Joined: Aug. 2006
From over at the UD thread:
|Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 26 2010,09:37)|
|The Explanatory Filter in action, used by Bilbo:|
|We rule out pseudogenes as designed largely because they don't look designed. So we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.|
Troy takes him/her up on this and Bilbo replies, with uncharacteristic candour:
|If we define "design" as the purposeful arrangement of parts, there appears to be no purpose to the arrangement of parts in pseudogenes. So they don't look designed. OTOH, there appears to be purpose to the arrangement of parts in flagellum and cilium. So they look designed.|
Objective? If we define objective as what most people would perceive if shown the same thing, then I think most people would think flagella and cilia look designed. Therefore it would be objective.
If we define objective as having a quantifiably measurable value, then no, it's not objective.
If we define science as the study of what is quantifiably measurable, then studying intelligent design probably isn't science.
But I would argue that not all empirical knowledge is science.
We no longer say: â€śAnother day; another bad day for Darwinism.â€ť We now say: â€śAnother day since the time Darwinism was disproved.â€ť
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016