Analyzing Intelligent Design {a structural construction of ID theory}

Right, and this is what makes it difficult to take ID seriously as science. ID seems to rely on assertions that certain problems are "impossible to solve" without direct manipulation by an intelligent agent. For the IDist, it's all or nothing.IDists routinely present (pseudo)statistical calculations of the impossibility of this or that biological event. Leaving aside the biological and mathematical errors of such specific calculations
for the moment, the premise behind them reveals a structural flaw in the ID line of argument.For example, in computer science, there are known to be problems that are not optimally solvable in finite computational time (NP-complete), but nevertheless algorithmic optimization procedures do exist to find suboptimal but "good enough" solutions in finite time.e.g. the "traveling salesman" problemhttp://www.tsp.gatech.edu/problem/index.htmlIDists seem to completely miss the point that it is quite plausible that this is the mechanism by which evolution works, i.e. as some ensemble of optimization algorithms that produces "good enough" solutions in the form of genomes and biological structures.So for the ID line of argument to "evolve" beyond an argument from incredulity, it must make positive, testable predictions about not only the nature of the designer, but about the precise mechanisms by which that designer intervenes, and at what times, to assemble genomes and biostructures.

Am I following you in the sense that you posit a less interventionist model of ID in which the design is embedded in the algorithms, but intelligence can be deduced from their structure ?

No. You need to understand how science works. ANY new idea in science is subjected to intense scrutiny and demands for clarification and evidence. This is how it is tested and developed.ID theorists would do well to take some of the criticisms offered by mainstream scientists under consideration, correct identified errors, and strengthen their case.Believe it or not, at least some of us that are theistic evolutionists, are not ill disposed to the general notion of ID on philosophical grounds. But if any concept, ID or not ID, wants to be treated as science, it has to meet the standards.

I looked at your posts and at Prof. Maginn's paper. I don't see where Prof. Maginn's paper lends any support to your assertions.It looks like a perfectly mainstream paper with lots of good information on thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, condensed matter physics, and numerical modeling techniques, all applied to problems in modeling molecular systems. But nothing to support the ID case, or really even germane to it.Perhaps you'd elaborate on why you think it does support the ID case. At least, we'd have a reference to discuss, so there would be none of this business about being too far from a library.

I already have.If one introduces a reference in support of a scientific assertion, one has an affirmative duty to demonstrate, through a coherent argument, how that reference supports the assertion.You have declined to do so, so you stand rebutted by default.This message has been edited by paisano, 05-12-2005 02:03 PM

I'm not rebutting the Meginn paper itself. I said the science in it -thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, condensed matter physics, and numerical modeling techniques - looked sound.I requested you to elaborate on specific points from the paper that you feel support ID, or more precisely, your assertion that the mechanism of ID was to be found in quantum mechanics.Simply stating "this paper supports my assertion" without demonstrating how, isn't a scientific argument, and IMO is a violation of forum guidelines.Stating that "I am a case" is an ad hominem, and thus a logical fallacy. It also, IMO, violates forum guidelines.I read, understood, and have no issue with the science in, the Meginn paper, and feel it can serve as a mutual point of departure for elaboration of your assertion.If you do not wish to discuss this topic, fine, but IMO you should withdraw your assertion that the Meginn paper supports ID if you are unwilling/unable/just plain not interested in demonstrating how.