Re: Fwd: Pigliucci responds to Miller

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Fri, 03 Apr 1998 11:23:26 -0500 (EST)

At 05:59 PM 4/2/98 -0500, Massimo Pigliucci wrote:
>Dear Moorad,
>> What are we to make of all the evidence that we
>> experience every day, when studying nature, which presents a considerable
>> more wealth of "signals" indicating intelligence? Surely a human eye is
>> more complex and sends more "signals" than a mere coded electromagentic
>> wave. Some of us take that as overwhelming evidence for an Intelligent
>> Designer.
>I'm afraid there is a basic misunderstanding here. No evolutionary
>biologist would deny that *any* complex organ or organism is not the
>result of design! But both the imperfection of such design and
>*especially* the clear pattern of historical record that led to this
>design is infinitely more consistent with a non-intelligent design than
>with an omnipotent creator. Biologists identified this non-intelligent
>designer with natural selection, and the scrap material on which
>selection works with mutation and recombination of genotypes.

Dear Massimo,

I do not understand how you know that some of the observed design is
imperfect. What do you know of what the design ought to be which allows you
to judge that the existing design is imperfect? I hope your stand is not a
result of making a minor incursion into what you may consider LALA land, let
us call it the spiritual, and concluding that a perfect God would not give
rise to such an imperfect design. As you know there are answers to such
question of imperfections in what you may consider LALA land.

You must agree that the historical record admits more than one
interpretation. You are free to make whatever supposition you wish to make
in order to study the past. However, such suppositions are working
hypotheses and one ought not to make any given one hypothesis into a fact.
Historical sciences are not like physics and resemble more forensic science
where all the evidence is circumstantial and one can never reach conclusions
without doubts. You seem to express no such doubts.

Physics is truly based on experimental science. Observational sciences,
e.g., astronomy and cosmology, get their theoretical foundation from
physics. In physics the laws written down by men do not give rise to the
studied objects. The ontological problem of where all came from cannot be
resolved by any theory put forward by man. In fact, it is self-evident to me
that the question of origins is not a scientific question. Therefore, the
fundamental questions of existence cannot be answered by scientists qua

I was just wondering how much of the research you do and the knowledge you
have accumulated helps you in dealing with the multitude of questions raised
by all your personal and scientific experiences. Do you believe that one day
science will have a true answer to all of them?

Take care,