==You say “point out,” I say “assert without evidence.” As I’ve pointed out, Polanyi himself seemed to think that the irreducible principles could “continuously emerge” from the lower-level systems they control. Williams just says, No they can’t.
Like I said, Williams is obviously not interested in Polanyi’s speculations. He focused in on one thing, and one thing only—namely, Polanyi’s contention that:
“The recognition of certain basic impossibilities has laid the foundations of some major principles of physics and chemistry; similarly, recognition of the impossibility of understanding living things in terms of physics and chemistry, far from setting limits to our understanding of life, will guide it in the right direction.”
And the right direction, says Williams, is intelligent design, because it is the only explanation for life’s origin that “meets the criterion of an acceptable historical inference according to the Law of Cause and Effect.”
He seems interested in Polanyi's thoughts when he thinks they support his claims.
He focused in on one thing, and one thing only—namely, Polanyi’s contention that:
“The recognition of certain basic impossibilities has laid the foundations of some major principles of physics and chemistry; similarly, recognition of the impossibility of understanding living things in terms of physics and chemistry, far from setting limits to our understanding of life, will guide it in the right direction.”
And the right direction, says Williams, is intelligent design, because it is the only explanation for life’s origin that “meets the criterion of an acceptable historical inference according to the Law of Cause and Effect.”
I know what Williams says--I read the article, and I've referred back to it several times during this discussion. In my opinion, he hasn't made his case. That statement of Polanyi's certainly doesn't demand ID as an answer.
"The Bible says: 'Correct a wise man and he will love you.' The scientist ought to be delighted when his theory, supported by a series of previous observations, appears to collapse in the light of his latest experiments. If he was wrong, then he has just escaped establishing a falsehood and been given a timely warning to turn in a new direction. But that is not how he feels. He is dejected and confused, and can only think of possible ways of explaining away the obstructive observation."