Religion and dogma are obviously on the ideology camp, with fixed monographic views, only changing when forced
Ideological viewpoints sometimes corrupt the integrity of any scientific or sociological endeavor. Sometimes this happens. Science needs to be reminded that it must leave out presuppositions and personal beliefs at the door. This kind of bias should be avoided at all costs.
As for religous dogma, its unquestionable that religious views have corrupted the integrity of certain scientific tests. But 'dogma' need not only apply to the religious. One only has to look at Richard Dawkins to see that dogma is present in not only religious views, but alsoi in secular studies. The prevailing theory of macroevolution is held just as dogmatically as they charge with proponents of ID. That's why its up to the tests themselves to prove their predictions true without any added dogma involved.
We should remember that dogma is a system of beliefs that can't be subject to scientific scrutiny or refutation without some facts supporting the asserion. Fact is soley dependent upon observations that can be repeated with a predictable outcome.
When you look at exploration, though, there is also the range of fantasy, everything you could possibly consider happening.
Possible considerations and variables should be introduced and should be examined. So in that way, fantasy is well within the boundaries of reason. However, some fantasies have been hailed as some sort of unassailable fact, and its important that they be examined prior to their accreditation of "empirical science."
Ideology: I'm only going down this road if it leads to {X}.
Exploration: Let's go down this road and see where it goes.
Nothing wrong with that.
The question is determining what is {real} and what is {possible} and what is {fantasy} eh?
Fair enough.
Ah yes, undefineded parameters with no established metric to measure the degree of "complexity" and that rely on a lack of knowledge of existing systems to exist ... ... yeah, THAT's scientific.
Science is only equipped to answer question about the physical world. But what we see is the exclusion of anything beyond that, as its immediately ruled out of bounds as an a priori. That's hardly objective science. That' like trying to figure out the theorum of 2 + 2, only to exclude the number 4 as a consideration.
Some criticism of creation science could reasonably be viewed with suspicion, but ID doesn't fall in that category. And indeed, the only real difference between ID and macroevolutionary biology is purpose and non-purpose. Proponents of ID feel that an irreducible complexity exists in nature and that its apparent, whereas those of a more secular persuasion believe that everything that happens, happens by some inexplicable reason due to some unforseen fortuitous anamoly.
It may very well be a little of both. Why rule either of them out if we're going to be as objective as possible?
This is not the place to discuss IC, but you do realize that "Irreducible Complexity" has been invalidated as a concept that shows that evolution could not have occurred, don't you? That makes it 100% falsified.
I agree that going into great detail on the subject would be OT, but briefly explain your deductive process?
When it comes to science, it doesn't matter how much evidence there is FOR a concept - as long as there is one (1) piece of evidence that invalidates it, then it is falsified. Dead. Caput.
Agreed. And that's what "Darwin's Wager" is all about.
Prove? Care to test that? Start a new thread so that this one is not derailed eh?
If you're suggesting that macroevolution is incapable of being falsified because peoiple can make up countless and erroneous rules to keep it propped up (see: Punk Eek), then it isn't falsifiable which pro-evolution groups claim for ID. So which is it?
And if they are relatively equal then the parsimony principal means we take the simplest one.
Unfortunately, the law of parsimony for something of this magnitude is difficult to quantify without some sort of filter-- which is why Dembsk's filter has made quite a stir within the scientific community.
Observation and Evidence: Life changes over time.
Hypothesis {1}: Mutation causes change in a random pattern, natural selection means fitness tested changes propagate.
Hypothesis {2}: Some Supernatural Agent manipulates life to change along designed paths.
How about a third hypothesis?
Hypothesis (3): A Higher Intelligence is responsible for a diverse range of life and the laws that bind physics. However, mutation and selection works not on a linear course, but randomly, but it is still inviolate of supplanting those laws.
Prediction {1a}: Mutation will be observed, some beneficial and some lethal and many in between, and
Prediction {1b}: Natural Selection will be observed - the lethal mutations and less advantageous ones will be eliminated or vastly reduced within the overall population while the beneficial and neutral ones will propagate in proportion to their benefit to the individuals involved.
That's a fine prediction for a microadaptative process, and one that has stood up to scrutiny. It should also be abundantly clear that if if these microevolutionary advance were simply an extrapolation or magnification of a microadaptive process. And in 150 + years of dedicating searching, that question is still unanswered.
Though your review was doubtfully meant to be technical, it was too simplified to answer any real questions about the pressures of selection or effects of genetic mutations. The way it seems to me, the matrix of probability for certain biological features with a limited number of variables to explore, make complex biological systems unlikely to appear under the conditions of either haphazard mutation or selection. Its purely within the realm of theoretical biology. Yet, it is considered, "science." Its outside of observation. That's the first disparity I see.
The selection hypothesis does not adequately explain the evolution of certain critical features that are not functional without all its parts in place since the inception. I've heard a myriad of pleas to exonerate or to get around this conundrum, but its still present. Nor does it explain the development of advanced features before the need has arisen, such as why a reptile would ever find the selective pressure to evolve proto-wings. In other words, what was the mechanism that prompted this feature far in advance of any concievable relevance to its survival-- and how did it did not hinder the animal instead of enhance its survivability as it and its progenitors were going through these biological changes?
So, how is it more scientific to follow an imagined evidentiary line-- a path that has yet to bear any real fruit?
"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
™ Version 4.2