From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 13:10:48 EDT
George wrote: “I think you make a valid point that offering plausible
scenarios of natural selection do not prove that that's how things actually
happened. Nor is it necessary for someone (like myself) committed to
methodological naturalism to hold that natural selection is the only
mechanism operative in evolution - though it is certainly an important &
probably indispensable part of the process.”
-I agree with all of this, but would add “Nor are all plausible scenarios
created equally," as recent discussion has probed the veracity of the eye
hypothesis.
“& it's a worthwhile contribution to point out things about the evolutionary
process that known natural processes - including natural selection - have
not explained adequately. The problem here with ID is that it doesn't offer
any mechanism to explain those things &, to the extent that it rejects
methodological naturalism, _can't_ offer a mechanism. The Intelligent
Designer is supposed to introduce complex specified information &/or
irreducible complexity directly, without any mechanism - i.e., without
secondary causation. A person is, of course, free to make that claim. But
besides the fact that it violates a /de facto/ guideline of scientific
procedure, methodological naturalism, it gets one into a rather problematic
theological position.
-This is dangerously close to rehashing the discussion presented in the June
2003 PSCF. I will *humbly : ) * defer to the well written response
contained on p102-103 by Angus J. L. Menuge. For reference, the preliminary
summary says “He argues that (1) Intelligent Design makes a premature appeal
to divine causes and that (2) this appeal is redundant in science. In
response to his first argument, I argue that Thornson attributes to ID an
assumption about divine agency which it need not hold. In response to his
second argument, I argue that the same inference that establishes creaturely
telos also points to divine design, and that limiting science to the
creaturely falls afoul of Dembski’s “displacement problem.”
“BTW, why the emphasis above on Moon? Aside from the fact that Wells is one
of his followers, what's the connection?”
I believe Schneider appropriately answered this question, which Howard also
raised by recognizing: “even allowing for his rhetorical hyperbole (which I
am not criticising, just noting).” I was laying it on as thick as possible,
using every angle I could to create an equally contorted view as Glenn’s
regarding my ego.
Josh
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 13:11:05 EDT