quote:So though an individual may lack the self-discipline to criticize his own theory , the scientific community as a whole will act to address the proposal critically. In the case of the ID proponents, surrounded by a mob howling that they are not only mistaken but irrational, it is not human to suggest that they should be seeking evidence against their own theories.
I will note that the emotive dismissal of criticism is hardly helpful, and typical of propaganda.
The reason why the theory of ID cannot be addressed critically is that there is no such theory. To provide a viable design alternative to current scientific theories it would be necessary to take the idea of a designer beyond an ad hoc hypothesis - to explain at the least why the presumed designer made particular choices, and to extend this to make predictions.
The ID movement includes Old Earth Creationists, Young Earth Creationists, at least one theistic evolutionist (Behe - who is an ex-creationist) and a few others. One would think that they would at least be sorting out which of those alternatives is best - which would include considerable criticism- but I have seen little sign of that.
quote:There is no way to prove such a thing one way or the other; it's a subjective judgment. You can make up a string of supposed natural processes and convince yourself that's enough to disprove design but to someone else, like me for instance, it looks like a flimflam.
The claim, of course, is not that design is disproved, but that the alternative explanation is better. You, of course, being prejudiced, and having no great regard for the truth may dismiss it without bothering to understand it - as you are clearly doing. But that simply shows the poverty of your thinking.
quote:All sorts of such sequences have been invented to explain how, say, the eye could have evolved, although the different eyes in the sequence come from all over the taxonomic tree in no particular relation to each other. Just the fact that you can imagine a sequence out of them is enough to persuade some despite the complete lack of any evidence that an evolutionary track from one to another ever happened.
Which only shows again that you have not understood. We have plenty of evidence for evolution. The existence of numerous different eyes illustrating a possible sequence of evolutionary development is not taken as proof in itself that the mammalian eye evolved - rather it shows that is is possible. The conclusion that it evolved comes from the whole weight of evidence, not that single fact.
quote:Again, it can never be objectively established I suppose, but design always looks to me open and shut: there is no way natural processes could bring it about no matter how cleverly different variations may be arranged to suggest the possibility.
And yet we have evidence that is better explained by evolution than design, no working design-based theory, very strong evidence that the mammalian eye could evolve. Evolution is clearly the stronger position unless you wish to drag theology into the issue - and even that won’t help you much.
quote:But have you in fact "explained" the appearance of design by these purely imagined sequences of natural processes? Is this science? Really?
Explaining things according to the evidence, using known processes? Yes, it very much is.
quote:RAZD refers to my “trust in the ID”; but I have not exhibited such. I have pointed out the biased and illogical character of some opposition to ID.
It seems to me that you do place a lot of trust in ID and your criticisms follow from that, rather than any illogic in the objections.
Nevertheless let us consider the article you introduced in your first post.
According to that the predictions of ID are:
(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information). (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors. (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms. (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.
1) is not much of a prediction since it was already known before modern ID originated as a new name for Creationism. Moreover the complexity observed seems to be more consistent with evolution than design
2) This seems to be true only to the extent that the fossil record is limited. Indeed the evidence seems inconsistent with the major ID viewpoints (odd that this is not mentioned). Note also that no proposed designer is limited to only creating new forms in the Cambrian (over a period of millions of years) or to creating forms which fit into the “tree of life”.
3) The convergence that occurs is consistent with evolution and does not fit patterns seen in human design (see Niles Eldredge’s study of trombones)
4) It is hardly surprising that small amounts of non-coding DNA should have function. But the vast majority in humans (and many other species) either has no function or a function that is independent of the sequence.
ID doesn’t seem to do well on any of these points. You can hardly expect to replace a major scientific theory with an idea that fares worse - on points chosen by its supporters. Even without the issues I raised in Message 35 - which also rule out ID as valid science.
quote:Actually, I had been contacting Meyer (and all camps against Evolution) to join forces with me since EVOLUTION, although it is totally wrong, has more models than the old ID as being supported by Meyer and Behe.
And Meyer et al will not be interested. They still wish to maintain the illusion that ID is a rational, scientific enterprise. Joining forces with you would only hurt that.
I can only repeat my earlier advice. Get psychiatric help.