stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote | #58
To understand (somewhat) Coyne’s statement that “nothing in biology makes sense in the light of ID” it might help to know that he studies the speciation process. In particular, the accumulation of reproductive barriers between diverging populations. I read he and Orr’s text on the subject recently, and I would recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about the observational and experimental data evolutionary biologists struggle to account for. Remember that even if a new nonDarwinian paradigm ultimately emerges, it must not only show why Darwinism is *incorrect*, but, in order to be successful, it must also *account for*, via alternative means, all the empirical data previously dealt with via Darwinism. Speciation/reproductive barrier formation definitely makes the “to do” list. It is exceedingly difficult–though perhaps not impossible–to translate these phenomenon to ID-language. One would (possibly) have to accept front-loading of the universe/life such that these reproductive barriers were engineered from the outset so that speciation would occur. Although I guess it would depend on how much you think your designer dictated in their design vs. how much was left to chance during the unfolding of the design. The way I see it, if ID ultimately seizes the reigns of biological academia, there will be a long list of things on the docket for adequate explanation. For example: speciation and reproductive barrier formation, genetic disease, cancer, vestigial organs/limbs/bones, balancing selection (e.g. sickle-cell allele/malaria), and so on. These and many other concepts flow rather naturally from darwinian theory, but would appear–at least to me–awkward to handle from a design perspective. So while darwinism is repeatedly demonstrated to have numerous gaps–some more or less gaping than others, some more or less admitted than others–I think it’s important to remember that for a scientific/philosophic movement to ultimately be successful, it must not only show how the opposing theory is *wrong*, it must ultimately reveal *how* it came to be mistaken, as well as *account* for all the data previously “explained” by the opposing theory. If I remember my intellectual history correctly, it was St. Aquinas who championed this general method of argumentation. As wise and powerful today as it was then. Once the one blind man understands he has been examining an elephant, he should be able to articulate clearly to his blind friend just why it was that he, the friend, was under the false impression that they were adjacent to a large, snake-like creature… Dethroning Darwinism is just the very first step. What comes next? What’s on the agenda? If the answer entails metaphysical speculation about the possible attributes of the designer, as opposed to positive and fruitful research paradigms, then I predict the reign of ID will be very short-lived. The march of human progress has been marked by an ever-increasing intolerance of metaphysics.
Comment by great_ape — May 30, 2006 @ 12:01 am
|
I am intolerant of your homophysics! -dt
|
