From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 01:23:02 EDT
Wow, I didn't check my emails for an afternoon in order to prepare my ASA
poster, and I find a whole conversation has gone by. I can't pass up
offering my own two cents. Snippets of the conversation with my responses
follow:
"I'm still at a loss to understand why C-12 would be any different than the
other elements."
You're correct, it's not.
"I understand its centrality in the formation of Life, but I do not
understand why the IDers wouldn't just solve this problem by asserting the
evolution of elements through natural processes as a *consequence* of
fine-tuning the universe."
In fact, that's the ID strategy for inanimate things like C-12. But to do
that, however, they have to change the meaning of their key tern,
"intelligent design." To put it as succinctly as possible, for inanimate
things and fine-tuning the ID argument is, "If the RFEP is true, then the
universe was 'intelligently designed' (meaning #1)." In the case of living
organisms, however, the ID argument is just the opposite, "If the RFEP is
false, then some living things must have been 'intelligently designed'
(meaning #2)." Heads I win, tails you lose.
"It seems very strange to assert that C-12 has to be "intelligently
designed" especially in light of the fact that we could produce in the
lab...."
"ID doesn't actually say that. It is the critics who ask the question about
C-12 to demonstrate the inconsistency in the rhetoric. (see previous
answer)"
-Richard, the reason you have found no references to the C-12 argument, and
why this conversation has generated such confusion for you is because the
"critics" here are producing a strawman argument for discussion. None of
the ID proponents ever alter the meaning of the term Intelligent Design,
which Howard has argued. Intelligent Design always means something that has
been generated by the creaturely capacities of an intelligent agent, not
natural causes. With respect to the question of whether C-12 is designed,
most ID proponents would say "Yes" but they have no way of empricially
detecting it, therefore it is a matter of faith to accept this fact. The
difference between Howard and folks like Dembski is that Howard simply
believes that detection of ALL/ANY design rests squarely upon matters of
faith and simple arguments of philosophy. For example, the question of "Why
is there something instead of nothing?" is best resolved by appeal to an
uncaused cause, God the Creator. Why is there C-12 and biological creatures
is answered by saying that God enacted the RFEP. While Howard holds to the
RFEP, ID proponents believe that certain structures cannot be originated by
appeal to the laws of nature, laws of nature cannot produce them. These
structures are complex, and specified such that to derive them by chance
would require selecting an event that occurs less times than the number of
the particles in the universe multiplied by the age of the universe. This
probability is so low, that it is prohibitive for natural laws to produce
such an event. For the formation of C-12, the complexity and specification
of the event is such that, given known natural laws, the probability of its
derivation under certain conditions is highly likely. Thus, C-12 fails the
"detection filter," and cannot be claimed to be designed upon an empirical
basis, instead appeals to fine-tuning and uncaused causes are required. On
the other hand, the formation of a bacterial flagellum, considering known
natural processes, very likely would be shown to be beyond the capacity for
chance and natural laws to derive (Howard seems to concede this by allowing
that biological systems are much more complex and difficult to predict that
the systems studied by physics.) However, a precise mathematical
calculation proving a "design inference" has not been done, so all of this
argument has begun before a first-time trial run has even been performed.
Now, for the ID theorist, this means that if natural processes are incapable
of performing the feat, one can postulate (what they call the design
inference) that it required the action of an intelligent agent. This
hypothesis however, requires some kind of verification, the final
verification would be the unending wait for an exhaustive list of all
knowable natural laws to be discovered from which one proves that none can
perform the given task under question. Most people have no problems
inferring that an arrowhead found in an archaelogical dig site could be
shown to require intelligent causation, but as soon as you try to generate
an inference suggesting that the flagellum requires such intelligent
intervention, you bring the wrath of the intelligentsia of science, who
greatly outnumber the "egotistical" critics. The ID critics generally
construct strawmen arguments as displayed here, or simply appeal to the
unknown amount of undiscovered natural laws waiting to explain event X that
silly IDer has claimed requires God's action.
IMO, event if event X will be easily explained upon discovery of novel
natural law Y, their approach is still invaluable. Perhaps instead of
griping about how incredibly dumb ID is, everyone who disagrees should allow
them to hoot and holler at the top of their lungs that they have detected
the hand of God. All the while, as the IDers yell, the critics can use the
ID inference as a clue to search frantically for novel natural law Y, which
happens to turn out to be a major scientific breakthrough advancing our
knowledge beyond where we could have imagined. Then those IDers will stop
their insane task of detecting design from intelligent agents, but they can
rest being satisfied in the accuracy of their prediction that something
above the available known natural laws was required to explain event X when
they made their proclamation regarding God's design. And those of us who
are Christian will quiet back down once evolution + new natural
laws/phenomena/creaturely capacities clearly explain all facets of the
origin of the universe, and get back to asking questions like "why is there
something instead of nothing?"
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 01:23:38 EDT