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 : Tue May 08 2001 - 05:15:48 EDT