From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 08:28:41 EDT
I had said:
>>1. Advocates of ID-biogenesis are likely to appeal to observational data for
>>support of their hypothesis that the universe is lacking certain formational
>>capabilities that would be essential for the success of natural abiogenesis.
>>
>>2. Somewhere in their argumentation I would expect them to claim that they
>>are able to demonstrate that P(A|N) < 10 exp (-150), where P(A|N) is the
>>probability that abiogenesis could be actualized by the joint effect of all
>>known and unknown natural processes (often misleadingly referred to as "by
>>chance" by Dembski).
>>
>>3.No one actually knows enough to make that computation.
>>
>>4. Hence, any ID claim to have proved the need for ID-biogenesis is
>>unfounded.
>>
>>5. Even if P(A|N) could be shown to be < 10 exp (-150), the identity of the
>>form-conferring agent would remain unknown.
>"Richard McGough" <richard@biblewheel.com> replied:
> Your statement is a paragon of clarity. I agree with it completely.
>
> The only thing I would add would be to note that proof through probability
> is not the only valid approach to the question. E.g. it is possible that
> science could assymptotically define areas of divine activity
> (abigogenesis, fine tuning, etc) and that the scientific consensus could
> change on the basis of the general advance of understanding without any
> appeal to probabilities per se.
This is very confusing to me. If you understood and agreed completely with
my 5 points, there would be no talk of "science asymptotically defining
areas of divine activity."
In regard to the sort of phenomena that ID advocates hold up for special
attention, the most that one could actually say on the basis of the natural
sciences is, "Yes, there are numerous phenomena that are not (yet)
understood in such a complete and detailed way as to satisfy ID's demand for
'causally specific' explanations." [Some of these phenomena are happening
in our laboratories, some in distant parts of the universe, some at the
present time, and some occurred in the distant past. Some involve only
inanimate systems, some involve biotic systems or subsystems.]
However, this provides no positive basis whatsoever for the additional
hypothesis that such phenomenon can be explained only by appeal to some
non-natural form-conferring action performed by an unidentified, unembodied,
choice-making agent (called the Intelligent Designer). The hypothesis, "this
is an area of divine activity" is nothing more than an epistemic gap-filler
-- gaps in scientific understanding are filled with ad hoc appeals to divine
action. Deus ex machina appears again! Such appeals cannot be excluded by
appeals to logic alone (the door to alternative hypotheses is always open),
but there good reasons for assigning them low scores on the grounds of good
philosophy of science, good theology (as George has been reminding us) and
good old common sense.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 08:30:31 EDT