On proving such and such can't happen
by machtAllen MacNeill makes an interesting claim in this post. In discussing how we could distinguish between ID and theistic evolution, he writes:
"This means that if we are to distinguish between IDT [intelligent design theory] and DEI [deism] (and, by extension, from TET [theistic evolutionary theory]) it must be incontrovertably shown that natural laws as they now exist are insufficient to produce existing natural objects and processes. As many others have pointed out, this requires proving a negative. That is, unless we assume that all currently known natural laws are literally all there are or even can be (as Lord Kelvin infamously did at the end of the 19th century), then it is possible that in the future new versions of purely natural laws will be discovered that can explain the existence of those entities now claimed to be possible only through supernatural intervention."
This argument is surely wrong, though, since we make scientific claims all the time about what can and cannot happen. For example, I can say pretty confidently that you cannot make a perpetual motion machine because it would violate the laws of nature. Now this isn't proof that perpetual motion machines are impossible since you can't prove scientific laws. So, even though I think you can prove some negatives, this is irrelevant when it comes to scientific claims. The best anybody can say is "Based on current theory, perpetual motion machines are impossible."
So if we wanted a scientific argument to show the insufficiency of natural laws to produce some object, we can't require proof as the standard. Presumably we would need a well tested, empirically supported natural law that says that some object X can't be produced naturally. This isn't proof but it is similar to what we have in the case of thermodynamics - the overwhelming evidence would point to object X not being able to be produced naturally.
If this were to happen, of course, it would be possible that this law could be changed with new evidence. This, again, is comparable to the perpetual motion machine. If some experimental breakthrough occured tomorrow that changed our physical theories completely, there doesn't seem to be a reason why these new physical theories couldn't allow for the possibility of perpetual motion machines.
I hope none of the above is too controversial. It shouldn't be. It gets interesting, though, when somebody points out "Well, yeah, macht, theory predicts that perpetual motion machines are impossible and guess what? We've never found one! But if, for example, some new law (I'll call it L) were discovered like the one you described above and one of the consequences of L was that object X couldn't be produced naturally and we do, in fact, find the object X in the world around us, then we obviously have to come to the conclusion that L is wrong, don't we?"
It isn't clear why we would have to conclude this. The only reason we would have to conclude this is if we were committed to metaphysical naturalism (and probably deism). After all, if X can't be produced naturally then it must have been produced non-naturally. So a metaphysical naturalist would have to either reject L or would have to reject the existence of X-objects. But those who reject metaphysical naturalism could, it seems, quite easily accept both the existence of X-objects and accept the law L. Given (in our hypothetical scenario) the existence of X-objects and the fact that law L is well tested, it seems like the reasonable thing to do would be to accept both.
A couple things to notice. First, this isn't an argument from ignorance. If law L were well-tested and fit well with various other physical theories and was falsifiable and all the other things that make it good science, then our claim that X couldn't be produced is based on the known evidence and not on ignorance. Second, and related, is that this need not inhibit further inquiry into law L or object X. Just like every other scientific theory, we may have to change law L in the future as new tests are performed. Third, the scenario I sketched out above seems wholly consistent with the view that science must be methodologically naturalistic. One of the consequences of law L is that object X can't be produced naturally, but this doesn't violate the MN rule. (Otherwise our theories that say that perpetual motion machines would violate the laws of nature would violate the MN rule, too.)
April 28th, 2006 at 7:18 am
I think the problem here is that you are forgetting the fact that there is no scientific definition for the term "supernatural" and hence no scientific distinction between natural and supernatural. There is no inspired, infallible Bible of Naturalism that dogmatically defines the limits of what is and is not "natural." The only means science has for determining what Nature is, is observation. "Natural," in the context of scientific observation, simply means "what we find in the real world."
Consequently if we have a law L that seems to predict that object X cannot be produced "naturally" (i.e. cannot be produced by real phenomena), and then we find that object X does exist, there is an inconsistency there. Clearly, there must be some other real phenomenon capable of producing X, and therefore we are mistaken if we think law L precludes the possibility of real phenomena producing X.
I see this kind of conflation of "natural" (in the scientific sense) with "natural" (in the dualistic theological sense) all the time. Likewise the scientific term "material" (as opposed to imaginary), being conflated with the dualistic term "material" (as opposed to spiritual). This is an unfortunate confusion, and it inhibits objective scientific inquiry.
Comment by Mark Nutter — April 28, 2006 @ 7:18 am
April 28th, 2006 at 7:36 am
Mark,
You are absolutely right. Deconflating these notions and ones like them is essential to proper inquiry. I was wondering, do you have any good references for recent scholarly work that makes similar distincitons explicit?
Comment by bipod — April 28, 2006 @ 7:36 am
April 28th, 2006 at 10:21 am
To enlighten the issue on Thestic Evolution and ID:
Teleological Evolution The Difference it Doesn't Make by Stephen Meyers
and
What every theologian should know by Bill Dembski
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 28, 2006 @ 10:21 am
April 28th, 2006 at 10:29 am
Regarding MacNeill's hypothesis, I point out cellular biologist Albert Voie's article outlines mathematically why no known natural law or any law that could conceivable be discovered at a later time can account for life.
The deduction is from information science, it has nothing to do with metaphysics. Voie used what is known as Proof by Contradiction
Here is my commentary on Voie's Article: Another Pro-ID paper passes peer review. Hubert Yockey and others make similar conclusions. Michael Polanyi definitely saw the problem.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 28, 2006 @ 10:29 am
April 28th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Arthur C. Clarke (1962): "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong."
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 28, 2006 @ 12:00 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Professor MacNeill,
While that is a catchy phrase, it doesn't say much towards the argument I put forth.
Comment by macht — April 28, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
There is no such thing as a law of nature. The factual evidence demonstartes that evolution happened and it is simply a matter of figuring out how it happened. So long as new discoveries do not demonstrate or suggest that evolution did not happen and, barring research discoveries by Behe, Dembski et ilk, that provide evidence for ID, there is no reason to do anything but try to understand how evolution occurred. That inquiry alone will reveal any flaws in current ideas.
Pursuing an incorrect hypothesis will demonstrate it to be wrong just as surely as pursuing the correct one. That's why I encourage ID people to do actual laboratory research instead of selectively sifting the literature for findings made by others.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 28, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Comment by Guts — April 28, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
I followed the link and read MacNeill's essay. I tried to (not sure if it worked) leave essentially the same lengthy comment as I will leave below.
I don't think I have read such a poorly written essay in, well, months. Where to begin? MacNeill wrote:
That's an idiotic statement. If God chose to be interventionist (IDT), it does not demand that He was incapable of arranging everything through suitable initial conditions. You can not conclude that he is not omnipotent, you can only conclude that if he is omnipotent, it pleased him to operate in the manner that he did.
MacNeill offers two logical possibilities, which I'll summarize as (1) God is omnipotent and did not need to intervene after setting the initial conditions (deism or theistic evolution) or (2) God is not omnipotent and he had to intervene (ID).
To state that the "two logical possibilities" that he describes comprise a complete set is absolutely fatuous. You must have (at least) a third, namely, God is omnipotent but he chose to intervene in creation. Why? That doesn't matter"”there needn't be a why"”the possibility is self-evident. But maybe he simply wanted to create discontinuities.
Since MacNeill's premise is flawed"”not just a little but fatally"”any conclusions he reached regarding the consequences for theology are meaningless.
Even accepting his faulty premise, just for the sake of argument, he makes additional mistakes"”that is his argument from false premises is not even self-consistent. He wrote:
This would only be a remotely justifiable conclusion if faith meant "blind faith." But biblical faith does not mean blind faith, so evidence of design, if it exists, would be consistent with biblical faith and with God as revealed in scripture.
Here is a little reminder that blind faith is never called for"”and that God does not shy away from offering physical proof:
"¢ In the book of Judges, Gideon asks for multiple physical proofs that God was God. The proofs were given. The bible does not contain a footnote that reads: "and Gideon, after serving his military purpose, was cursed for demanding proof."
"¢ When Moses asked to see God's glory, God complied with the request. The bible does not contain a footnote that reads: "And Moses' inability to rely solely on blind faith is the real reason he wasn't allowed into the Promised Land."
"¢ Psalm 19 teaches that the heavens declares God's glory. The bible does not contain a footnote that reads: "but only as a crutch for the weak-minded."
"¢ When Jesus forgave the sins of a lame man, he then healed the man. Instead of containing a footnote that reads: "and for those who required the latter, let them be anathema," the bible reads that Jesus said it was so we may know the Son of Man has the authority on earth to forgive sins.
"¢ When Jesus appeared to the disciples after the resurrection, the disciples thought they were seeing a ghost. He showed them he was flesh and blood, and that he could even eat. The bible does not contain a footnote that reads: "and their rewards in heaven were diminished because they relied on physical proof rather than blind faith."
"¢ Paul writes, in the letter to the Romans, that since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities"”his eternal power and divine nature"”have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made. The bible doesn't have a footnote that reads: "but pay attention to that evidence at your own peril." Instead, Paul adds that the reason for this (scientific data) is so that men are without excuse.
"¢ Even in the case of "doubting" Thomas, where Jesus allows Thomas to examine His wounds, and even though Jesus blesses those who believe without seeing, the bible does not contain a footnote that reads: "and Thomas was cast out for his reliance on proof."
This idea that ID would render faith unnecessary does not, of course, originate with MacNeill. I have seen it many times"”always from people who don't know what they are talking about"”who think that faith means believing without seeing.
Comment by David Heddle — April 28, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 28, 2006 @ 1:52 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Let's not get into a discussion about the meanings of Bible verses here. It's off topic and I'll move any subsequent comments on the subject to the Memory Hole.
Comment by macht — April 28, 2006 @ 2:07 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Not sure if I'm being very pertinent to the topic. (But impertinence is a forte of mine. Or is it a fart of mine? LOL My sense of humor is irrepressibly juvenile.)
Questions or statements such as ""¦it must be incontrovertably shown that natural laws as they now exist are insufficient to produce existing natural objects and processes," are a bit off the mark, moot, leading, framed, or begging, but not even intentionally so, I believe.
First of all, the sufficiency of natural laws seems to be principally the concern of philosophers and not scientists. (Or at least not the concern of scientists until they retire and become philosophers.) Scientists don't seem to concerned much, explicitly with the sufficiency of natural laws to explain their observations. No doubt they assume its true. But they rarely make law-like statements and rarely refer observations to the laws of nature. These broadly metaphysical issues do not enter directly (if at all) into the workaday world of science.
However, applied scientists, designers, tacit reliance upon the necessity and sufficiency (which is an argument, not to be assumed) of natural laws, takes a quite distinctly different term. Not that we don't assume its true. The acceptance of the truth of the matter is the very point of departure, defining the difference between natural and applied science.
For us, designers, the "laws of nature" are the canvas, the paint, and the brush. Not the painting. All we expect from the natural scientist is to supply the canvas, the paint, and the brush. The art is all ours.
I have asked a slightly different question, based upon some limited experience with design. There really is no question in design science (Not the ID brand. But real design. LOL Applied science and engineering.) over the necessity and sufficiency of natural laws.
If (and I do dare to ask "if?") the laws of nature were truly necessary and sufficient for our purposes, then design is utterly superfluous and vain to say the least. Plainly the laws of nature are not both necessary and sufficient, otherwise we wouldn't design anything! Everything we need would be found in nature.
There is a bit of a paradox here, don't ya think? Our very existence must certainly be explicable wholly in terms of the necessity and sufficiency of natural laws, but one of our most characteristic behaviors, designing, indicates that those laws are not all that is necessary and sufficient. We design to fill that gap, to supply what is, what we deem to be, necessary and sufficient, that is lacking from the sum of natural laws.
This, I think, has some important philosophical and even theological implications. Even though such questions are almost never (Never?) asked in a philosophical or theological context. The problem is that applied science (except as it enters natural science in the form of technological gadgetry, like centrifuges, glove boxes, microscopes, sequencers, chemostats, etc.) is almost completely ignored in the "philosophy of science." It's only a philosophy of half of all science. Natural science. And design enters the philosophers ruminations only in terms of epistemological questions, such as involving the design of theories and methods (and hardly ever even about the actual design of the instruments), and designs' true ontological status is almost completely ignored. If not actually denied and repudiated! Design science, applied science, is a virtual non-entity in the philosophy of science, so-called.
In my brief exchange at the (now apparently defunct) "Philosophy of Biology" blog it was painfully obvious that the philosophers were utterly incapable of understanding design except in the question it has always been framed in for philosophers by theologians (both designers, who hardly ever reflect on what they are doing when they are doing philosophy and biology"”designing!), the "old argument from design" to the existence of God. Design = theology. It was like I just stepped off a flying saucer, or was speaking Urdu to them. They just couldn't get their minds around the fact that design is a science"”which was exactly what they were denying.
Maybe Intelligent Design isn't a science, but there does exist a science of intelligent design.
Dr. MacNeill? Beyond the course you'll teach? Beyond philosophy? Beyond theology? Beyond… science?
Comment by Rock — April 28, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Ethel,
What would you count as evidence for ID? You encourage the ID people to do actual laboratory research but I'm unclear as to what they would have to accomplish for you to consider them successful.
Comment by Jack — April 28, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Jack,
I wrote a long reply to you on blood but it went to the memory hole and now has vanished.
As for your question here on ID. I have no idea what the ID researchers would find or would need to find to convince me. As in all fields it is for them to generate the evidence. If ID is science then this must be possible.
Your question is akin to asking me what evidence astronomers would have to produce to make me accept the existence of Spider Stars. The answer is the same - they would have to produce evidence for their existence. The onus is on those who are making the case to produce the evidence. There is no requirement on those whom the ID community iis seeking to convince to be convinced.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 28, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Sorry David and Ethel, I moved your comments here.
Comment by macht — April 28, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Macht,
It is certainly within your rights to move our discussion out of here–but I think it stinks. It was stimulated by the very post (MacNeill's) you linked to above. I think you pulled the trigger too soon. As I said, that's your right. All I can do by way of protest is avoid commenting in your threads in the future.
Comment by David Heddle — April 28, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Rock:
An astute observation. I'd say the laws are not all that is necessary and sufficient to us, but there's many other critters for whom that's true as well. The claim is not exclusive. Beavers build dams, birds build nests, moles dig holes, bees make honey, etc., etc., etc. Or, if I were to use other words, life reshapes its world.
We use more sophisticated means to render pure imagination into form. Because we can. And perhaps we can call our forming "design" because the things we form differ from one to another (we call that "fashion"). While a honeybee's comb doesn't occur naturally without honeybees to form it, the honeycombs look alike. No design here… move along. Many birds have a real eye for decoration of their nests, striving (for love's sake!) to set their labors apart from the others. Is that "design?" Or not, because a nest is a nest is a nest? No design here… move along.
In the end, we are the only life form (I know of) that creates things gods/demigods and/or nature never thought of. Real physical elements not found in this universe (properly so, since they are "against the law"). And with great - but foolish - pride we actively strive to manifest that which no god would allow! For example, that theoretically possible 'strangelet' the theorists at Brookhaven pointed out was a possible result of rendering matter into quark-gluon plasmas - and which, if created, would cause the entire universe to cease to exist in a flash of time so slim we'd never know what hit us…
What true god would dare create such a monster on purpose? Or create a living rival to his/her/its/their own power who could then design to destroy it all in less than a blink of an eye, just because he can? Who would believe such a silly tale? Where is the "natural law" that would protect creation [nature] from US?
So. We must believe that we are the only gods in charge of creating and destroying. Because if there were a real god greater than we believe ourselves to be, he/she/it/they would properly have done away with us long ago…
What is "necessary and sufficient?" Surely nothing here in nature, since we're so prone to both breaking laws and wanting more!
Comment by Joy — April 28, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
I realize that the comments were stimulated by the post I linked to, but my post here on Telic Thoughts was in response to one small part of that post and it had nothing to do with the nature of faith. You are, of course, free to not comment on my posts again, but I really don't want that to happen.
Comment by macht — April 28, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Macht,
Fair enough–apologies for my being such a crybaby.
Comment by David Heddle — April 28, 2006 @ 4:21 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
David,
I think macht was being heavy handed - it's not as though electrons take up much space and surely the point of discussion is to move in diverse direction. I read your reply and thanks. Here is the abstract you requested.
Macht I'd appreciate it if you would let this live at least long enough for David to see it.
Ethel
Insight
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 28, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Interesting. Allen MacNeill has told us what he needs in order to be convinced of ID: "it must be incontrovertably shown that natural laws as they now exist are insufficient to produce existing natural objects and processes."
Of course, if someone set out to convince MacNeill, his colleagues would denigrate such efforts as "creationism," an "attack on science," and "the god-of-the-gaps approach."
Yet if you think about it, an incontrovertible demonstration that natural laws are insufficient to produce existing natural objects and processes sounds like the end point of an a long investigation. So this makes me wonder. As the creationist attacks science with god-of-the-gaps arguments, what could he possibly find that might cause someone like MacNeill to think the creationist is on the right track? Or is the creationist supposed to leap to this demonstration, all by himself, in a single bound?
Comment by MikeGene — April 28, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
David said: It is certainly within your rights to move our discussion out of here.."
Problem is the discussion wasn't merely moved it was eliminated. The memory hole isn't an off-topic forum it is a trash can.
Comment by Jack — April 28, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Sorry, I didn't finish my message. Since the memory hole here on TT isn't a discussion forum but a trash can I suggest that David take his interesting discussion over to ARN where the debate can continue.
Comment by Jack — April 28, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Actually, when I moved it there I was under the impression that people could post comments in the Memory Hole, but apparently not …
Comment by macht — April 28, 2006 @ 7:26 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
"Any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Well, that would explain why my computer seems to be cursed.
Comment by Douglas — April 28, 2006 @ 7:41 pm
April 29th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Mike Gene wrote:
"As the creationist attacks science with god-of-the-gaps arguments, what could he possibly find that might cause someone like MacNeill to think the creationist is on the right track? Or is the creationist supposed to leap to this demonstration, all by himself, in a single bound?"
I'm not quite sure what these questions are supposed to mean, but let me make another attempt at explaining what I was asserting in my recent post. Michael Behe has asserted that acceptance by scientists of his doctrine of "irreducible complexity" would save them a lot of unnecessary work (sorry, couldn't find the exact reference), since they would no longer have to find natural explanations for something that had only a supernatural explanation.
It would be difficult to imagine something more antithetical to the spirit of empirical science. In 1900, Lord Kelvin stated "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement" (and five years later, Albert Einstein published his paper on special relativity, revolutionizing physics). If evolutionary biologists were to take Behe's advise, we would be in approximately the same position as Lord Kelvin: that is, at the brink of massive voluntary stupidity. Natural science has progressed only insofar as it has not accepted statements and theories like Behe's, but has continued to search for empirically verifiable naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. ID theory does just the opposite: it asserts (on the basis of virtually no empirical evidence) that such a search is both unnecessary and unwise. This isn't science, it's quite literally anti-science.
As to the "God-of-the-gaps" argument (GOG), that is precisely what Behe and Dembski's arguments are. Again, to assert that natural objects and processes have supernatural causes (and therefore cannot be explained with reference to known natural laws) is to make any further attempt to find such natural causes unnecessary. This is nothing more than an attempt to preserve the gaps in the GOG argument, so as to retain some tiny domain for the influence of the kind of pitiful naturalistic deity they seem to be committed to defending.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 29, 2006 @ 10:28 am
April 29th, 2006 at 10:48 am
Hello Allen,
You wrote, "I'm not quite sure what these questions are supposed to mean, but let me make another attempt at explaining what I was asserting in my recent post."
Since you are a scientist and a skeptic of design, you qualify as a "peer reviewer." Thus, I am trying to see what you, an ambassador for the peer reviewers, need from ID.
You argued that if IDT is indistinguishable from deism (DEI), " both would be entirely without scientific value, since both IDT and DEI would thereby accept the operation of all natural laws as both necessary and sufficient to produce all natural objects and processes." In other words, for IDT to be of "scientific value," it must find something that natural law cannot possibly account for. You make this clear by then adding:
So in order for ID to be of "scientific value," the peer reviewer needs a proof of something that natural laws cannot possibly explain. The peer reviewer needs signs and miracles.
This demand, of course, is a demand that others adopt the "god-of-the-gaps" approach, as they look for something science (invoking only natural law) cannot explain and try to argue that science could never possibly explain it. So when you say, "As to the "God-of-the-gaps" argument (GOG), that is precisely what Behe and Dembski's arguments are," we need to add that this is because that is precisely what Allen MacNeill, the peer reviewer, demands from ID.
So we have a situation where you demand X and then complain/criticize when someone tries to give you X. Or am I missing something?
Comment by MikeGene — April 29, 2006 @ 10:48 am
April 29th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Allen MacNeill,
"If evolutionary biologists were to take Behe's advise, we would be in approximately the same position as Lord Kelvin: that is, at the brink of massive voluntary stupidity."
Evolution isn't always a positive thing. Anyway, I think you greatly exaggerate the implications of taking Behe's advice. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't claim that everything, nor even most things, in Nature or Biology are "irreducibly complex", which would leave room for quite a bit of scientific research and growth in those areas. He is just pointing out that if the concept of IC is valid, and if something is found to be IC, then it would be fruitless to pursue research into naturalistic origins for the IC "object".
(By the way, you may know quite a bit about biology, but it might benefit you to learn more about Christianity and the Bible before commenting on either. You really don't understand the nature of faith, or salvation, I'm afraid. [Nothing personal.])
Comment by Douglas — April 29, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
April 29th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Macht,
The 1st and 2nd Laws have to do (in this context) with whether perpetual motion machines can exist at all, and not specifically with whether they can be built naturally or not. I understand that you are using this as an analogy but it seems to me that this is a critical aspect of - and flaw in - the argument. If perpetual motion machines cannot exist then they cannot be built - that is the infinity of possible paths by which they might be built or arise are all ruled out. However, if something can exist according to known laws then it is effectively impossible to state that no possible (natural) path exists to explain its existence. Stated differently, you have to examine all possible paths from A -> B and rule them all out. I don't see how that can be done since there are an infinity of such paths. If A or B cannot exist then you're home and dry but if they can then you're stuck.
So, essentially, you are looking for laws that say whether the mechanism for producing an object or mechanism - whose existence is not in itself precluded by physical law - is possible or not. For example, mixing CO2 with water does not produce methane but a cow does a pretty good job of converting CO2 and water into methane via the intermediary of eating grass. That is a very unlikely path and we only know it exists because we observe it. However, it boils down to an unlikely path being possible which involves catalysts (enzymes). In fact, there is clearly some probability that anything in the universe can change into anything else given sufficient energy.
I can't think off-hand of any "laws of nature" that allow that something can exist but state that no possible path exists which can lead to it. The best that can be said is that some path is improbable provided that you have enough knowledge of the system to construct the relevant probability distribution (e.g., an electron from the Chloride ion in the salt on my french fry in New York has a small probability of being LA).
So it's back to probabilistic arguments based on unknown probability distributions. The very laws of nature that ID is looking for are, therefore, laws unlike any which are currently known.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 29, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
April 29th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
On proving a negative…
The issue of proving a negative comes up fairly often in Intellignet Design and creationism debates. The short answer is that you can't do it. At least, you can't do it in the real world in any absolute sense. If, however, the rules of the game, the …
Trackback by hell's handmaiden — April 29, 2006 @ 6:10 pm