Hi Bob
RDehaan237@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 5/5/01 7:38:28 PM, jdac@alphalink.com.au writes:
>
> << Hi Bob
>
> You quoted Bill Dembski's definition of design in his soon to be released book
> (how did you get a copy?) "No Free Lunch" >>
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> Bill posted a review of his book on the phylogeny listserve. If you are
> interested in a copy of the whole preview I will be glad to ask his
> permission to e-mail it to you.
Thank you, yes.
>
>
> You wrote: "but not ask why the ID community similarly sees a discontinuity
> between biological and non biological causality, even though the core principles
> of
> ID as he has articulated them no not postulate such a discontinuity."
>
> I'm probably over my head here, but I expect that IDers such as Dembski would
> say that the non-biological universe can be explained by physical and
> chemical laws, but that the biological world cannot. Would you not agree
> with that?
I think you are right. The question is why? What bugs me is the unexplained
inconsistency. ID folk seem to accept physical reductionism, and don't make much
of an issue even when people like Weinberg extend it to metaphysics, though this
is just as erroneous as doing so with biology. Why are biological systems given
different status?
I would take it further, and say that the ID movement seems accept to reductionism
in biological systems - biochemistry, biophysics, genetics, etc. But can't accept
it with biological diversity. Once again, why? Is it because of a closet
vitalism? Is it because they accept the "nothing buttery" of the extension of
biological reductionism into metaphysics but disagree with the conclusions? Is it
because of theology? is it because as most are Christians and Christians have
traditionally supposed to be against evolution?
> Or at least would you not agree that up to the present time
> scientists have not been able to explain life by chemical and physical laws?
> I think the discontinuity is an empirical matter, not one of principle.
It depends what you mean by "explain life"? Much has been learned in the areas of
biochemistry, physiology, biophysics, genetics, palaeontology, and ecology. So we
understand a great deal about what organisms are made of, how their physical and
chemical constituents interact, how these are built up into tissues, organs, and
whole systems, how they reproduce, interact, and what is their history through
time. There is still much much to learn of course. How is different for any
other science? We have learned a great deal about the subatomic world, but not
everything.
However you seem to be using "life" to mean some kind of mystical force that is
not explainable by physics or chemistry. Why?
Jon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 06 2001 - 18:32:24 EDT