Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.

Good subject. My thoughts follow a similar train to yours.With regard to the beliefs of Newton and others I feel it's fair to make a distinction between their apparent motives and those of the modern ID movement. Their aim, in my opinion, was uncover the secrets of God's creation as far as they were able by looking at what he created. Indeed, many modern religious biologists similarly see evolution as a another part of God's creation that we have only recently been able to uncover. Despite my agnosticism this is a view I have sympathy for since it accepts that our knowldge of God's creation is subject to modification in a similar manner to the rest of science.The cause of modern ID, on the other hand, is to close down debate, to set limits on what we currently know in order to suit a fixed concept of God that is held by certain communites. Witness, for example, the striking inability of ID to entertain the idea that evolution may in fact be God's creation.

Perhaps because they are one and the same! Perhaps, as in Asimov's short story "The Last Question", a civilization will learn all that there is to be learnt and find "God" in its own reflection.....As far I am concerned there is no better way to get closer to a hypothetical God than through science.

This is a false dichotomy. If the Bible is the indeed the work of humanity then there is no reason to expect the universe to conform to any kind of biblical description.

This agnostic has no objections to such an opinion either...

Designed by what? How? Surely these should be the first questions on the mind an ID "scientist"? Such ridiculously obvious questions are never raised, however.Why are IDists so coy about attempting to identify their designer?Perhaps it's because they've already made up their minds. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

It is this failure to provide any scientific "patterning" that makes ID total bunk. As I mentioned in a previous post (to which you have not replied) ID refuses to explore either the identity or methods of its proposed designer.Not only does this smack of creationist influence, it also means that ID is completely unable to present a falsifiable hypothesis.Now, regarding your odds argument: I assume you are referring to the "unlikelihood" of mutation here. If so, then this entire analogy demonstrates an utter misconception as to how evolution works. I'm surprised to see you utilise this PRATT.1) First of all, evolution does not work towards some future outcome.2) Secondly, mutations are cumlative. For example, the chance of rolling six die simultaneously and having them all come out as six is hugely unlikely, but if each die is rolled in turn and set aside when a six is achieved them you will have six sixes in no time at all. THIS is how evolution works.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Well, given that the orbits of the planets around the sun are well observed and understood, there is no longer any basis on which to teach Geocentrism as science (except in a historical context, of course).When Geocentrism was taught as science, however, it did utilise the apparent movement of the sun as evidence to support its hypothesis. ID, on the other hand, has no positive evidence of any kind to impart.

Okay, so what IS the answer? Who is the designer? How does he work?Without an agent or a method, what "answers" does ID have offer?

Wrong. One is bourne out of faith, the other is tentatively indicated by circumstantial empirical evidence.Furthermore, materialistic explanations can be (and are) tested and falsified, whereas theistic positions can't. End of story.As RAZD pointed out above, scientists lacked evidence of a creature like Tiktaalik, so they simply used the knowledge they DID have to try to find one. They now have material evidence (whose discovery was based on an accurate prediction) to support their "explanation".Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Two questions:-1. Which circumstantial evidence points to ID?2. In what way has this circumstantial evidence been used to make successful predictions and to unearth direct evidence? Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Scientists go out and try to find evidence, they don't rely on faith. If they did rely only on faith then you certainly wouldn't be typing messages into a computer right now.For a scientist a gap in any evidence is a challenge to be solved. For many people of faith the same gap represents an escape route into an oasis of ignorance where their beliefs cannot be challenged.

This statement represents the "disneyfication" of nature at its worst. Also, all of this can be far more clearly understood in other ways. Exactly. That's where ID fails. It cannot be tested. Memetics can and will be put to the test. It is a relatively new idea and it will stand or fall depending on the evidence that scientists are able to find in support of it. No one has "faith" in it. Your haste to denounce it is more of a reflection of your prejudices against it than it's failings as a hypothesis.In any case, memetics aside, you are still having to ignore all the other evidence in support of evolution to sustain your "science as faith" argument. I notice that you have made no comments about Tiktaalik, for instance.