Daniel Smith
Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
| Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 02 2009,04:24) | I think for the purposes of this discussion we can stipulate a face, or Stonehenge, on Mars that is indisputably an artifact, such that we all are compelled to agree that it is beyond reasonable doubt that it is the product of an agent. This is a thought experiment, after all.
The fact that we are compelled to consider agency in such a case still doesn't help Daniel's argument, however, because we have many grounds for concluding that there are natural pathways to the complexity of biological forms absent the actions of an agent. Therefore the analogy fails.
(OTOH, Daniel sometimes writes about this artifact as though we have actually found such a thing.) |
You're (again) missing my point.
My analogy works for the very reason you say it fails:
There are a number of natural forces that could make a face on Mars.
You act as if only a designer could make a detailed face on Mars while all manner of natural forces could make life.
The truth is - it's easier to reconstruct a hypothetical natural pathway to a detailed face on Mars than it is to reconstruct a hypothetical natural pathway to the first living cell.
The difference is - you can accept a designer on Mars, but you can't accept a designer for life - period. The scientific method was not applied. In our thought experiment on Mars, the designer was assumed (based solely on the detail of the face and inference) and the case was made that scientific research would be aimed exclusively at discovering more about he/she/it - not about whether of not the face was designed.
This is why ID has failed (IMO). ID is actually an extension of theology, but it's proponents are pretending it is not. All ID adherents have made the logical assumption that a theoretical designer exists (or 'existed' in the case of Dr. Davison). The designer has (in all cases made by the ID side) been reasonably assumed.
Just as I can argue however, that natural forces could cause a detailed face on Mars, so too can it be argued (as you well know) that natural forces could make life. It's an argument that can't be won or lost. It's a case of prior bias and assumption. The scientific method actually has nothing to do with it. If, on Mars, certain scientists decided that since no designer was known, none could be assumed, the scientific method would be used by those scientists solely to discover the sequence of natural events that created this detailed 'face-like' structure. Other scientists (those who accepted the possibility of a designer) would be wasting a lot of time trying to show that such an object was 'most likely' designed. This is the failure of ID. They need to assume design and move on to explore the implications of such an assumption - rather than waste time trying to convince the unconvinceable that life was designed.
--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright
"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins
|
