|
Author
|
Topic: William A. Dembski: Does Evolution Even Have a Mechanism?
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 02. May 2002 12:46
Does Evolution Even Have a Mechanism?
by William A. Dembski
William_Dembski@baylor.edu
ABSTRACT—This talk was delivered by William Dembski at the American Museum of Natural History, 23 April 2002 at a discussion titled "Evolution or Intelligent Design?" The participants included ID proponents William A. Dembski and Michael J. Behe as well as evolutionists Kenneth R. Miller and Robert T. Pennock. Eugenie C. Scott moderated the discussion.
To read the entire paper, please click here
Paper Versions:
-02 May 2002
[ 09 May 2002, 12:03: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 28. May 2002 10:29
To begin, let me say that I found this article articulate, well thought out, and logically sound. My comments aren’t intended as a criticism, but rather an observation that the argument presented in not convincing, or more accurately, not as convincing as it could be.
I agree with what I think are some of the key points of the argument presented including:
1. Science ‘should’ consider a full range of possibilities.
2. The probabilities that features of biological systems arose by chance are extremely low.
3. The complexity in biological systems suggests the presence of ‘intelligent design’.
4. Science is wrong in claiming that the any possible material mechanism must be eliminated before non-material mechanisms can be considered.
As I interpret it, the argument presented is intended to support the conclusion that "there are observed occurrences of specified biological complexity whose development or evolution is unexplained and/or unexplainable in terms of Darwinian evolution’. IMO, there are ‘correctable weaknesses’ in the argument presented which could make the argument stronger.
First, the argument relates to ‘scientific theories and models based on Darwinian concepts’. This means precisely defined and explicitly stated scientific theories and models. It is not logically possible, or necessary, to demonstrate unexplained complexity relative to Darwinian myths, might be’s and miracles of random chance. The article hints at this issue, but does not directly address it.
Again, IMO, the second weakness in the argument presented is that it demonstrate unexplained complexity in relation to a very weak Darwinian model or theory. Despite the passion of popular and academic opinion, the Darwinian model of evolutionary change is very weak. Demonstrating unexplained complexity relative to Darwinian models and theories is not a very impressive or convincing accomplishment. If the argument for unexplained complexity is to be taken seriously, then it needs to be demonstrated in relation to explicitly stated, precisely defined, testable scientific models or theories that could possibly model, simulate and explain the development of the specified complexity actually observed. [Note: I would suggest that alternatives to Darwinian are possible and do exist. An outline of my proposal for such a model was presented in Brainstorms under the heading "Modeling creative intelligence".]
In conclusion, I agree with Mr. Dembski’s suggestion that "Science is supposed to consider a full range of possible explanations." The difference between ‘supposed to’ and ‘actually does’ is, however, substantial. If the argument for unexplained complexity is to be taken seriously, it will first be necessary to significantly raise the standards for 1)What constitutes a scientific theory or model, and 2)What constitutes a model or explanation of evolutionary change.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic