Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/ 3/04 12:16pm
In reply to:
Tumelo
's message, "ID theory" on 09/27/04 5:39pm
>It's very strange I tell you, they'll read books of
>all sorts that basically hammer home the same point
>over and over and over again, that all systems have a
>tendency to move from a simple state to a complex
>state
That's what may be in books, but the problem is that point isn't quite true, and that none of the known "self-organizing" processes have the potential to create the kind of order we see in life.
Some systems have that tendency. Due to the entropy principle (the tendency for things to go from order to disorder) a lot of systems have the reverse tendency. Cars and other machinery tend to break down without continuous maintenance, for instance. All known organisms, even with constant maintenance from biochemical processes, also eventually die and break down. (Though perhaps in the future this process could be halted and corrected with nanites.)
>all organizations that I've heard about have
>all had that tendency, and unless I've been looking
>somewhere else
See above. Do some systems have that tendency (e.g. the crystallization of water to get snowflakes)? Sure. Again, the problem is that none of the known "self-organizing" tendencies have the ability to create the kind of order we see in life, and that has continued to be the case despite decades of research into this area. Given the real facts at hand (which you seem to be somewhat ignorant of, given the remark about all systems moving towards higher complexity), it shouldn't be surprising that by now there are a few scientists thinking that they don't exist.
>friend "Behe" would be
>wise not only to give a plausible reason for his
>continued support for a theory as outlandish as ID
I don't see why it's outlandish. We humans infer design all the time. Isn't it possible, at least in principle, to infer design from life?
Behe and other ID adherents have tried to present plausible reasons for their theory. And I think some of them, at least in principle, are quite plausible. Nonetheless, I still think we should keep at it a few decades to confirm the prediction of ID theory.
>or
>at the least to provide details we can all put to the
>test
ID theory in its current state does provide testable and potentially falsifiable predictions. One example: we should not be able find any non-artificial processes that are reasonably capable of creating life from non-life. Perhaps decades of fervent research are needed to confirm this prediction before ID theory is accepted, but I see no reason to reject ID theory by fiat like some opponents seem to want to do. Additionally, there are other positive arguments for ID theory besides this testable prediction. I think that the prediction will continue to be confirmed, and that ID theory will eventually be accepted, though I don’t expect it to happen within my lifetime.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 