From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Wed Oct 15 2003 - 09:52:56 EDT
>From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
> I don't agree that Dembski's ideas have all been shot full of holes. I
> believe he is *correct* to argue that numerous scientific projects (such as
> SETI, archaeology, and anthropology) *do* tacitly assume that we can detect
> the products of a mind imposing a "design" on nature, as opposed to a
> "blind" nature doing this itself.
Correct, but that's not the issue here. The question is, Has Dembski or any
other ID advocate ever demonstrated that any biotic structure (like the
bacterial flagellum)must in fact be the product of such form-imposing (or
"design-imposing") interventions?
The answer is a resounding, NO, they have not. That was the bottom line in
my review essay on No Free Lunch. After all of the ID books, essays, and
lectures, there is no successful argument for the actual existence of any
biotic structure that possesses what Dembski calls "specified complexity."
The ID argument is never any stronger than this: "In the absence of a
complete and detailed causally specific history of the natural formation of
X, it is logically possible to posit that X was formed (at least for the
first time) by the non-natural, form-imposing action of some unidentified,
unembodied, choice-making agent."
> The theological comments below are fine, but I am interested in seeing a
> *scientific* or *philosophical* rebuttal to the line of argument indicated
> above. It does seem to me, that the only reason why many scientists refuse
> to acknowledge the *possibility* of detecting design in nature, is an a
> priori bias against considering the reality of a mind that predates our
> planet's existence.
Not so. Many of ID's most passionate critics are persons who welcome the
reality of a Mind that predates our planet's existence.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 15 2003 - 09:56:08 EDT