Re: [asa] Rejoinder 8A from Timaeus – to Randy Isaac

In a simplified version my understanding of Behe's argument for
irreducible complexity wrt the Flagullum is:
a)all the components are necessary for it to function as a useful
electric motor/propeller propulsion system.

b)none of the components by themselves serve a useful purpose that would
be created and sustained by RM+NS, thus there is no way evolutionary
mechanisms could create the flagullum as it is too large a step.

As I understood what Randy was saying, he postulates a state of
knowledge that implies that condition b above is proved false as science
progresses. In such a case Behe's argument would be invalid and ID
would not be demonstrated in this case.

I have just finished reading Dembski's "The Design Revolution" and have
read some of "The Design Inference". To my mind Dembski's arguments for
ID are of the same class as Behe's, although Dembski uses considerably
more formalism and rigor.

It seems to me that given Randy's scenario, ID would not be
demonstrateable using this kind of argument. This implies to me that
we have an ID of the gaps reasoning and this is one of the things that
bothers me with ID. Of course none of this implies that there is not
design in biological entities, just whether or not we can demonstrate
it. I for one fully accept lower case "id" not only for biology but
also for the remainder of the physical world. Whether such design is
front loaded or involves (hidden) actions of God over time seems to me
to be a question without much theological relevance.

To be fair, Timaeus said in one of his notes that he expects design to
be everywhere but that ID can only demonstrate it in some cases.
/
Dave W

   ///

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 4 09:00:48 2008