warren writes:
I know for a fact from reading what Dembski and other ID theorists have written that their arguments don't rest on proving something impossible.
Apparently you never read my response. Not only do I state that I understand that there is more to ID than JUST proving impossibility, it included a citation which PROVES that proving impossibility is a PART of ID theory.
My original response follows. Please read it and read the article I cite by Dembski. It seems to be something you have not read before, as it has NOTHING to do with calculations, and is all about how theoretically proving the impossible proves something.
Then answer the issues I have raised. Original response begins here....
PaulK is totally correct that ID theory (as part of its argument) argues for the PRACTICAL impossibility of a thing as proof of ID. Your responses have not countered this point at all, except to shift debate to another part of the ID argument.
To put things more clearly, ID theory uses a two prong approach in dealing with evolutionary explanations for observed phenoma.
One is to present positive evidence of design. This involves an appeal to use the same scientific criteria we use to judge design in nonbiological phenomena to biological phenomena. In short, asking why should this distinction exist.
The other is to raise questions about evolutionary explanations. This is where both Dembski and Behe (and to some lesser extent Wells) argue that evolutionary explanations for observed phenomena, while not logically impossible, are practically impossible and so should be discarded. This is advanced with an assumption that once evo theory is discarded other theories become equally or more viable.
Dembski himself argues this point (calling it "eliminative induction") in his essay:
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%2...
In this article he further claims that those critical of this method are commiting the "argument of invincible ignorance." I dispute Dembski's position on this, but will leave that for some other thread.
The point here is to show that much of ID's position and Behe's arguments in particular are a form of negative argument (used as a positive argument only in that it "weeds out" alternatives) and that it does so only by arguing practical (or in Dembski's words "pragmatic") impossibility.
Sorry Warren, but that's from the horse's mouth (or to ID critics perhaps some other part of the equine).
The problem from a critic's standpoint is that even if one accepts the second method (eliminative induction) as a form of argument, all it does is challenge specific known methods [of evolution], without calling into question overall evo theory (which is NOT method specific). This is a point that seems to be missed by ID theorists.
Even the popular paradigm of "slow, progressive changes based on genetic mutations" is not a crucial component of evolutionary theory. Punctuated-equilibrium has already altered the "slow, progressive" facet of that paradigm, and Lynn Margulis' work has challenged the "genetic mutation" portion.
Evolutionary theory, being a general theory will stand whether those changes become major parts of the working paradigm, and if they eventually go away, replaced by more accurate or explanatory methods for the "evolutionary process."
Another problem from the critics standpoint is that neither prong sets out a specific encompassing theory to explain what we see at all. In the first prong, we at least see an analogy that might raise some suggestions of a paradigm, but the second gives us nothing at all to work with.
Given his acceptance of the eliminative induction method, one would think that Dembski could understand that ID gets weeded out due to its inability to coherently explain anything nearly as well, as its competitor.
As a challenge to you, please show me any statement made by an ID theorist which says anything more than "there may be signs that an intelligent agent may have had a hand in something." I have yet to see any connecting theories which actually explain what I am experiencing every day, and how that took place in the past.
------------------
holmes