quote:
The problem is yours. IDists understand what they are trying to do with ID. You are trying to force it to do something it was never intended to do.
I think we all know what IDists are trying to do. This became very apparent when the Wedge Strategy came around:
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.
The goal of ID is to cast doubt on evolution so that non-naturalistic theories (see creationism) can be inserted into public classrooms. To IDists, the veracity of ID theory is not important but inserting god into public classrooms is very important.
quote:
IDists are not saying you can't ask that question. If we can't answer the "who made it?" question about the artifact does that mean it becomes a product of nature acting alone? No.
No, it becomes a product of a natural being. No one finds a pottery fragment and proclaims "God Made It!!". Therefore, we would have to conclude that if ID was in fact responsible for life on earth then it would be due to a natural being acting through natural laws. This then brings us to who designed the designers. Is there an endless string of designers? Obviously not. Life HAD to originate SOMEWHERE naturally to give rise to the first designers. If the natural laws are sufficient to create the first designers, then design being necessary for life is falsified. Without inserting supernatural beings not affected by natural laws, then ID fails as a pre-requisite for life. This is why ID is a faith.
quote:
Allowing for ID this is how it is: Scientific investigation of the evidence says there was a designer.
No, scientific investigation of the evidence says that there is design. The question is whether or not blind algorithmic processes like evolution can result in the design. Given that evolutionary mechanisms are used currently by man to create design, I would say that it is very possible. What ID says is that we HAVE to conclude that there is a designer in the absence of a complete understanding of natural mechanisms. What science says is that we can only theorize mechanisms that we have evidence for, which invalidates an unobserved designer and leaves us with an observed design process (evolution).
™ Version 4.2
