qetzal
Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Avocationist,
| Quote | Now, you say that if we don't know how something evolved, the only reasonble conclusion is to assume that our present knowledge is insufficient to explain how. But it is more than just a lack of knowledge of how. It is a thing which gives every indication of being utterly outside of the capability of anything we know about nature's processes and quite readily recognizable as just the sort of thing a purposeful intelligence might set out to accomplish.
|
I disagree with your last sentence. Strongly.
What we currently know about evolution is certainly adequate in principle to explain complex features of life. One can reasonably question whether we have a specific, well-supported evolutionary explanation for any given feature, such as the flagellum. One can reasonably question whether that evolutionary explanation is correct.
But if you're claiming that things like flagella are "utterly outside" our ability to explain by evolution, you're seriously mistaken.
| Quote | | Must? Well, yeah, and one of those other mechanisms might have been purposeful design. But if you say that unintelligent processes must have been involved, then you are saying that your mind is made up and will not take in any contrary information. |
I don't say unintelligent processes must have been involved. Only that there are certain unintelligent processes that we know exist. In many cases, they provide more than adequate explanations. In other cases, they have the clear potential to provide adequate explanations, even if we don't have the details yet.
More important, I know of no case where unintelligent processes are clearly inadequate to explain the diversity and complexity of life. Nor have I seen any scientific data to support purposeful design. It's not that I've made up my mind not to take in contrary information. There is no significant contrary information to take in.
Evidence against current evolutionary explanations does not qualify as evidence for intelligent intervention. Claims that evolution is too improbable do not qualify as evidence for intelligent design. Claims that we can recognize the hallmarks of design don't qualify either. Not unless there's an objective, testable way to distinguish designed from not-designed. So far, there isn't.
| Quote | | I agree, but neither is it [intelligent guidance] an unreasonable answer. |
Well, since it is unsupported by scientific evidence, it is certainly quite unreasonable as a scientific answer.
| Quote | | At some point if intelligence was indeed involved, we must surely be able to discern the difference between what an intelligence can do versus lack of same. |
I applaud this attitude, especially if discern means scientifically demonstrate. My question is, do you think there's any chance the major ID proponents will try to do this? When do you think they'll start developing rigorous design hypotheses, making predictions, testing those predictions, and showing how ID can usefully explain things that evolution can't? So far, I see no evidence that they're doing any of that.
I assure, I am quite willing to accept good scientific evidence in favor of ID. Too bad no one seems to be interested in generating any. They mostly seem preoccupied with bashing evolution. Their few arguments in favor of ID are subjective, philosophical, and unscientific. They make no testable predictions. They don't do science.
When and if there's real science to support ID, I'll be happy to consider it. Until then, it's philosophy on a good day, and plain garbage most of the time.
|
