Lord Timothy
Posts: 6
Joined: Nov. 2004
|
| Quote | If you ask William Dembski what the theory of ID is, youll probably get some analogy with the idea of SETI. In short, an explanation of mathmatically deciphering between signs of non-intelligence and intelligence. And in the end youll get something like "If SETI is a geniune science why cant ID be?" But what is defined by ID proponents and what they actually do are two compeltely seperate things.
If you see what Dembski and camp try to do youll notice they write books called "Intelligent Design the Bridge Between Theology and Science". And most recently what the intelligent design camp has done is brought stickers onto our highschool biology textbooks that read "Evolution is just a theory...". On the very recent article on the ARN homepage the headline reads "Evolution: Call a theory a theory". Proponents of ID ask that you only "Teach the controversy."
If there is one thing proponents of ID -HATE-, it is to be categorized with Creationist. This has become very hypocritical, Creationist dont beleive evolution even occured as where ID'st say evolution could have occured but not by chance alone etc...and then again resort to the analogy of SETI. If this is trully so of ID proponents, then why do they say "Call the theory of evolution a theory?" And mark our highschool books with "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." If these propnents of ID are going to define ID as a perfect comparison to SETI, and a theory that doesnt denie the fact part of evolution, why are they calling -Evolution- a theory, just like any creationist?
|
I believe it is because IDs have a different opinion about how things happened, and though admittedly evolution had some influence, ID’s would think it has more of a minor role rather than being the driving force behind the arising of new genera, families, classes, etc. Unlike creationists, IDs don’t believe in the immutability of species. Their quarrel with Evolution is mainly because they don’t believe natural selection or the other mechanisms of Evolution are adequate to explain the appearance, or design of living forms, and what appears in the fossil record. Though granted these mechanisms have some power, ID’s would argue that most change is a result of rapid infusions of genetic information into the biosphere. So there is a distinct difference in the two ideas about our origins.
| Quote | The proponents of ID when debating intelligent design are constantly attacking the idea of neo-darwinism as the explanation of evoluiton, yet what they do in the public school district and even in there own books, is consider the fact of evolution and its theory (neo darwinism) one in the samething. But why should attacking the theory (neo darwinism) of a fact (evolution), destroy the fact (evolution)? If they think this is so then they are no better than there counter part creationist.
|
The problem here is in the semantics. When you say “Evolution is fact” I know you are referring to the changing of frequencies of alleles in populations which lead to new species. Evolution, in the mind of the general public is quite different. To the general public Evolution means neo-Darwinism, and the march of progress, common descent, and spontaneous generation. They had to get the message across somehow.
| Quote | Critics of ID are no better in this mis-understanding, thouhg the blame can all be put on the IDst for the confusion in the first place. For example, if ID is a science in the same sense SETI is, then ID doesnt have to put forth a theory of ID like hoped for by many on this thread. For example if SETI found an intelligent signal from outerspace it wouldnt be SETI's job to understand and form a theory of the biological origins, organisms and there evolution, of the signal, in order to validate if it was made by intelligence.
|
Not biological origins, because SETI does not deal with Biology like ID does, but perhaps in its own field.
| Quote | If ID is going to keep moving forward, its proponents have to stop pretending like it needs to not just remove neo-darwinism but also evolution. They need to stop pretending like removing neo-darwinism -is- removing evolution as a whole. And if its critics are going to be correct in critizing it they must stop asking useless questions like 'what is the theory of ID?". What is the theory of SETI? Is it testable? ID shouldnt (if it is to be as Dembski defines it) seek to replace any theories of science. And it also doesnt claim to be a theory (if it is to be as Dembski defines it) of evolution. And therefore any questions of how do we test this theory is also irrelevant. Asking questions like how is ID better than Neo darwinism, is again irrelevant. They do -not-, because they -cannot- replace each other.
|
I was with you (somewhat) up until the last half. If you look at ID as Dembski does, then you would have to believe it is a theory. The comparison with SETI does not define the entire theory, but the search for design, as a response to those who would claim that any search for design would not be scientific. The Intelligent Design Theory is certainly a theory, because it is has all the essential elements e.g. it is testable, falsifiable, makes predictions, etc. So either there will be a scientific revolution or there won’t be. One theory will come out on top.
|
