warren writes:
For instance, I'm not the least bit interested in the socio-political aspects of ID and/ or the agenda of any "ID movement."
You make grand claims about what ID is and is not, and that I have no idea what ID is. The socio-political apects may not be of interest to you, but the wording--- and the ramifications of their wording--- clearly presents challenges to your vision of what ID is and is not.
warren writes:
First I would like you to document that any ID theorist claims that speciation doesn't occur in nature.
Wells, Demsbki, and Johnson clearly state that while it is not LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for evolution to be the mechanism of speciation, it is PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
I posit to you that while evolution and ID can be pursued simultaneously, they cannot be equal as conclusions of research. The flagellum is used as an argument that evolution is not the best mechanism (which by the way you still have not admitted has nothing to do with epistemology). There is no getting away from what this means, if the argument and evidence were valid.
Moreso than this, taxiflora stands as a rebuttal of ID. There is simply no separate or valid "intelligent design" scenario. At least none that is testable. While the reverse is not only true, but what actually happened. Scientists used tests based on evolutionary mechanisms to make real scientific discoveries about a new plant.
If evolution consistently is the better explanatory theory for speciation, and that is all evolution deals with, what reason is there for tandem research using methodology which has given us nothing at all and in the case of taxiflora would have been an impediment?
warren writes:
My interest in ID is soley to use it as a tool for exploring and better understanding nature.
Explain how it has helped. Explain how it helps you when in the case if taxiflora it would have said nothing at all?
If a theory is at best hit and miss, isn't it better to go with the one that keeps hitting?
I have yet to see you provide any evidence for value added to scientific research.
warren writes:
And the point of my recent posts was to argue there is no reason why a methodology that doesn't a priori reject teleology cannot employ an experimental, inductive approach to the world.
1) The scientific method does not reject teleology in any a priori way. It simply does not assume teleology in an a priori way. Evolutionary theory rejects biological teleology, but that is not a methodology. It is constructed from a methodology, which could have identified teleological mechanisms if there was some sort of evidence for it.
2) What does this have to do with this thread's topic at all? Why not start posting in another thread where this line of argument is the topic? Most notably the thread I opened to seriously discuss evidence for ID and practical needs for investigating ID in biological organisms.
warren writes:
It is merely an alternative view {viewing things from a different angle}. It is capable of exploring and interpreting scientific data {thus it can use science) and can also generate subsidiary hypotheses and predictions {thus it can guide science}
I can equally construct alternative views, capable of interpreting data, which can also generate hypotheses and predictions. This does not make such constructs valuable to science.
"Different angles" is not an answer. When stuck with a major problem, where current methods have been exhausted... maybe "different angles" are the best option. But we have not reached that point regarding speciation or other biological events.
And I am still unclear, if ID has nothing to do with speciation (other than another way of thinking), what is its explanatory focus?
------------------
holmes
™ Version 4.2