<$BlogRSDURL$> abbr, acronym { cursor: help; font-style: normal; font-weight:bold; color: #2a548d; /*border-bottom: 1px solid; */ }

Eminent Domain Stuff


New London Update (2/24/06)
Bad NLDC!
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

 

A Theory Of Exclusion

A few days ago Michael Behe wrote an Op/Ed for the NYTs to explain Intelligent Design to the masses (via A Physicist's Perspective). In this piece Behe describes ID in terms of "four linked claims".

The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature.
...
...the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology.
...
The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence.
...
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.
Dr. Behe tells us that first two claims are uncontroversial while the third and forth provide fodder for debate among reasonable people. I agree that the third and fourth are the most controversial, but I would mention in passing that the second is not to be taken for granted as he phrased it. Had he said: the physical marks of apparent design are visible in aspect of biology I would have agreed. To state that marks of design are evident in biology is to imply that some active and intelligent force put them there...which is the crux of the whole issue.

Now, as for the third and fourth claims...

The third claim states that we do not have an acceptable explanation for the complexity of life. I agree it is likely that neither Darwin's original concept of evolution nor our contemporary neo-Darwinists have it right. Obviously, the fossil record shows the concept of gradualism to be false (the Cambrian explosion, for example). This does not, however, exclude the possibility that something like Gould's punctuated equilibrium, or something similar, might be responsible for these relatively fast leaps in complexity. This, however, is not the point I want to make with this post...

Behe's fourth claim is the one that ultimately makes my scientific side quake with righteous indignation. Here's how it put it in the Op/Ed:

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.
So, what Behe is really endorsing is a theory of exclusion. The basic form of his argument is:

1) Current theories fall short of explaining the complexity of life
2) Life is so complex that it appears to be designed
3) Therefore, Life must have been designed by an intelligent force.

But, you might ask, what about positive evidence that an intelligent force designed life? Since Dr. Behe explicitly states that Intelligent Design does not make reference to a supernatural being...then we must assume that he has some natural being in mind. So who is it, Dr. Behe?

Aside from the fact that I don't like theories of exclusion, belief in ID is tantamount to giving up...unless you have some positive evidence in support of it. As I have said many times before, ID is worse that useless as a scientific theory because it actually stifles scientific inquiry...unless there is some positive evidence in support of it. After all, if we've resigned ourselves to the idea that some intelligent being was responsible for the design of life...why keep looking for a more mundane (or even far more interesting) answer? All we need to do is look (depending on your religious bent) into space, or into our souls to find the answer.

In the end ID is truly unsatisfying if you happen, as I do, to like actual answers to questions. If Dr. Behe, or anyone else, could show me a shred of hope that the question of who designed us is answerable, I might be willing to listen. Until then please, let's keep the quasi out of the scientific.

|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?