avocationist
Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Chris,
| Quote | My theory of intelligent design checklist goes:
1. How old is the Earth?
2. Did all species:
b. All descended from a smaller number of species(ie kinds) (goto 3)
c. All descended from a common ancestor(goto 5)
3. If the earth is old, how does special creation better explain the nested heirachies found in nature than the idea that species evolved from a common ancestor with guidance from an intelligent designer.(goto 5)
4. If the Earth is young, how did a small number of species evolve into all those that currently exist in a few thousand years (taking into account extinct fossil species).(goto 12)
5. Assumiung some evolution took place did the designer:
a. Act periodically to add information
b. Set life off with all the information already contained in the genomes
6. If information was 'frontloaded' into genomes what did it look like in ancient organisms before it was used, and how did it avoid being degraded by mutation
7. What triggered the release of new information
8. What mechanism did the organism use to detect the trigger
9. What mechanism did the organism use to activate the new information
10. What evidence shows that these mechanisms have been in operation
11. If theses mechanisms are unknown what experiments could be performed to determine them?(goto 13)
12. Assuming the desinger intervened to input new information how could this be tested scientifically? Assume that the theory of evolution and common descent have been disproven.
13. Assuming the theory of evolution has been disproven, what discoveries could falsify your mechanisms, idea of common descent, and age of the earth.
You can assume for all of these questions that the theory of evolution has been disproven.
There may be more quesitons, but you need answers to all of them before you can claim there is a theory of ID, let alone that it is better than the theory of evolution. |
Plenty of good questions. Where I disagree with you is that they have to be answered before anyone can approach origins with other than mindless chance as the assumption. It is no more logical, in the face of our ignorance, to have a preset notion of mindlessness at the bottom of reality, than mind. All other things being equal. But are they equal. And that is the question. What I can say, in regard to your several questions, is to repeat that trying to decode life, what it is and how it works, and it's history, turns out to be a really hard, and really big and deep question. Slamming and sneering because one faction has used more imagination to cement together a coherent-appearing theory just slows things down. Better to hang loose and not be motivated by inner feelings of threat. Whatever will be will be, whatever is true is true.
For all will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well.
But hey, Davison and others have made some attempt at getting started on a few of them.
Again, I don't disbelieve in evolution, just don't think it happened in an NDE way. That is why I say life unfolded.
|
