Re: Directed evolution: evidence for teleology?

George and Pim:

George:

>> You seem to be misunderstanding ID (Behe included). Behe does not require
>> that we "subject God to scientific experiements." At least not that I am
>> aware of. Perhaps you could provide more details on this.
>
> I really wonder if you are paying attention to what I write. I never
> said that Behe required God to be subjected to scientific experiments

Yes, I did read your post. You wrote that ID, as science, is objectionable
because if God is an explicit part of the theory then that aspect of the
theory can't be part of science since we can't

> subject God to scientific experiements.

> What I said was that Behe & other IDers think that God is needed to
> explain certain phenomena,

This probably makes no difference to your complaint, but Behe/ID does not
say God is "needed," but rather that God designing certain structures is a
very good inference to make. Minor difference, but perhaps important.

> that he & other IDers want ID to be considered science, & that this would
> require God - as an element of their scientific theory - to be the subject
> of experiemnt & other tools of scientific analysis. They don't realize
> this implication of their claims because they don't think carefully about
> how divine action is to be understood in connection with them.

OK, thanks. I think I understand. I think this is a criticism ID is willing
to live with (much more to say about that I'm sure...).

--Cornelius

Pim:

Thanks for those references.

>
>> > Why one would look for the bacterial flagellum as
>> somehow designed is
>> > beyond me. While it is based on mostly our
>> ignorance, and ignores viable
>> > scientific hypotheses,
>
>> OK, this is type #1 from above.
>
> I notice you are not answering my question really. ID
> basically says, we do not understand X, thus X must
> have been designed.

Well, I wanted to understand your objections. If you want a response I'll
provide one, but then will let you have the last word. My response would be
that I don't doubt there are valid objections to most if not all particular
design inferences. I haven't found, however, persuasive arguments for why
IDs design inference, *in general,* fails the grade. Your point above
obviously relies on the position that evolutionary explanations for the
flagellum are reasonably compelling. I think the argument is valid but not
sound. Furthermore, your argument assumes the design inference for the
flagellum is mostly from ignorance which is false.

>> > ID also leaves many relevant questions unanswered
>> such as how, why,
>> > when... Why would God be intimately involved in
>> the design of the
>> > flagellum, which seem to have found a use as TTSS
>> (tupe III secretory
>> > system) in such friendly creatures as Yersenia
>> (causes the bubonic
>> > plague). Was the bubonic plague which is seen as
>> the cause of death of
>> > more than half the european population in the
>> middle ages somehow
>> > intelligently designed? Or was it an unexpected
>> side effect of the
>> > 'creative act' ? Why would God be so interested in
>> the bacterial flagellum
>> > I wonder?
>>
>> OK, this is type #2 from above.
>
> Still no answer. Do you really need more evidence that
> ID is scientifically vacuous I wonder?

Same as above. I wanted to understand your objections. If you want a
response I'll provide one, but then will let you have the last word. These
again are valid objections, but whether or not they are sound will depend on
one's religious beliefs. You obviously have some religious beliefs that
exclude ID. IDs don't share your beliefs.

--Cornelius
Received on Sat Oct 15 23:45:46 2005