stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
http://telicthoughts.com/mike-gene-id-2/
Mike Gene suggests he's not a complete idiot:
| Quote | Mike Gene ID
Posted in Repost on September 4th, 2007 by MikeGene
A couple of people in the comments section wanted me to distinguish my views about Intelligent Design from those that are commonly expressed (mainstream ID). So here?s the short list:
* Mainstream ID argues that ID is indeed science. I do not think ID yet qualifies as science. I view ID more as a nascent proto-science and intellectual curiosity.
* Mainstream ID argues the evidence for design is strong and that we have identified systems that are best explained by design. I think the evidence for ID is weak yet there are examples where design is plausible. Thus, I am not out to convince skeptics and critics; I am interested in testing my own suspicions.
* Mainstream ID argues that irreducibly complex (IC) structures could not have evolved, while I think IC helps bring focus to candidates for design.
* Mainstream ID argues that biological systems demonstrate complex specified information (CSI), indicating design. While I think the method is a promising way of inferring design, I am not convinced that a true specification has been demonstrated.
* Mainstream ID seeks to challenge neo-Darwinian evolution. I think ID complements neo-Darwinian evolution.
* Many proponents of mainstream ID are anti-evolution. I am an ID evolutionist. There are a small number of cases where I tentatively propose design candidates that did not evolve (i.e., the flagellum), but I do not infer design by arguing they could not have evolved; I argue they did not evolve.
* Many proponents of mainstream ID argue that that information increase over evolutionary time cannot be explained by natural means. I don?t agree.
* Mainstream ID seeks to detect design in a manner that is completely divorced from consideration of the designer. I am willing to make working assumptions (albeit, minimal) about the designer.
In the future, I will elaborate on some of this in much more detail. |
I haven't put up a thread to mock Telic Thoughts because those guys are much smarter than the UD people. Still wrong, but less often absurd. UD is like what you'd get from a Special Ed class shown a few issues of Scientific American and then dosed with methamphetamines.
Announcing you're the fringe of 'mainstream' ID calls to mind 'An Army of One'.
It's weird though, these people who use the ID label and don't believe much of anything the ID movement claims. Kind of unnecessarily confusing. If I were really patriotic and believed in socialism, but also in equality of all races and pacifism, I wouldn't call myself a National Socialist. I'd pick a label which didn't bring along big heavy luggage.
|
