Re: Gingerich-Behe-Hall

Sorry, George, if you felt I was pushing your analogy map too far. Surely you are correct about the testimony indicated at Dover. Likewise, Milli Vanilli probably had a serious misunderstanding of the music industry at the time also.
   
  Further, you wrote: "All scientists who are Christians believe that every phenomenon they study is the result of "intelligence" - & then they get to work and try to figure out the mechanism (in a broad sense) by which "intelligence" has caused that phenomenon."
   
  Does this mean that science is inevitably mechanistic (in a broad sense) or primarily about figuring out mechanisms? Dembski says 'intelligent design' is not a mechanistic theory. Is this a mere avoidance tactic?
   
  In social sciences, for instance, the issue of mechanism seems less significant, given that studying human beings (and their decisions/actions) who are part of nature can be undertaken without appeal to mechanics. Maybe this explains why there is no distinction in 'intelligent design' between human-made things and non-human made things. The absence of involving a mechanism lessens ID's explanatory power?
   
  With curiosity,
  Gregory
   
  
George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
          Of course when I said that Behe was well on his way to becoming the Milli Vanilli of science I didn't mean that there would be a one-to-one mapping. The part of Behe's testiomony at Dover, as given in Pim's post, to which I was reacting was as follows:
   
  OK, says Rothschild, what ARE those mechanisms? Behe: Well, actually, I don’t have any mechanisms, but I know that there’s an intelligence involved. Rothschild: Wait a minnit! Isn’t “an intelligence involved” a *conclusion* that one would draw AFTER investigating the mechanisms? How can a scientist start by assuming his conclusion and then doing no research to defend it? Behe: Well, it’s obvious there’s an intelligence involved, so the mechanism must have involved the application of that intelligence somehow. Rothschild: OK, then, what IS the mechanism from whose investigation you concluded an intelligence. Behe: I don’t NEED any mechanism, because I know the answer before I start.
   
  This is shows a serious misunderstanding of both science & (since "intelligence" of course = God) theology. All scientists who are Christians believe that every phenomenon they study is the result of "intelligence" - & then they get to work and try to figure out the mechanism (in a broad sense) by which "intelligence" has caused that phenomenon.
   
  Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

                
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
Received on Sun Feb 12 22:43:07 2006