Glenn <gshel...@qwest.net> wrote in message <news:3E8F2388.email@example.com>...Let me restate my position. One recognizes "design" not by
> Steven J. wrote:
> > The "design hypothesis" need not protect itself from falsification by
> EH?? The "identity" of a designer is not necessary, nor are the
identifying "irreducibly complexity" or "specified complexity," but by
recognizing similarities to things known to be designed, in structure,
composition and methods of construction, and purpose. To take Paley's
famous watch example, he could tell that the watch has gears and
springs, because he recognized them as members of known classes of
manufactured items. He recognized that it told time, because he
already had the concept of telling time. Whether he understood either
how these gears and springs told time, or how they were manufactured,
is another question. At the low extreme of complexity, one recognizes
the crudest stone tools of early hominids because they show the sorts
of chips we recognize as the results of human manipulation. Design is
recognized by analogy with the work of known and observed designers.
This applies, of course, to SETI as well -- the search for
Now, ID proponents argue that SCI can be recognized because no natural
*shrug* Take the IDers' own word for it. In Phillip Johnson's
> > That is, they have no idea how their proposed explanation is supposed
> All I know is that I'm not taking your word for this.
_Darwin on Trial_ , Behe's _Darwin's Black Box_, and quite a few other
books, the author deals with some variant of the "panda's thumb"
argument that the sort of design we see in living things is *not* the
sort of design we would expect from any observed sort of intelligent
designer. The response is invariably that this is a theological, not
scientific, position -- that we aren't entitled to any assumptions
about how the Designer would work. But if we aren't entitled to any
assumptions about how the Designer would work, we surely can't make
any predictions about what design will and will not look like.
Therefore we can't tell design from the results of unknown, but
unintelligent, causes -- or, indeed, from the results of known
unintelligent causes (maybe the Designer crafts each snowflake
individually and intelligently -- how would we ever know otherwise?).
Very unlike that, indeed. ID does not seize on newly identified
> > ID theory predicts *nothing* except that there will be aspects of
> Unlike what Ho and Sanders claim "But a real synthesis should begin
mechanisms with which to explain this or that aspect of design. Its
flaws do not include finding one purpose or technique for design, and
using it to explain the bacterial flagellum, while seizing on a
different sort of design for a completely different purpose to explain
the immune system. It does not seek mechanisms or explanations for
anything at all, or make predictions detailed enough that it needs to
rescue them with _ad hoc_ explanations. Rather, it simply argues that
this, and that, and some other thing can't be explained in perfect
detail by current models, so "theDesignerdidit" (in some unspecified
manner, at some unspecified time, for some unspecified purpose) is
somehow a superior explanation.
-- Steven J.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.