Joined: May 2002
|Quote (niiicholas @ Dec. 18 2002,18:24)|
|Over at ARN, Mike Gene is again claiming that the question "What should make one suspect ID?" has not/cannot be sufficiently answered by ID skeptics. The implication is basically that ID skeptics are close-minded and unable to consider the matter in a neutral, open, explorative way.|
After having gone 'round and 'round with Mike about this issue several times, he finally let loose the notion that he's using "suspect" in a completely different way than I was. As he was using it, he seemed to mean "suspect as a possibility" whereas I figured he meant, "suspect as being reasonably likely". Given the first meaning, it's a somewhat trivial question. I would simply say that I would suspect design as a possibility for the same reason that Paley did. Living things and their parts are complex, and do serve functions (i.e. have teleos) like our designs. So I accept ID as a possiblity, if a remote one. Yet it's another story entirely whether or not ID is testable, and whether or not the available evidence supports it. What I do soundly reject is Paley's logic in concluding that this is a sufficient hallmark of design. And then there's this guy named Darwin who showed that the Palian argument generates false positives.
Suspecting that ID is true, on the other hand, carries with it a much higher burden of evidence, and it depends entirely on what theory of ID you're talking about, which itself will depend on some assumptions about the designer. But mainstream IDists reject this entirely, instead claiming that "design" can be detected in the absence of any theory about who, how, when, where, etc., that would actually lead to specific predictions. They claim that design can be detected because of the supposed impossibility of natural mechanisms. But when someone answers Mike by saying that this would need to be demonstrated, he complains about it being an unfair demand! Having been shown this point, Mike still advances the notion that no one's interested or capable of answering his question, even though he knows it's not true. He simply maintains it as a rhetorical device.
theyeti (aka Grape Ape)