Warren<< Neither the creationists or the anti-ID crowd on this thread understands what ID is. >>
Holmes<< Speak for yourself. I got into this while trying to create a documentary on the subject. I have approached the subject as a scientific discipline and am familiar with most of the literature (the only exception being Dembski's later books which repeat his earlier works).>>
Warren<< I wasn't aware you were on this thread when I made my comment. Based on what I had read before making my comment it was obvious to me no one here understood what ID is. >>
Holmes<< I came to this site seeking out actual ID theorists who could explain some of the weaknesses in its proposed model and stated evidence. I have yet to come across a real ID theorist in these forums and that includes you. Or at least, you have been unable to address any of the issues I bring up. Your best debating tactic appears to be disappearing, only to pop again later repeating your initial claims.>>
Warren<< I'm not an ID theorist nor am I a scientist but I do know what ID is and what it isn't. >>
Holmes<< As time moved on more evidence has come out supporting evolutionary theory and seriously undercutting ID as a valid, or useful paradigm for research. >>
Warren<< If you think ID is anti-evolution then you don't understand ID.>>
Holmes<< I post these bits of evidence, but no ID supporter (Including you) have dealt with them at all. This suggests to me a lack of confidence, or understanding on your part. I can talk about weaknesses in proposed evolutionary mechanisms, and have even opened a thread to defend ID. The inability of IDists to allow any negative assessment for their own theory, and that none showed up to help me defend/explore ID (in my thread) makes me even more sceptical of its validity. I will only add in my defense that the rest of your post says the same thing about ID as my earlier post in this very thread does.>>
Warren<< As I recall, we didn't agree on what counts as evidence for ID. I usually lose interest at this point.>>
Warren<< To me ID is a teleological perspective that generates testable hypotheses. Why can't science function perfectly well with more than one theoretical framework for generating testable hypotheses?>>
Holmes<< Ahhhhhhh, yes. Here we go again. I have already challenged this idea of dual scientific research programs... how many times now?
While certainly science can function with various theoretical frameworks. The problem is it won't work "perfectly well". It is a waste of time to keep using theoretical frameworks to propose hypotheses, when they don't come up with anything valuable.>>
Warren<< What exactly is your theoretical framework? That everything in nature is the result of blind watchmaking? Scientists once viewed the cell as a bag of soup. Please explain how viewing the cell as the product of blind watchmaking helped lead scientists away from this view?
I previously referred you to a website where six testable ID hypotheses. are presented. This clearly refutes your claim that a teleological perspective can't come up with anything useful. Besides, it's my contention that scientists often employ teleological reasoning in making hypotheses even though they don't admit this.
Also, keep in mind that ID isn't a thesis that has been pounded out and refined over 100 years by thousands of scientists. The design hypothesis is a work in progress and I predict it will emerge as a robust and viable alternative perspective quite capable to generating both research and understanding.>>
Holmes<< I have at least two threads of my own, awaiting your response as to why we should bother using ID when it has nothing to say on new developments in biology. <<
Warren<< You know, this is such nonsense. Molecular biology helps itself liberally to teleological concepts ("messengers," "codes," "proofreading," etc.). It must do so because nothing makes sense in the cell except in the light of functional logic. But molecular biology certainly does not explain the source of that functional logic. Without teleological concepts and terminology biological research would come to a screeching halt.>>
Holmes<< My argument is why bother promoting it as a framework until such time that evolution does not provide a good hypothesis. If in most cases evolution ought to be followed, it's just a waste of time to continually use something else (which consistently does not help).>>
Warren<< For the millionth time the issue isn't about evolution. The issue is teleology versus non-teleology. Make your case that the evolutionary process is a totally non-teleological process. Demonstrate that biology and medical science would be better off without teleological concepts and terminology. Want to claim teleological language is metaphorical? Fine. By all means, lead a crusade to eliminate all the metaphorical language from biology and hand it over to the ID people. If there is no design behind life, the non-teleologists shouldn't need these metaphors. So they should stop borrowing from the engineers and draw exclusively from the language of the physicists, chemists, geologists, and astronomers. If the non-design approach is so good, why do the non-teleologists need to steal ID concepts left and right in order to explore the living world? They have a whole universe to draw metaphors from and, given that life is not designed, the non-teleological perspective ought not be so dependent on *so many* intelligent design metaphors.>>
[This message has been edited by Warren, 01-24-2004]
™ Version 4.2