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.
“To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.” - Isaac Asimov
"Grow up, assface" - Joe G., grown up ID spokesperson, Sandwalk, April 2014