Joined: Sep. 2002
I'll briefly address one of Samada's questions. He asked
Since there is at present no existing "big tent" ID theory, and since ID "theorists" have thus far not suggested anything by way of explanations for purportedly designed objects, and since ID "theorists" thus far not even developed a minimal catalog of purportedly designed structures and/or processes on which to begin to attempt systematics, there's no ID "theory" to be part of. About all ID "theorists" have in common is that they refer to a single designing agency. No other properties of that intelligent agency are specified or even conjectured; indeed, Dembski rules out conjectures about the intelligent agency.
|2. Does RBH wish to improve upon intelligent design theory by remaining inside of its current (morphing-big tent) formulations or does he need something conceptually outside of what ID theorists have thus far suggested if MDT is to be successful? Is MDT formulated basically as anti-ID?|
I offered an alternative formulation that accommodates a good deal of existing biological data much more comfortably than the single-designer conjecture, generates a real research program, and provides a genuine alternative for school boards and legislatures, because it actually does something besides throw stones at naturalistic evolutionary theory: it offers testable hypotheses, an explanatory structure, and (not incidentally) escapes First Amendment Establishment constraints. I commend it to Kansas's attention.
"There are only two ways we know of to make extremely complicated things, one is by engineering, and the other is evolution. And of the two, evolution will make the more complex." - Danny Hillis.