How does intelligent design explain vestigial organs [Archive]

vhawk01

02-06-2007, 12:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought some forms of ID were compatible with evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was thinking of something else (Christians who believe that evolution was God's mechanism for creating life? don't know what this is called). My mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if there is a name for it, but if you want me to take a shot at coining one, I'd go with 'reluctant acquiescence.' Of course, its entirely legitimate that evolution IS the mechanism that God used to accomplish his goals (forgiving my use of anthropomorphic terms) just like its entirely legitimate that evolution is the invisible, immaterial (cloaking devices, obv) aliens way of running some massive experiment.

arahant

02-06-2007, 03:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought some forms of ID were compatible with evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was thinking of something else (Christians who believe that evolution was God's mechanism for creating life? don't know what this is called). My mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if there is a name for it, but if you want me to take a shot at coining one, I'd go with 'reluctant acquiescence.' Of course, its entirely legitimate that evolution IS the mechanism that God used to accomplish his goals (forgiving my use of anthropomorphic terms) just like its entirely legitimate that evolution is the invisible, immaterial (cloaking devices, obv) aliens way of running some massive experiment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, there's even a range of "god uses evolution" ideas. The most common is called "guided evolution" (evolution happens, but it could never happen randomly, so god helps out with the details).

MaxWeiss

02-06-2007, 03:25 AM

The same way it explains everything else... it doesn't.

MidGe

02-06-2007, 03:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
...evolution happens, but it could never happen randomly...

[/ QUOTE ]

which contradicts the Theory of Evolution, making this sentence nonsensical.

arahant

02-06-2007, 03:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...evolution happens, but it could never happen randomly...

[/ QUOTE ]

which contradicts the Theory of Evolution, making this sentence nonsensical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's fair. Obviously it is random, but if it weren't, we'd still call it evolution. I wasn't aware there was Theory of Evolution, as opposed to a theory of evolution.

Not that it isn't a non-sensical belief /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Skidoo

02-06-2007, 03:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The most common is called "guided evolution" (evolution happens, but it could never happen randomly, so god helps out with the details).

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. It is a rather weak theory, because there's no there there to be explained. I mean in terms of actual observational data, not the currently popular "evolution" creation myth.

gaming_mouse

02-06-2007, 06:43 AM

The claim that, from time to time, the "intelligence" became distracted by a good football match on the telly.

mjkidd

02-06-2007, 11:57 AM

The thesis of ID is that God (or whoever) created cells, then things pretty much progressed as the fossil record indicates. Vestigial organs are not incompatible with ID.

vhawk01

02-06-2007, 11:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The thesis of ID is that God (or whoever) created cells, then things pretty much progressed as the fossil record indicates. Vestigial organs are not incompatible with ID.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhh...what version of ID posits that thesis? And what exactly does 'as the fossil record indicates' mean? Is IC still a part of ID?

mjkidd

02-06-2007, 12:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Uhhh...what version of ID posits that thesis? And what exactly does 'as the fossil record indicates' mean? Is IC still a part of ID?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Discovery Institute version. More specifically, ID says that some things, like cells and flagella are "irreducibly complex," and couln't have evolved from more basic components. I don't know what IC is.

vhawk01

02-06-2007, 12:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Uhhh...what version of ID posits that thesis? And what exactly does 'as the fossil record indicates' mean? Is IC still a part of ID?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Discovery Institute version. More specifically, ID says that some things, like cells and flagella are "irreducibly complex," and couln't have evolved from more basic components. I don't know what IC is.

[/ QUOTE ]
IC is irreducible complexity. And it isn't consistent with the 'fossil record,' unless you mean that in the narrowest possible sense.

vhawk01

02-06-2007, 12:15 PM

Also, quick question: How would we be able to discriminate between a world in which God (or whoever, as if this was an important caveat) designed cells and one in which he didn't?

mjkidd

02-06-2007, 12:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, quick question: How would we be able to discriminate between a world in which God (or whoever, as if this was an important caveat) designed cells and one in which he didn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't really. The evolution creation myth is just as unprovable as the ID creation myth.

vhawk01

02-06-2007, 12:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, quick question: How would we be able to discriminate between a world in which God (or whoever, as if this was an important caveat) designed cells and one in which he didn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't really. The evolution creation myth is just as unprovable as the ID creation myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, excellent. So, if the only unique tenet of ID is that God created the cells, and there is absolutely no way to tell if he did or not....are you seeing where I am going with this?

I'll ignore your misinformation about evolution for the time being, until we get this one settled.

mjkidd

02-06-2007, 12:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]

IC is irreducible complexity. And it isn't consistent with the 'fossil record,' unless you mean that in the narrowest possible sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what other sense there is. ID does not dispute anything in the fossil record, or the accepted timeline.

Any given version of ID differs from evolution only by what you deem to be irredcucibly complex. If you say cells only, then ID cannot be distinguished from evolution; they only differ in what hand-waving explaination they use to show how life was brought into existence.

SplawnDarts

02-06-2007, 12:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think it bothers. It's modus operandi seems to be finding things evolution cant (so far) explain and saying Aha! Any actual accounting for biological facts seems a subsidiary goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is a valid role. If you've got scientific theory T, and it's supposed to explain class of phenomena C, finding an element of C that T does not explain (at least temporarily) falsifies T.

Of course, that makes evolutionists cranky because they're very dogmatically attached to their theory. But nonetheless that's the way the scientific method works. ID types actually serve a useful role in that sense.

mjkidd

02-06-2007, 12:38 PM

vhawk,

No, I don't really see where you're going with this. What do you think we are in disagreement about? How am I misrepresenting evolution?

vhawk01

02-06-2007, 12:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

IC is irreducible complexity. And it isn't consistent with the 'fossil record,' unless you mean that in the narrowest possible sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what other sense there is. ID does not dispute anything in the fossil record, or the accepted timeline.

Any given version of ID differs from evolution only by what you deem to be irredcucibly complex. If you say cells only, then ID cannot be distinguished from evolution; they only differ in what hand-waving explaination they use to show how life was brought into existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution makes no hand-waving gesture to explain the origin of life.

EDIT: Also, use of the term 'deem' is pretty apropos. There are no tests for IC, no reason to think that anything is really IC, and so its essentially just an admission of current ignorance to call something IC.

vhawk01

02-06-2007, 12:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk,

No, I don't really see where you're going with this. What do you think we are in disagreement about? How am I misrepresenting evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

That ID only purports to have one useful purpose as a thesis, and then admits that it fails at that. So its really not a thesis at all, but random musings that have no explanatory or predictive power whatsoever.

vhawk01

02-06-2007, 12:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think it bothers. It's modus operandi seems to be finding things evolution cant (so far) explain and saying Aha! Any actual accounting for biological facts seems a subsidiary goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is a valid role. If you've got scientific theory T, and it's supposed to explain class of phenomena C, finding an element of C that T does not explain (at least temporarily) falsifies T.

Of course, that makes evolutionists cranky because they're very dogmatically attached to their theory. But nonetheless that's the way the scientific method works. ID types actually serve a useful role in that sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry, 'evolutionists' play this role as well, and do a far better job at it, since they understand the terms and the science.

mjkidd

02-06-2007, 12:52 PM

vhawk,

How does evolution explain the orgins of cells? What experimental evidence do biologists have for their hypothesis?

I am unaware of any experimental evidence that addresses this question. If I am correct in this, how is the biologists' explaination any more valid than that of an IDer who believes that cells must have been created by an all-powerful being?

vhawk01

02-06-2007, 01:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk,

How does evolution explain the orgins of cells? What experimental evidence do biologists have for their hypothesis?

I am unaware of any experimental evidence that addresses this question. If I am correct in this, how is the biologists' explaination any more valid than that of an IDer who believes that cells must have been created by an all-powerful being?

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't explain it. They are working on it though, hopefully they will get back to you in a few years.

Isn't that preferable to the alternative? "No freaking clue, could be this, could be unicorns."

vhawk01

02-06-2007, 01:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
vhawk,

How does evolution explain the orgins of cells? What experimental evidence do biologists have for their hypothesis?

I am unaware of any experimental evidence that addresses this question. If I am correct in this, how is the biologists' explaination any more valid than that of an IDer who believes that cells must have been created by an all-powerful being?

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't explain it. They are working on it though, hopefully they will get back to you in a few years.

Isn't that preferable to the alternative? "No freaking clue, could be this, could be unicorns."

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me wrong, while scientists are working to figure out the answers to these questions, people are more than welcome to fill in the gaps with useless non-explanations like "Godidit." Why would we want to put an end to that cherished pasttime?

m_the0ry

02-06-2007, 01:11 PM

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of cell based life because that is outside the scope of the theory. Evolution is a modular theory stating, "given cellular life, it will macroscopically progress via natural selection". Asking evolution to explain where cellular life came from is like asking Maxwell's equations to explain whether string theory is valid or not.

Which isn't to say there aren't some very valid theories for initiating life without divine intervention.

mjkidd

02-06-2007, 01:17 PM

m_the0ry -- I suppose I meant biology's rather than evolution's explaination of the orgin of life.

A scientific theory is only useful if it is testable. Are any of the biological theories of the orgin of life testable, or likely to be testable in the future?

Until these theories are tested, it seems that ID with the cell as the only irreducibly complex system is a perfectly valid belief. Why is everyone so hard on it?

vhawk01

02-06-2007, 01:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution doesn't explain the origin of cell based life because that is outside the scope of the theory. Evolution is a modular theory stating, "given cellular life, it will macroscopically progress via natural selection". Asking evolution to explain where cellular life came from is like asking Maxwell's equations to explain whether string theory is valid or not.

Which isn't to say there aren't some very valid theories for initiating life without divine intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very valid might be stretching it a little bit. Interesting, promising, scientific, those are the words I would use to describe them. But then again, I am certainly no expert and am probably not as up-to-date on abiogenesis as a lot of posters on here, so perhaps I am understating the case.

vhawk01

02-06-2007, 01:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
m_the0ry -- I suppose I meant biology's rather than evolution's explaination of the orgin of life.

A scientific theory is only useful if it is testable. Are any of the biological theories of the orgin of life testable, or likely to be testable in the future?

Until these theories are tested, it seems that ID with the cell as the only irreducibly complex system is a perfectly valid belief. Why is everyone so hard on it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Biology isn't a theory. Its just a discipline. Biology doesn't have any theories on anything. Biologists might have a whole host of theories. Abiogenesists (probably a made-up name?) might have some theories on abiogenesis for you. And they certainly could be testable.

The reason we are so hard on ID is because 'perfectly valid belief' is extremely misleading. Of course it is, and so are an INFINITE number of other beliefs. The problem is, all infinity of those are EQUALLY valid.

For any scientific theory there are always going to be an infinite number of possible rival theories. They are just far, far less likely, or are unparsimonius. In this case, every single one of the infinite theories is exactly as likely as ID (this is just assuming there are no scientific theories of abiogenesis for the moment) and all are equally as parsimonious. So ALL of them are completely useless.

m_the0ry

02-06-2007, 01:22 PM

It's important to note that if you are then claiming ID to only explain the origin of the cell, evolution and ID are compatible theories. I think you might be straying a bit from what most people consider ID. I don't believe ID is compatible with evolution because ID's conception was interrelated with the concept that humanity is too beautiful to be the product of random mutations and natural selection, therefore evolution doesn't properly explain how we came about. That is to say that ID is a theory that replaces macroscopic evolution - not the origin of first cellular life.

Regardless, there are many theories for the origin of the cell. Some involve a diety, others don't.

A biologist might argue that viruses and prions are precursors to cellular life. Panspermia is also becoming a theory more widely accepted as relatively highly probable.

arahant

02-06-2007, 02:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
m_the0ry -- I suppose I meant biology's rather than evolution's explaination of the orgin of life.

A scientific theory is only useful if it is testable. Are any of the biological theories of the orgin of life testable, or likely to be testable in the future?

Until these theories are tested, it seems that ID with the cell as the only irreducibly complex system is a perfectly valid belief. Why is everyone so hard on it?

[/ QUOTE ]

There seems to be a lot of stumbling by people like you over terms like 'scientific theory'. I realize this isn't actually a misunderstanding, just pathetic arguments against something you refuse to accept on religious grounds, but you should really quit this argument.

Think of evolution not as science, but as history. It's just facts...we looked at all the evidence, and it obviously happened. We don't need to conduct experiments to prove that Napoleon once ruled france...we just look at the evidence.

mjkidd

02-06-2007, 03:10 PM

Arahant,

I'm afraid you misundersand me. I never said that I favor the ID explaination for the orgin of life over the the scientific explaination. And I certainly don't have a religious objection to evolution or scientific theories on the orgin of cellular life (agnostics such as myself tend not to object to such things on religious grounds).

My main point is that the scientific method cannot really address the question of the orgin of life. Neither can ID, but that's sort of it's whole point; it's just a deus ex machina addressing an intractible question.

Also, I think the tone of your post is innapropriate to this discussion.

Duke

02-06-2007, 03:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Arahant,

I'm afraid you misundersand me. I never said that I favor the ID explaination for the orgin of life over the the scientific explaination. And I certainly don't have a religious objection to evolution or scientific theories on the orgin of cellular life (agnostics such as myself tend not to object to such things on religious grounds).

My main point is that the scientific method cannot really address the question of the orgin of life. Neither can ID, but that's sort of it's whole point; it's just a deus ex machina addressing an intractible question.

Also, I think the tone of your post is innapropriate to this discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are an infinity of ideas that can't be proven false, but people don't believe them because they're inconsistent with the way the world actually operates. There is absolutely no testable evidence of anything, ever, just getting plopped into the universe. The evidence repeatedly shows that if there is a god, he plays by the same rules that we observe.

So yeah, that's why people are so hard on ID.

Skidoo

02-06-2007, 03:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you've got scientific theory T, and it's supposed to explain class of phenomena C, finding an element of C that T does not explain (at least temporarily) falsifies T.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear, what specific observations, if any, lead non-arbitrarily to evolution of species as the explanation?

arahant

02-06-2007, 03:43 PM

Your point doesn't really seem to be that the 'scientific method' can't address the origins of life. It appears to be that SCIENCE can't address the origins of life, and that is a different matter entirely.

The origin of life is not an intractable problem, and ID is not an intellectually honest expose of this 'fact'. ID is at best a 'god of the gaps' argument. In actual fact, it is nothing more than the latest attempt of theists to cling to the past.

I won't presume to guess at your religious inclinations; suffice it to say, I have yet to meet anyone who doesn't believe in god, but actually thinks that ID is a valid argument about anything. It's not...it's utter nonsense.

I'm sorry you don't think my tone is appropriate to this discussion. I'm not a big fan of diplomacy in these matters. ID is manipulative propaganda. It isn't science, it isn't philosophy, it's nothing more than a few moderately well-educated people attempting to mislead others into believing something that isn't true.

Skidoo

02-06-2007, 03:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry you don't think my tone is appropriate to this discussion. I'm not a big fan of diplomacy in these matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you do a great job of sounding sciencey.

mjkidd

02-06-2007, 04:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your point doesn't really seem to be that the 'scientific method' can't address the origins of life. It appears to be that SCIENCE can't address the origins of life, and that is a different matter entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science addresses questions through the scientific method. I don't see how the two statements differ.

luckyme

02-06-2007, 04:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry you don't think my tone is appropriate to this discussion. I'm not a big fan of diplomacy in these matters. ID is manipulative propaganda. It isn't science, it isn't philosophy, it's nothing more than a few moderately well-educated people attempting to mislead others into believing something that isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

ID warrants the response of the dismissive "it's not even wrong" since it doesn't even add anything to apply to the situation.

luckyme

Xhad

02-06-2007, 04:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you've got scientific theory T, and it's supposed to explain class of phenomena C, finding an element of C that T does not explain (at least temporarily) falsifies T.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear, what specific observations, if any, lead non-arbitrarily to evolution of species as the explanation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Same ones that lead, non-arbitrarily, to the conclusion that there isn't an invisible, undetectable gremlin in your closet.

Skidoo

02-06-2007, 04:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
ID warrants the response of the dismissive "it's not even wrong" since it doesn't even add anything to apply to the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. ID certainly does address the situation, by offering a description of its origin and intended purpose, though so far only in a manner that can't be proven true or false, like many theories in their early stages of application.

Skidoo

02-06-2007, 04:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you've got scientific theory T, and it's supposed to explain class of phenomena C, finding an element of C that T does not explain (at least temporarily) falsifies T.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear, what specific observations, if any, lead non-arbitrarily to evolution of species as the explanation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Same ones that lead, non-arbitrarily, to the conclusion that there isn't an invisible, undetectable gremlin in your closet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Citations, please.

txag007

02-06-2007, 04:34 PM

Stu Pidasso

02-06-2007, 04:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know if there is a name for it, but if you want me to take a shot at coining one, I'd go with 'reluctant acquiescence.' Of course, its entirely legitimate that evolution IS the mechanism that God used to accomplish his goals (forgiving my use of anthropomorphic terms) just like its entirely legitimate that evolution is the invisible, immaterial (cloaking devices, obv) aliens way of running some massive experiment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its called thiestic evolution.

Stu

Rduke55

02-06-2007, 04:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a big fan of diplomacy in these matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, I am.
Let's be sure to keep it civil.

arahant

02-06-2007, 04:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a big fan of diplomacy in these matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, I am.
Let's be sure to keep it civil.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fairness, I think both my posts were entirely civil. There were no ad hominem attacks. I'm really not even sure what 'tone' was causing the problem; I merely apologized reflexively.

By diplomacy, btw, I was referring to the practise of circumlocution one often sees in such debates. I see nothing uncivil about speaking in a straight-forward manner. If you think I wrote something out of turn, please let me know what it was via PM or post.

arahant

02-06-2007, 04:53 PM

Duke

02-06-2007, 07:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry you don't think my tone is appropriate to this discussion. I'm not a big fan of diplomacy in these matters. ID is manipulative propaganda. It isn't science, it isn't philosophy, it's nothing more than a few moderately well-educated people attempting to mislead others into believing something that I believe isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing that's true but rarely stated is that it's a hell of a lot easier to demonstrate why a certain belief is dead wrong, than to create a new idea that is consistent with reality and have it be useful enough to explain things. Misapplying the belief label to put scientific rejection of ideas that run contrary to reality on the same playing field as constructive and lazily fathomed speculation is just an attempt to lend veracity to a concept that can't stand on its own.

Rduke55

02-06-2007, 09:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a big fan of diplomacy in these matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, I am.
Let's be sure to keep it civil.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fairness, I think both my posts were entirely civil. There were no ad hominem attacks. I'm really not even sure what 'tone' was causing the problem; I merely apologized reflexively.

By diplomacy, btw, I was referring to the practise of circumlocution one often sees in such debates. I see nothing uncivil about speaking in a straight-forward manner. If you think I wrote something out of turn, please let me know what it was via PM or post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you were fine. Just nipping things in the bud. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

ChrisV

02-07-2007, 12:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The thesis of ID is that God (or whoever) created cells, then things pretty much progressed as the fossil record indicates.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. If this were correct, ID would not be a theory in opposition to evolution. ID posits irreducibly complex features in organisms which could not be evolved. Since it would be impossible for the rest of the organism to evolve and then God to tack the relevant bits on, the argument is that God designed and created the entire organism, at the appropriate points in history.

Guyute

02-08-2007, 04:00 PM

There is a difference between theory and facts. Biologists who accept ID (Behe) accept that evolution is a fact, but deny that natural selection is the best way to explain the facts. It looks to objects and processes that are irreducibly complex (blood clotting, etc.) as facts that cannot be explained by natural selection. The problem, say IDers, is that these are things are complex in a way that they could not have evolved. Eyes are complex. But take away an important part of the eye (color cones) and you have a less good, but still functioning eye. It makes sense to think that eyes evolved. But blood clotting requires about 20 factors to occur. Take away any one, no blood clotting. So it makes sense that someone 'designed' blood to clot the way it does. The problem with this argument is that there don't seem to be any irreducibly complex phenomena. Moreover, other facts (e.g., vestigial organs) seems accounted for by natural selection, but not ID.

ID is a scientific theory, and before Darwin, it was the dominant scientific theory. Aristotle's physics is also a scientific theory, and before Newton it was the dominant scientific theory. The reason we don't teach ID or Aristotle's physics is not because they fail to be scientific, but that they are not good science. Attacking ID for being non-scientific is an anachronistic and ill-informed objection, but that does not mean that ID is viable theory.

kurto

02-08-2007, 04:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
ID is a scientific theory, and before Darwin, it was the dominant scientific theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree. It was a theory but there was nothing scientific about it.

[ QUOTE ]
Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of objective knowledge. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was no research or empirical evidence that led people to determine ID. People started with the idea of God and tried to fit the Universe into their premise. That's not science. ID is an attempt to make the world fit a religion.

m_the0ry

02-08-2007, 04:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is a difference between theory and facts. Biologists who accept ID (Behe) accept that evolution is a fact, but deny that natural selection is the best way to explain the facts. It looks to objects and processes that are irreducibly complex (blood clotting, etc.) as facts that cannot be explained by natural selection. The problem, say IDers, is that these are things are complex in a way that they could not have evolved. Eyes are complex. But take away an important part of the eye (color cones) and you have a less good, but still functioning eye. It makes sense to think that eyes evolved. But blood clotting requires about 20 factors to occur. Take away any one, no blood clotting. So it makes sense that someone 'designed' blood to clot the way it does. The problem with this argument is that there don't seem to be any irreducibly complex phenomena. Moreover, other facts (e.g., vestigial organs) seems accounted for by natural selection, but not ID.

ID is a scientific theory, and before Darwin, it was the dominant scientific theory. Aristotle's physics is also a scientific theory, and before Newton it was the dominant scientific theory. The reason we don't teach ID or Aristotle's physics is not because they fail to be scientific, but that they are not good science. Attacking ID for being non-scientific is an anachronistic and ill-informed objection, but that does not mean that ID is viable theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

ID is a re-emergent theory right now conviniently used to explain, as you said, phenomena that cannot be explained right now. As soon as it is explicable as an emergent phenomena of some known force of nature, then it is no longer a facet of ID and a part of true science. Using your analogy of aristotlian physics, this is like taking any current problem in quantum physics and claiming that, "because we can't explain this right now, it must be an emergent phenomena of the fact that all elements are made of earth air fire and water, and time is not reletavistic".

The whole idea of the scientific process is modularity. A theory is adopted when it more successfully predicts behavior than its predecessor, at which point it supplants the older theory and is plugged into the scientific network. ID is just the module that encompasses all of the elements in biological science we can't understand, and elements LEAVE the ID set as soon as they are explicable.

Using ID in modern science is a devolution of scientific theory - it refuses to accept that the current theory comes as close as is _scientifically_ feasible (explicable with logical thought) and gives an encompassing and sweeping generalization about things the current theory cannot explain. Modern use of ID is therefore not only not scientific but in fact anti-scientific.

Guyute

02-08-2007, 04:41 PM

m_theory. Thanks for the comments, I do not really disagree with your reply. The modern use of ID is anti-scientific, and is advocated now only because the courts have banned the teaching of creationism in schools. I was only responding to those who claim that ID is not a scientific theory. It is, just a really really bad one. It has re-emerged for utterly non-scientific reasons and this is unfortunate to say the least.

Kurto. In pre-Darwin, ID was a scientific theory in the sense that it was the only way people could understand how a complex world could be the way that it is. They were in awe at how the complex body worked and sought an explanation. So they looked at other complex things (watches is always the example) and noted they they were designed that way. Thus, using an inference to the best explanation, it seemed to those smart 18th century scientists that it was likely that the world had a designer as well. Problem for ID now, though, is that the best explanation is no longer God, but natural selection.