I like to summarize the points that I’ve made in a debate over at telicthoughts. ID theory is certainly different than Darwinism. Darwinism claims that it has a successful explanatory process for biodiversity. It does not. No matter how many times Darwinists repeat the mantra that small changes will accumulate to major biodiversity. It doesn’t make it real. There are no observable macroevolutionary changes through natural processes. Why is it unreasonable to demand a “videotape” of the historical macroevolution, when Darwinists can demand ID to produce a designer? Besides Darwinism not only fails at producing such a “videotape” of the creation event, it can’t even reproduce any of the macroevolutionary changes in the lab. Show us Darwin’s God.
The very nature of the ID theoretical does not require it to identify the process of how an artifact was design. Recognizing, detecting and identifying an artifact as design, does NOT require knowledge of the designer or the method by which it was designed. Several examples have been given in yesterday’s posting to demonstrate this fact. If it is legitimate for Darwinists to infer naturalism without any empirical details, why would ID need to know the designer to infer design. Darwinists also conflate the theoretical premise of ID and Darwinism by imposing a mechanism on ID. This is completely bogus. A mechanism is a method of deriving origins. If you do not know how an artifact came about, your methodology requires you to determine a mechanism to explain the origination of that artifact. This is a must for materialistic naturalism. ID does not require a mechanism because the origination has already been determined. What Darwinism is trying to do, is to impose their failures onto ID. The failure is in Darwinism not in ID.
Comments on “Darwinian failure imposed on ID”
Teleologist forgets to add that the theoretical approach used by ID is based on a gap approach or eliminative approach based on probabilities. By being unable to identify anything, it basically is an argument from ignorance in the form of “we don’t know, thus designed”.
The failures of ID, which are plenty, include the eliminative approach, making it a gap argument or argument from ignorance. Combine the eliminative approach with false positives and the concept becomes ‘useless’, realize that an ID inference cannot even compete with we don’t know because it does not explain anything at all. In other words, ID is vacuous scientifically since, like ‘we don’t know’ it does not explain anything other than our ignorance.
I notice that teleologist is repeating Bill’s mantras about ID and what it should or should not do, exemplifying the vacuity of ID as a science.
A reliable ID inference requires assumptions about the designer, such as means, motives, methods, opportunities, pathways etc, otherwise the ID inference is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.
Krauze seems to have realized this, its time that other ID proponents become similarly enlightened about how flawed ID really is.
As far as evolutionary theory is concerned, it does propose pathways, methods and mechanisms which are actually observed. It presents predictions and ways of falsification and as such is a thriving science.
Some useful admissions from ID proponents
In 2004, ID theoretician Paul Nelson wrote in Touchstone, a Christian magazine: “We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’ — but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.”
As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.
Dembski is clear that ID is scientifically vacuous. Combine this with his implicit admission that the explanatory filter is useless and the conclusion seems quite straightforward…
And ID proponents seem to realize this: Krauze seems to have abandoned the eliminative approach and will not defend the explanatory filter and argues that he does not rely on elimination. Dembski has come to accept that natural processes as well as intelligent processes can create CSI, or in other words, the explanatory filter is useless.
ID does not require mechanisms because it cannot, ID does not require anything other than our ignorance to reach a design inference. Sadly enough, as its many critics were quick to point out but ID proponents were slow to realize, the explanatory filter is fundamentally flawed and useless. Unable to even compete with ‘we don’t know’, a much better explanation as shown in The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance. Id proponents could learn a lot from ID critics. ID proponents should take notice of Krauze who, realizing the many flaws in ID so far, is arguing that there should be a better way to infer design. In fact, ID could learn a lot about science here and how science infers design. But that would require one to identify either methods, pathways or means motives cpabilities, neither of which are of particular interest to an idea meant to detect the supernatural.
👿 Pim set this up as a strawman. Anyone with a perfunctory knowledge of ID knows that this is not what ID espouses or employs as its methods. The rest of his comments again are answered elsewhere in my posting.
WRT, his quote mining I’ll let Nelson address that. 🙂
Comments are closed.