Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID scientific ? Yet another approach to the question.
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 46 of 47 (596436)
12-14-2010 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Livingstone Morford
12-14-2010 6:32 PM


This is exactly the same methodology that intelligent design uses. In brief,
(1) There is no known non-intelligent mechanism that can adequately account for the origin of biochemical system X,
Yes there is. It's called evolution.
(2) There is a known intelligent mechanism that can account for the origin of biochemical system X,
No there isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Livingstone Morford, posted 12-14-2010 6:32 PM Livingstone Morford has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 47 of 47 (596479)
12-15-2010 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Livingstone Morford
12-14-2010 6:32 PM


quote:
Wrong. Intelligent design is a method of design detection
Of course, anyone who knows anything about the ID movement knows that this is not true. It's just one of the lies put about by the ID - a movement which cannot even be honest about it's own claims.
ID began as a new name for creationism (with Of Pandas and People). The Wedge Document tells us that the purpose of ID is to manipulate the school curriculum. ID has shown little interest in detecting design outside biology, while a real method os design detection would not start with the most difficult and dubious cases first.
ID doesn't even HAVE a good method of design detection. Dembski's CSI is a failure, nobody in the ID movement has successfully used it in any non-trivial case
quote:
This is exactly the same methodology that intelligent design uses. In brief,
(1) There is no known non-intelligent mechanism that can adequately account for the origin of biochemical system X,
(2) There is a known intelligent mechanism that can account for the origin of biochemical system X,
(3) Therefore, intelligent design is a more adequate explanation for the origin of biochemical system X.
It seems that ID is rather more like a God of the Gaps argument than you would like to admit. Point 1) is an express appeal to a gap (and more so when you consider the real situation). There is no appeal to direct evidence for a designer or even positive evidence for a designer, and a large part of this is that the designer is assumed to be God. Thus your argument may be summed up more accurately as "we don't know exactly how some biochemical systems evolved, therefore they were made by God."
1) We would need to be sure not only that there was no known mechanism but that there was no real likelihood of an unknown mechanism. And in fact the situation is more "we are not sure how the known mechanisms would produce this system" or if you follow Behe (and this is Behe's argument) "we haven't reconstructed every little detail of how this system was produced". There is a big difference between knowing that there is no route by which known processes could produce an outcome and not knowing the actual route.
2) "Design" is not a mechanism. You would have to go into how the designer operates to implement designs. Unfortunately that evidence is missing. You also miss the point that Drake's signal is intended to convey a message, and we have no sign of the proposed designer's intent within ID (even though it is necessary if ID were to offer a real alternative to evolution and not ad hoc apologetics).
3) You have also missed out other plausibility considerations. The existence of intelligent life elsewhere in our universe, with radio our only means of detection is still plausible even now. An intelligent designer operating on Earth without leaving more direct evidence than aspects of biology that are allegedly not explainable by current thinking is somewhat less so. In the first case we cannot reasonably expect to have more evidence, in the second we can - and it isn't there. Again the issue of purpose comes here - ID would be far more plausible if it could actually EXPLAIN the biochemical systems, telling us how and why the alleged designer designed and implemented these systems. Alas for all Behe's demands that his opponents produce MORe detail he can only offer LESS. A rather obvious double standard.
Finally you need to understand that Behe is an outlier in ID, having abandoned creationism. Others are openly creationist, like William Dembski (unless he was lying to avoid being Expelled! from his job) or Paul Nelson and others. Indeed it seems that there are few within ID who are not some sort of creationist.
ID is really about getting creationism into schools, and it always has been.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Livingstone Morford, posted 12-14-2010 6:32 PM Livingstone Morford has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024