of ~10^13 mRNAs could not exist on the early
Earth, or anywhere, really, without the help either
of organisms or clever biochemists. Indeed it is
possible to "back out" of experiments like these
one step at a time, removing the intelligently-
synthesized reagents (e.g., buffers) and artificial
conditions. [In some ribozyme engineering
experiments, for instance, the RNAs are tethered
to keep them from precipitating.] As intelligent
control or intervention is removed, the results
cease to be biologically relevant.
Bill's point exactly, as he explains in _No Free
Lunch_. A library of ~10^13 mRNAs is as designed
an object as an integrated circuit. To put it another
way, you can be sure that Jack Szostak and colleagues
don't start their experiments under prebiotically
plausible conditions. No mRNA by that route. ;-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 06 2001 - 10:40:28 EDT