From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Date: Sun Oct 19 2003 - 07:50:24 EDT
This is a little behind:
harper.10@osu.edu: (sorry I don't have a name)
> ,,,let me elaborate a little more. I am assuming that the structure itself
> is not changing rapidly with time. I'm also only considering biomechanical
> type performance features. These could be determined objectively from the
> structure itself. An example would be the strength of one of Raups shells. We
> could now let S(W,D,T) be the strength expressed in terms of Raup's three
> parameters. One could then form an hypothesis regarding whether shapes observed in
> nature are the result of natural selection. One might conclude that they are
> if you see that the real shells are grouped in areas with greatest strength.
> Of course, the skeptic may be saying at this point that this is a very
> natural prediction of ID. Why wouldn't the designer select those shell geometries
> that maximized the strength? Indeed. But the problem is (and I have asked this
> several times) that I am unable to find any IDist willing to make a
> prediction based on optimality of form with respect to function.
>
Are you saying that a shell that has optimal form with
respect to function may not necessarily be the same as a
shell optimized for strength?
The only thing that is a bit challenging here is that the ID and
creationist folk alike would probably implicitly assume that strength is
the key and that God simply provided the shell with strength so the shell
could survive.
Curiously, it seems that "survival" is actually accepted by creationists
and evolutionist alike without any objection. The bone of contention
seems to start only when the "E"-word is used with it.
But if "survival" leads to a shell fit for strength, wouldn't sharp spikes be
even better? And if sharp spikes work, why then not poisoned sharp
spikes? Or maybe optimize for number. Produce much and hope that
some survive. And wouldn't God, who cares even for the sparrow, also
provide the sparrow with the capacity to learn a strategy to avoid the
common house cat? Build the nest way out on a limb? What I'm saying
is that if God built in the contingency for "survival", there is a driving
force already there for evolution. Given enough time, what you start
with doesn't look a lot like what you end up with. So allowing survival
into the picture, but trying to skirt around the issue of evolution is a bit
inconsistent.
by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 19 2003 - 07:51:14 EDT