Re: Snoke's paper

From: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@adelphia.net>
Date: Sun Aug 14 2005 - 20:37:40 EDT

I enjoyed meeting you too, Dick. I was glad you could make it.
My role seems to be to challenge all sides so let me defend ID a bit.
Dave's paper wasn't smoke and mirrors. He was explicit and appropriate in his arguments, though it was a very narrow scope and, in my opinion, of minor significance in the broader debate. He can say it's ok to criticize without bringing up his own work of criticism. Enough work has been presented in that area.

I'd also like to point out that broad sweeping generalizations accusing ID of doing no experiments, offering no data, etc. simply isn't helpful. Like any other movement, ID has many different advocates with different perspectives. Some are good and some aren't. Some have done experiments, others haven't. Some offer data, some don't. We need to focus on the most central issues and not the peripheral fluff that swirls around from both sides.

Randy
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dick Fischer
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 6:06 PM
  Subject: RE: Snoke's paper

  Hi Randy:

   

  BTW, it was good to meet you at the ASA conference. I'm encouraged by your leadership and fully expect you to help write a new chapter that will move ASA out of the doldrums and into a fruition of its calling.

   

  Snoke used a little smoke and mirrors in his presentation. He gave an example of a prevailing scientific theory. He showed experimental results indicating that the prevailing theory was insufficient to explain the phenomena. He rightly criticized the theory before he could offer an explanation or a competing theory. No problem here. Next, he jumps to evolution and says it is okay to criticize a prevailing scientific theory even though he hasn't lifted a finger to offer any evidence at all. So okay, where are his experiments on the mechanics of Darwinian evolution that show its deficiencies? He doesn't have any. The parallel isn't there.

   

  The sum total of ID criticism revolves around the issue of complexity. They do no experiments, offer no data, they simply make an appeal to emotions. Where is that scientific?

   

  If they wanted to be scientific they could divide Darwinian evolution into component parts and offer data in opposition. For example, Darwin thought that evolutionary change was gradual. There exists some evidence suggesting that organisms perfectly adapted to their environment don't change very much over long periods. Rapid changes in the environment, however, appear to cause adaptive changes. They could say that, but they don't.

   

  Further, Darwin believed that random processes alone were at work providing the raw stuff of evolution. Again, environmental factors may provide input. And some evidence appears to suggest that there is interplay between the environment and the organisms that live in it.

   

  These are legitimate criticisms, and lend themselves to scientific inquiry, but they also involve natural causation. That doesn't fit the ID agenda. They want to prove God. So how does "agenda" fit into science?

   

  As to how a super intelligence would design, I can't know for sure, but I know how human designers work. They leave their signature imprint on their designs so we can recognize their products. Common designs in numerous taxa would give the ID people something to shout about. A stealth designer doesn't help their case much. I would be far more impressed with the bacteria flagellum example if I saw them hanging off of squids and jellyfish too.

   

  ~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association

  Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

  www.genesisproclaimed.org

   
Received on Sun Aug 14 20:40:30 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 14 2005 - 20:40:31 EDT