|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 12/15/2009 : 16:39:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
ID should predict that we will find "design" of approximately equal competence across the biosphere (or at least explain why it doesn't). ID should predict that if a design problem has been solved in one species then it should be likewise solved in all species that would benefit from that design (or again explain why it doesn't). |
Presumably assuming that there was only one designer? Care to explain why that is a good assumption? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2009 : 17:40:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by dv82matt
ID should predict that we will find "design" of approximately equal competence across the biosphere (or at least explain why it doesn't). ID should predict that if a design problem has been solved in one species then it should be likewise solved in all species that would benefit from that design (or again explain why it doesn't). |
Presumably assuming that there was only one designer? Care to explain why that is a good assumption?
|
It's not a "good" assumption it's a falsified assumption. That IDists refuse to explicitly discard that assumption reveals their underlying agenda. IDists apparently want to "prove" the existence of the designer without drawing any inferences about the attributes of the designer which is completely disingenuous.
Imagine the thought process an honest IDist might go through. Hmmm. A single designer doesn't wash given the vast differences in competence and competing purposes so there must be multiple designers. Hmmm. To be consistent with the biological evidence there must be a designer for every reproducing population in the biosphere. Hmmm. A one time design and build event doesn't match the evidence so the designers must operate in an incremental fashion. Hmmm, design problems solved in one species often do not get solved in other species even over millions of years, so the designers must often not share their designs with each other.
An honest IDist would wind up with a "designer" that is very similar to evolution. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2009 : 20:30:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
It's not a "good" assumption it's a falsified assumption. |
When I said good, I didn't mean whether or not it fitted the data. I meant why thought it was any more valid than any other assumption.
Let me quote Sober again:
| The important scientific strategy of rendering theories testable by finding independently justified auxiliary propositions does not work for mini-ID. We have no independent evidence concerning which auxiliary propositions about the putative designer’s goals and abilities are true (Kitcher 1984). Surprisingly, this is a point that several ID proponents concede. For example, the influential ID textbook, Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, states that “the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause. What kind of intelligent designer was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy” (Davis and Kenyon 1993:7). In the same vein, Philip Johnson (1991) says that the designer’s motives are “mysterious” (p 67) and “inscrutable” (p 71). |
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2009 : 22:37:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by dv82matt
It's not a "good" assumption it's a falsified assumption. |
When I said good, I didn't mean whether or not it fitted the data. I meant why thought it was any more valid than any other assumption. |
It is not a scientifically valid assumption. It is a religious assumption. The refusal to test the assumption is due to an awareness that refuting or casting doubt on the possibility that the designer is the Christian god would ruin the strategy the Religious Right had when they bought and paid for ID in the first place.
Let me quote Sober again:
The important scientific strategy of rendering theories testable by finding independently justified auxiliary propositions does not work for mini-ID. We have no independent evidence concerning which auxiliary propositions about the putative designer’s goals and abilities are true (Kitcher 1984). |
Right because an intelligent designer might have goals and abilities that we cannot conceive of so once you assume an intelligent designer that introduces possibilities (such as inscrutable motives) that are difficult to apprehend. But we do have the "designers" design. From that we can infer a lot about the "designers" methods and abilities. Everything we know about the "designer" indicates that it is not Jehovah. There is not any indication that the "designer" is an intelligent entity or process at all. So although a hypothetical intelligent designer might have some motive to deceive us and the ability to do so or might be mysterious beyond our ability to understand, assuming that when there is no evidence of it is just pointless conjecture.
| Surprisingly, this is a point that several ID proponents concede. For example, the influential ID textbook, Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, states that “the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause. What kind of intelligent designer was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy” (Davis and Kenyon 1993:7). In the same vein, Philip Johnson (1991) says that the designer’s motives are “mysterious” (p 67) and “inscrutable” (p 71). |
Exactly, they convieniently appeal to inscrutability when the evidence appears to point to something they don't like. It's like how god is love when he sacrifices his son to save us, but god is inscrutable when he orders the massacre of women and children. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Interesting discussion at Panda's Thumb
