Joined: Jan. 2006
Quick, before it goes:
My personal opinion is that ID is actually a variant of TE and thus should make dialog at least theoretically easy.
I always thought so.
“My quote that got interpretted as “spitting on the floor” should be seen in that context,
OK, so what specifically do you see in ID as being “bad science.””
The proposed tests for design don’t seem to be right. What I do for a living is engineering. Evolution looks more like what I do than specified complexity. For example, I use a random number generator to avoid local minima in the solution space. This “randomness” is because of the design and not despite it. Evolution does such a good job of solving problems a whole class of algorithms called genetic algorithms mimic it in order to do design optimization.
In my opinion, tests for design should be looking for order rather than specified or irreducible complexity.
“How are ID’s “anti-evolutionary” arguments weaker than the claims of evolution?”
The comparison is between biological ID and cosmological ID. The latter is arguments such as fine tuning arguing the ratios of the different kinds of forces are so fine tuned to life that it requires an Intelligent Designer. This is stronger because it still stands even if evolution is proven to be true.
The recent advances in genetics pretty much prove common descent. The techniques are similar to how we do DNA paternity test. Combined with observations of evolution happening right (e.g. bacteria that metabolizes nylon) along with many transistional forms found in the fossil record (at least 10 from fish to amphibians, 6 from amphibians to amniotes, 6 from synapsid to mammals, 6 from diapsid to birds, 6 from hominids to humans) now makes evolution to be quite likely. The other thing is the genetics line up with the fossil record. The fossil record predicts that we are related to Neanderthal and Chimpanzee. We are genetically closer to Neanderthal (98%) than Chimpanzee (96%). Genes turn into pseudo-genes and back again. The variations in the genome are not limited to SNPs but also include differences in copy number variation. The genome is not merely stacking the functional legos differently. The Chimpanzee genome has one more pair of chromosomes than the human one. But, our chromosome 2 is basically the two unique Chimp chromosomes spliced end-to-end. If the bone in the throat is natural selection, note that in neo-Darwinian evolution natural selection is only one of many mechanisms that drive it. Personally, I would prefer that biological ID was correct and evolution wrong. But, the evidence points in the opposite direction.
The worst case scenario is that ID remains an unproven hypothesis with no positive theory behind it. Here I mean a naturalistic explanation that is an alternative to evolution that explains the strong genetic evidence behind common descent. It may very well be there is no scientific evidence for design. This does NOT mean there is no evidence for design. ID may be giving science more power than it’s due. Science can only explain certain things and we should not make it the final arbiter for all truth like Dawkins does.
Design and evolution need not be in opposition. If you can prove design then you disprove evolution. But, if you prove evolution you don’t disprove design. In the end, when I am asked do you believe in Intelligent Design or Evolutionary Creationism, I say yes.
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine