Re: Is there evidence of design?

From: Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
Date: Mon Nov 14 2005 - 15:52:04 EST

Cornelius,

Then, what's the difference between ID and theistic evolution?

You seem to be using ID much more broadly than most of us. Theistic
evolution is more or less indistinguishable scientifically from
naturalistic evolution. The chief difference comes in the meta-
scientific claim about the ultimate basis for the properties and
behavior of the universe. Is it created/sustained/governed by God? Or
is it self-existent and self-governed, i.e. it's just there?

TG

On Nov 14, 2005, at 1:39 PM, Cornelius Hunter wrote:

> Terry:
>
> Sorry for the terse message, let me elaborate a bit. I wonder if
> you or others find evidence for design in creation, with whatever
> caveats you would attach.You have responded that (i) you do feel
> there is evidence for design (eg, the ETC exhibits function and
> IC), (ii) but such design could have evolved, (iii) and such a
> process of evolution was God-designed and God-guided, and (iv) you
> have doubts about whether the evidence from creation reveals any
> "superimposed purposefulness detectable from the outside."
>
> My point is that this position easily falls within the ID
> framework. Indeed, if God designed and guided the process it fits
> well. You asked:
>
> "Not sure what your last sentence means. If by that you mean that
> evolution is a God-designed, -guided process, and that irreducible
> complexity can arise by such means, then I readily concur. If you
> mean, the process and results evidence some kind of superimposed
> purposefulness detectable from the outside, then I have my doubts."
>
> Yes, I meant that ID does not rule out evolutionary processes.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Terry M. Gray
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 9:03 AM
> Subject: Re: Is there evidence of design?
>
> Cornelius,
>
> Evidence detectable scientifically?
>
> Not sure what your last sentence means. If by that you mean that
> evolution is a God-designed, -guided process, and that irreducible
> complexity can arise by such means, then I readily concur. If you
> mean, the process and results evidence some kind of superimposed
> purposefulness detectable from the outside, then I have my doubts.
>
> TG
>
> On Nov 14, 2005, at 7:17 AM, Cornelius Hunter wrote:
>
>> Brief response for now: My question is simply do you find evidence
>> of design in creation, in whatever form that evidence may take (IC
>> is fine as an example).
>>
>> "I reject the claim that "irreducible complexity" is unevolvable "
>>
>> It is not a matter of design *or* evolution.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Terry M. Gray
>> To: asa@calvin.edu
>> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 3:50 PM
>> Subject: Re: Is there evidence of design?
>>
>> Cornelius,
>>
>> Two responses here:
>>
>> First, you're changing the question. The context was Miller and
>> Levine's discussion of "purposeful evolution", i.e. that something
>> scientifically detectable is guiding the process.
>>
>> Second, I'm not sure what your question means. What does it mean
>> that the ETS/ETC exhibits evidence for design? Does it have some
>> function in the cell? Yes--even Dawkins will recognize design in
>> that sense. Is that what you're talking about? Or are you talking
>> about "irreducible complexity"? I.e. do all the parts depend on
>> each other provide a working whole. Yes--ETS/ETC is complex in
>> that sense and biologists have always talked about it (even if we
>> haven't called it "irreducible complexity") in terms of structure/
>> function relationships. I reject the claim that "irreducible
>> complexity" is unevolvable by naturally occurring mechanisms
>> simply on the basis of in principle exaptation arguments alone. Is
>> that what you're talking about? If not those two things, then what
>> is it that you mean?
>>
>> I'm very inclined to think of design, when it comes to the
>> relationship between God and the creation (a different
>> relationship than that between an artifact and an artificer), as
>> being a theological concept rather than a scientific one. While
>> this may come very close to defining the problem away, and perhaps
>> it does, since I don't really see that there is much of a problem,
>> it is a perspective that needs articulating from the outset. I
>> believe in design because I believe in a designer, not because I
>> see design in and of itself.
>>
>> TG
>>
>> On Nov 13, 2005, at 8:20 AM, Cornelius Hunter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well how about starting with this question. Do you think there is
>>> evidence for design in creation? For instance, does the electron
>>> transport chain exhibit evidence for design?
>>>
>>> From: Terry M. Gray
>>> If there is a "plan and purpose" that is detectable
>>> scientifically, then I'm all ears. Where is it? How is it imposed
>>> on organisms and ecosystems?
>>> TG
>>>
>>
>> ________________
>> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
>> Computer Support Scientist
>> Chemistry Department
>> Colorado State University
>> Fort Collins, CO 80523
>> (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
>>
>>
>>
>
> ________________
> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
> Computer Support Scientist
> Chemistry Department
> Colorado State University
> Fort Collins, CO 80523
> (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
>
>
>

________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
Received on Mon Nov 14 15:53:17 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 14 2005 - 15:53:17 EST