[extropy-chat] against ID

[gts]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:04:01 -0500, Damien Broderick  
<thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:


>> The second definition seems on the surface to be quite reasonable,  
>> perhaps even an improvement on the first, but it lacks the requirement  
>> that
>> science be about *natural explanations*. In Kansas, *any* explanation  
>> for natural phenomena now qualifies as science, including for example
>> astrology as an explanation for human personality.
>
> But what is your objection to examining astrology as an explanation for  
> human personality?

None, technically. My use of language here is evolving. Astrology should  
be rejected as science because it doesn't explain or predict anything.

Similarly, Intelligent Design doesn't explain or predict anything. It  
suffers for two reasons: 1) there is no solid evidence that so-called  
"irreducibly complex" structures really exist in biology, and 2) even if  
they do exist, the so-called theory of ID does not explain how those  
structures come into existence.

I found this quote of Behe (the chief protagonist of ID), from a lecture  
in which a physicist pressed him for an explanation of how structures  
alleged to be irreducibly complex (for example bacterial flagella) come  
into existence.

=====
On November 11, 2002, Larry Arnhart reported on a lecture by Behe at  
Hillsdale:
At Hillsdale, after his public lecture, I challenged Behe in a small-group  
discussion to give us a positive
statement of exactly how the "Intelligent Designer" creates bacterial  
flagella. As usual, he was evasive.
But I didn't let him get away. And finally, he answered: "In a puff of  
smoke!" A physicist in our group asked,
"Do you mean that the Intelligent Designer suspends the laws of physics  
through working a miracle?" And
Behe answered: "Yes."

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Puff_of_Smoke
=====

So it happens in a puff of smoke! The least Behe could do is explain how  
the Intelligent Designer's smoke does this magic. How does the magical  
smoke enter into the physical world, and how does it rearrange organic  
materials? What is the mechanism? If he could answer that question then he  
might have a falsifiable theory.

I agree with you that "natural" is a troublesome word. I have used  
"naturalism" to mean something close to "positivism," but that is I think  
the wrong way to approach the problem.

-gts