Re: paleonet new Intell. Design art. in NY Times

From
Date
Reply-To
>  The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the 
>  absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in 
>  thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life. To 
>  evaluate this claim, it's important to keep in mind that it is the 
>  profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to 
>  explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of 
>  self-organization.

It is true that, in the absence of any convincing non-ID explanation, one cannot disprove ID.  However, non-ID explanations have been very successful, continue to advance, and already explain some things that ID advocates claim that they can't.  Thus, it's reasonable to expect that ID is not a necessary assumption.  However, this cannot be proven without knowing how everything evolved, a condition requiring omniscience.

The challenge here is to make it clear that ID claims are not being dismissed without a hearing because of philosophical, religious, or political bias (or, when they are dismissed on those grounds, to recognize it as such).  ID claims should be dismissed because they are scientifically wrong.

    Dr. David Campbell 
    Old Seashells 
    University of Alabama 
    Biodiversity & Systematics 
    Dept. Biological Sciences 
    Box 870345 
    Tuscaloosa, AL  35487-0345 USA
    bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com

That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa