carlsonjok
Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006
|
Johnnyb asks Does ID Contribute to Knowledge? and, of course, thinks it does.
Alas, the first comment is from Seversky:
| Quote | 1
Seversky
05/22/2010
1:44 am
Since you are commendably eager to answer questions, rather than evade or ignore them, I have a few for you.
1) Intelligent Design is founded on the appearance of design in nature. That appearance of design rests on similarities between properties of biological structures and systems and those designed by human beings. However, a scientific assessment would require comparing both similarities and differences in order to judge whether the similarities are significant or simply coincidental. Has this been done?
2) ID is critical of the theory of evolution because, for example, it is unable to provide a detailed account of how life formed from inanimate chemicals. It complains that “Darwinists” are unable to draw step-by-step maps of the evolutionary pathways to complex organs from their precursors or from one species to the next. How does postulating a designer help to answer those questions at all, let alone do it better than the theory of evolution?
3) ID proponents steadfastly refuse to speculate on the nature of the designer. Why is that? It follows naturally from the proposition that there is a designer and would surely be a matter of intense curiosity and research by any scientist worthy of the name.
4) To be more specific, if the designer is not God but a lesser being then the designs it produces will be constrained by its limitations. A designer of stone tools from the Neolithic era, for example, is unlikely to have been responsible for the appearance of life on Earth. What can we infer about the nature of this putative designer from the appearance of design in nature?
5) If positing an Intelligent Designer does not lead to deeper insights, better predictions and more detailed and accurate accounts of how life was created and developed, which is what is being demanded of the theory of evolution, then in what way is it superior?
|
So, what should we expect? Will Seversky be the proverbial skunk at a garden party and scare everyone else away from the post? Or will all the usuals run to the breach spouting all the usual, but non-responsive rhetoric about materialist preconceptions, Lewontin, oil soaked strawmen, etc?
--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)
|
