From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Nov 12 2004 - 23:53:35 GMT
On 12 Nov 2004 at 13:13, Charles Roberts wrote:
[Scott:] ID is a theory of evolution.
msh says:
Sure. Just not a scientific theory. See below.
scott:
Evolution by chance and natural selection is a hypothesis on how this
evolution comes about. ID is a different hypothesis. Neither can
claim scientific conclusiveness. Both are assumed based on
philosophical predispositions.
msh says:
Scientific conclusiveness? Of course not. There's nothing
conclusive about the existence of quarks. Does this mean quantum
mechanics shouldn't be taught in a physics class?
The question is, which of the two hypotheses is scientifically
viable? We see scientific evidence of the workings of chance
mutations and natural selection every day. Just visit any neo-natal
ward at any hospital. In any species, any time a male defeats a
weaker male (perhaps one with genetically inferior vision) for the
right to procreate, you're seeing evidence of natural selection.
There is so MUCH evidence for chance and natural selection as the
mechanism of evolution that it is difficult to understand why anyone
would deny it. But maybe that's where one's "philosophical [or
religious] disposition" comes in.
>msh said:
> BTW, ID is just a new name for an old argument for the existence of
> God. The ID version has some highly questionable probability
> calculations, but the theory itself hasn't overcome David Hume's
> original arguments against it, as far as I can determine. FWIW, I'm
> writing a longer piece on this, and hope to post it tonight.
[Scott:] Nonsense. If the probability calculations happened to bear
out, then Hume's arguments would be partially overcome.
msh says:
Well, maybe. But his most devastating argument remains in tact,
regardless. Setting aside the fact that our observations of the
evolution of life reveals a messy process that is not all that
orderly, is what we humans "perceive" to be order in the universe
sufficient to prove the existence of a universal designer? When
someone rolls five dice and they come up sixes, is this evidence that
the dice are loaded?
As for the so-called probability calculations upon which ID hangs its
hat, they seem to me to ignore important scientific background
information, resulting in much lower probability estimates than are
fairly warranted. But I'll go into this more in a later post, where
I'll take a look at one of these probability filters.
Best,
msh
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 12 2004 - 23:53:57 GMT