> The engineering metaphor may be the most helpful here, but it
> may be worth noting some analogy with what mathematicians do.
> They generally don't just move from one step of an argument to another &
> see what will turn up, but have some idea what they want to prove.
Good analogy; it's very much the way design engineers think, and is
probably generalizable to most creative work.
> BUT - no mathematician is satisfied with knowing the end result
> without the steps that lead to it! It may have been intuition which
> suggested the result, but in a sense that piece of intuition becomes
> disposable once a rigorous proof is found.
And if ID is to go anywhere, a rigorous "science of design" must first be
developed, as it applies to life. Behe has offered the best start so far
for the ID movement, but IDers know they must go further than this.
> & the analogy (no more than
> that but no less) with the ID argument is evident: The complexity of
> some biochemical structures or processes may lead some scientists
> to intuit design, but scientists in general will not be satisfied with
> that until the way in which the design is accomplished through natural
> processes is understood - an understanding which may require radical
> changes in present-day theories. (Dogmatic Darwinians take note!) &
> if/when that is done, the design intuition for that particular process
> is no longer needed _as a scientific explanation_.
Which means that the same reductionistic arguments for denying a Designer
will be able to be used. But if a rigorous design-oriented explanation of
life turns out to be so powerful and useful in scientifically understanding
life, it will be harder to resist acceptance of the idea that a Designer is
involved (somehow. I think this is the great hope of
the ID movement. Now, whether God must tinker with existent creation is
a different question.
Dennis L. Feucht
American Scientific Affiliation Newsletter Editor
Great Lakes Rocket Society
14554 Maplewood Road
Townville, Pennsylvania 16360