Bob wrote:
>>><< This would have to be done non-defensively, with no
>>> preconception that ID did it all, or that evolution did it all.
Howard wrote:
>>Sorry, but I find this last statement very confusing. It sounds like things
>>are done _either_ by ID _or_ by evolution. Is that what you meant? Would it
>>be the case, then, that a designed universe would not be capable of
>>actualizing certain potential forms, or that a non-designed universe would
>>be capable of supporting evolution? >>
Bob replies:
>Howard,
>
>Sorry for the confusion. I do not mean an either-or situation. Since I
>come from a social science background, I am used to the idea of multiple
>causation. Human behavior is rarely if ever caused by a single variable.
>To tease out the differential contribution of various causal variables
>(assuming correlation is indicative of causality) social scientists
>employ various statistical procedures, such as analysis of variance.
>
>I would like to see a similar approach used in biological studies where
>the issue is natural selection or intelligent design. I think it is a
>methodological mistake to assume at the outset that either process did
>it all. Rather it is better to start with the assumption that both
>processes were at work and then try to assess the differential contribution
>of each to the phenomenon.
[...]
Whether a component is 1% design + 99% "natural" is for all practical
reasons, impossible to calculate. It's not even certain that the direct,
extranatural assembly component exceeds zero percent or is discernable
above noise.
Mutations are discrete events. Most organisms are discrete entities.
Behe spends much of his "Black Box" book describing just how difficult
it is to alter IC systems (such as blood clotting) and how horrific the
results of changes can be (premature death, halitosis, whatever...).
The implication is that these finely balanced, essential systems couldn't
have arisen by natural mechanisms without the intervention of a designer
because you'd be dead before step-wise, gradual changes could accumulate
to produce a functional system.
This is why I, among others, have asked Behe to point to the *specific*
enzyme, sequence, or combination of systems that a designer must have
directly touched to enable the creation of an IC system. To that end,
people like Behe have tried to redefine IC in terms of "core systems",
systems that had to be in place for minimal functionality. That's the
whole point of the IC approach, to identify the *discrete* "design
event".
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 05 2001 - 14:19:58 EDT