You will need to retract something somewhere.
You cannot assert that ID is a theory, but not TOE, when there is a century of scientific study on Evolution … and virtually no experimental history with ID.
Did you even read my statement @JoeG? That is exactly what I said about ID…
I even refer to computers and houses too. For goodness sakes, you are disagreeing with my repeating my exact words back to me. At least that makes it clear that I understand your position. Good greif.
I do point out that there is no precedence for this in science. I do not think this works. We can disagree on that point, but at least recognize that I am correctly representing your position.
Also, I’ll thank you for pointing out that ID is not necessarily anti-evolution. You are entirely right. Denton and Behe are both theistic evolutionists that hold to common descent.
Though, I hope you would also acknowledge that anti-evolution sentiment is exactly what motivates many individuals to support ID. This sentiment traces directly to many founders of the movement, including (for example) Philip Johnson. One only has to read the ENV blog (of the discovery institute) or Uncommon Descent or Darwin’s God to find thousands of anti-evolution statements.
I think this split reality is what really causes the disagreement. ID is not intrinsically anti-evolution, but certainly main IDists are anti-evoluiton.
3 Likes
Virtually? I don’t know of any. Doug Axe is testing a straw man evolutionary theory, not an ID hypothesis.
There’s a reason for that.
5 Likes
LoL! Where did I assert that ID was a theory? And all experiments support ID- every experiment tat elucidates the structures of ATP synthase, bacterial flagella, the genetic code, etc., all support ID.
You do realize that ID can make testable claims without being a formal theory? Testable hypotheses precede theories…
Well when evolution is defined as Dawkins’ blind watchmaker thesis it is easy to be anti-evolution. However by defining it as such makes it untestable and out of science.
Archaeology and forensic science- the who, how, why, etc. always comes after.
I agree that many fields of science study recognize “designed” object… I disagree that the who, how, why come after. In science it isn’t really possible to identify design without considering the who, how, why.
A better question: what field of science identifies “divine” design? Turns out there is none. The only way your argument works is if you ignore exactly how archaeology and forensic science identify design, and somehow equate human/animal design with God’s design.
Once again, why exactly is this so important to you? What do you do for a living? Are you a scientist like me? How did you become so opinionated about the technical details of science?
1 Like
Pfft- considering them isn’t knowing who they were. And we can determine design exists with only our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
That is why ID leaves the divine out of it. We can determine design.
Archaeology’s saying “humans did it”, humans are a what not a who. And if forensic scientists knew the perpetrator before they examined the evidence the examination would be biased.
ID leaves the source of the design out of it as a political maneuver, plain and simple. I know no ID writer who thinks Aliens are the ones who designed life on Earth.
99.999% of ID writers personally believe the designer was God.
1 Like
That is your opinion andf only an opinion. Heck regular posters here claim that divine intervention cannot be tested.
ID leaves out the source because that always comes AFTER design has been determined. We don’t have to know anything about the designer in order to determine design exists.
That isn’t an argument
Then it should be easy for you to provide 10 such examples if it ALWAYS comes after the “detection of design.”
3 Likes
Stonehenge; Non Madol; fire investigations that turned into arson investigations; murders; robberies- that encompasses more than 10
No, you haven’t shown that for any of those cases.
1 Like
That is how it is done in all of those cases. No one knows who deigned Stonehenge. No one knows who designed Non Madol- yet both have been determined to be designed. With murders there is an investigation to find the murderer. With arsons there is an investigation to find the arsonist. With crimes there are investigations to find the perps.
None of that is controversial.
@Eddie, my point remains unsullied.
The extent that Intelligent Design supporters are correct, correlates to the extent that science cannot address the miracle or miracles that exist in the premise of Intelligent Design.
But Behe hasn’t done any work. He’s only produced rhetoric.
The fact that he used to be an empiricist says a lot.
2 Likes
Of course he has. How do you think that he determined certain biological structures are IC?
With rhetoric! Behe doesn’t even bother to read the primary literature relevant to points he claims are hugely important.
Do you realize, Joe, that the notion that IC structures could not have evolved is a hypothesis that Behe refuses to do any work to test?
1 Like