Guest guest Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 Thanks Chris! As usual, educational and lots of food for thought. > > > My (best albeit rudimentary) understanding of the theory is it > > posits that (1) Involvement of a supernatural Intelligence in the > > formation of life and the universe is a real and reasonable > > possibility; (2) We can observe evidence supporting this possibility > > by analyzing scientific knowledge of the natural world; (3) If such > > Intelligence exists, our understanding of science would be > > incomplete without acknowledging it. > > ID is not an actualy theory, but is an umbrella group of different > writers who each offer different explanations for why scientific > evidence shows active evidence for intelligent design. > > I have only read bits and pieces of most of their work. I own and > have read Behe's book (_Darwin's Black Box_) and although I > have purchased a few other ID books I haven't gotten around to reading > them all. > > So my interpretation is limited to my reading of Behe's " theory " of > " irreducible complexity. " Behe actually argues that it is impossible > for there not to be design. This is a little different than arguing a > greater intelligence is a real possibility. In fact evolution does > not argue anything contrary to the realness of the possibility of > intelligent design. Evolution does not posit anything remotely close > to " randomness " because evolution posits that the development of life > adhered to the physicochemical laws of the universe. There is no > argument from any school of thought that I am aware of that proposes > to explain how the physicochemical laws of the universe arose, and I > think many (certainly not all) people would conclude that the most > likely explanation is a greater intelligence, in which case there is > absolutely zero about evolution that suggests the lack of such > intelligence over the ID school > > In fact, what the ID school argues is that God is totally incompetent. > Behe does not even argue with common descent. He simply argues that > God had to actively modify the process of common decent. God, Behe > implies, was so completely bad at making life that he had to interfere > with his own process to tweak it here and there because he couldn't > set the laws of the development of life correctly from the beginning. > > Who in their right mind would consider such a " theory " to be to the > glory of God? > > > So should it be considered meta-science or philosophy of science or > > something else other than true scientific theory? > > It isn't a theory because it does not offer any kind of testable > predictions from a hypothesis. Usually when a hypothesis is > presented, the author states the experiments that would confirm or > refute the hypothesis. Although I read it years ago and may be wrong, > I do not recall Behe presenting any such thing in his book. > > I'm not sure what you mean by " meta-science. " It isn't anything like > a meta-analysis of all science. If you mean science of metaphysical > phenomena, I'm not sure how to interpret that. Most ID books engage > in philosophy of science to some degree, but philosophy of science is > a paradigm for engaging in the development, interpretation, or testing > of a theory; it does not itself constitute a theory. Or, rather, if > it were to constitute a theory, it would be an epistemological theory > rather than a biological theory. > > > >Is it a backlash > > from the misguided atheistic conclusions that accompanied evolution > > and other modern scientific discoveries? > > Was the Pope announcing that biological evolution was consistent with > the doctrines of the largest Christian organization on the face of the > earth a misguided atheistic conclusion? > > >I don't know, but either > > way I think it raises very interesting and relevant questions that > > are beyond the scope of religion and science as we currently define > > them. I also believe there is a richness of knowledge to be obtained > > where the two intersect if we could get beyond the rigid boundaries > > set and the overblown fear of religion. (a la if God exists, he > > exists whether we believe in him or not.) > > I agree that the fear of religion in public is incredibly overblown. > I favor freedom of expression rather than freedom from expression. > > > I would submit the questions ID is asking are qualitatively > > different than examples like your gravity one and not the same > > as " we don't understand it so it must be supernatural. " > > Behe's argument essentially constitutes exactly that. He argues that > biochemical systems are " irreducibly complex. " Since we cannot posit > a step-by-step way for certain biochemical systems to arise, they > could not have arisen according to natural laws but required > intelligent intervention to arise. This is exaclty equivalent to " we > don't understand it so it must be supernatural, " because he interprets > the systems within the state of current knowledge when he must know > that in many cases in the past we have discovered how certain > chemicals can have multiple functions or may serve other functions in > different species, such that the pre-requisites to a biochemical > system could evolve for different purposes until they are sufficient > to begin building a new biochemical system. Thus, since the same > could be true for every example he offers of " irreducible complexity, " > he is exactly arguing that because present knowledge is limited, a > system must have arisen supernaturally. Moreover, after he published > his book numerous authors posited explanations for how the systems he > claims are irreducibly complex could have arisen. > > >For example, > > in looking at how the least complex lifeform we know of (which is > > still enourmously complex) > > That does not indicate that the least complex lifeform a couple > billion years ago was as enormously complex as the least complex > lifeform we know of now. Additionally, there are many things that are > intermediate between living and non-living. A virus is an example. > Naked DNA that is not viral, that exists in the environment, and that > can be incorporated into other genomes, is viral-like and even more > simple. Becker noted similarities to living systems of > semi-conducting rocks in his _The Body Electric_ and posited an > interesting concept of how life could have arisen from the electric > properties of some rocks. Far out, but highlights how little we know > about the origin of life and how innumerable the possibilities for its > beginnings are. > > In any case, one would think that the most primitive life forms would > have been eliminated by more complex life forms. Even people have > done that to each other. Like the Bantu wiped out much of Africa at > one time. We would not look at the results and assume that Africans > must always have looked similar to present day Africans for such > reasons. > > > could arise from inorganic matter, we > > know not just that it's incredibly unlikely, but it also doesn't > > jive with the significant things we *do* know about inorganic > > matter. > > I'm not sure what you're talking about as far as what we know about > inorganic matter, but " evolution " and " abiogenesis " are generally > considered two separate theories. Evolution assumes life. > Abiogenesis, on the other hand, proposes to explain how life could > have arisen from non-life. Evolution does not comment on the arising > of life from non-life at all. > > > I don't think this is the same as refining our knowledge of > > a natural law to better define a phenomena. > > Right. The latter is science while the former is philosophical contemplation. > > > Maybe so, but wrongly. I think it was a classic mistake of man > > putting God in a box that his limited mind could manage. > > Anthropomorphic forcing on God is obvious in the ID camp, because the > ID camp assumes that God is as limited as humans are in his ability to > only see so far ahead at each step of the way. This is the > fundamental premise of ID: the limit of God's creative power and > foresight. > > > I agree with most of what you're saying here. The answer always lies > > somewhere in the middle path. Maybe a balance can be found in > > finding a neutral way of countering the atheistic conclusions > > inappropriately drawn from science (this is another debate, but > > making schools or anywhere else for that matter " religiously > > neutral " is difficult if not impossible- someone's system of beliefs > > will always predominate). It seems reasonable to me that a better > > balance might be struck by intentionally teaching the inability of > > any one discipline or theory to fully explain something as complex > > as life and the universe, and also teaching a general appreciation > > for that complexity. > > That's an excellent thing to do, but it should not be done with > fallacious mathematical calculations performed by people with an > agenda based on the erroneous equivocation of natural laws with > randomness. > > Chris > -- > The Truth About Cholesterol > Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: > http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.