quote:Thus, since ID pretends to be a scientific idea, it ought to be pursuing it's claim to credibility by making predictions. Especially predictions that are contradicted by the non-designed universe idea.
Indeed. Simply stating "it looks designed" does not work, especially with reproductive biological organisms.
quote:(Evolution, of course, predicts that it's results will have the appearence of intelligence, just not design.)
Evolution uses the same intelligence that a river uses to find the path of least resistance. Evolution is a consequence of natural selection (ignoring your argument for artifical evolution for now), which causes populations to follow certain paths towards environmental adaptation. Design does not automatically demand intelligence, as the river's path does not demand intelligence.
quote:The proper pursuit of ID, then, is to come up with predictions that, before they are tested, even those viewing evolution as most likely to be true will agree ought not occur, because they would only result if ID were true, and evolution not true.
I wish more young earth creationists understood this point. Instead, they try and attack evolution when they should be finding positive evidence for a young earth.
quote:A bad evolutionist, for example, would take every prediction from a well-meaning ID theorist, and would claim that this prediction might come from evolution as well.
I will have to politely disagree with this statement. ID theorists have put the burden of evidence on the evolutionist to show how ToE can result in the design they claim can only come from intelligence. The possible evolutionary pathways that have been theorized are a result of a challenge that should instead be put on the ID theorists. They seem to take the position that any gap of knowledge with respect to biological structures is open for ID theory. Designer of the Gaps seems to be the rule instead of the exception.
quote:The "bad" evolutionists will take ID, will deduce the same prediction made by the ID scientist, and will then force their theory of evolution to predict the same thing.
Could you cite an example of this. I am not saying it hasn't happened, but an example might help clarify this a bit.
quote:That ID depends on the existence and involvement of some intelligent designer does not make it a priori a "faith" or unscientific hypothesis. This is like someone finding a watch, but when the owner or maker shows up asking that the watch be returned to him, the finder claims that it was "naturally" produced, belonging to no one.
This fallacious argument seems to make the rounds quite a bit. First of all, watches do not reproduce and are therefore excluded as direct comparisons to reproductive biological organisms. Imperfect replication and selection can result in design. Secondly, we can observe a watch being made by watchmakers. Has anyone observed a supernatural diety designing an organism? No. This argument for ID fails at every level.
quote:I agree that, if the ID believers were honest, or "good" they would bring their Designer into the court-room, would in fact base their claim on verifiable prophecy, if prophecy is defined to include depositions from God, the deistic designer.
Even if there were indisputable evidence that a diety exists, it still does not exclude evolution as being the mechanism that the diety used to create diverse life on earth. You must show how evolution is guided, and how mutations are caused without preferrence towards their benefit, neutrality, or detriment. ID theorists have yet to show this. If there were a strong preferrence towards beneficial mutations then I might lean towards ID. However, mutations are blind towards effect while selection is a direct result of environmental interaction.
quote:But, excluding the possibility of such evidence is also improper.
Totally agree. I think science, while sometimes harsh towards the ID movement, have nonetheless taken their challenge under consideration. However, it is the massive amounts of data already in hand that seems to stop the ID movement in its tracks, not the lack of ongoing research.
quote:It's a political stand, truly defending the theory of evolution, not defending the truth, per se. Such debate is from lawyers, not scientists.
It is strange that one of the proponents of the ID movement is a lawyer. The ID movement is trying to use it's theories as a wedge for introducing creationism in public schools. It is a pseudoscience that will never be tested, only used for political gain.