Stumble it!Sober and ID ? What ironic juxtaposition!
posted in Creationism, Science by themaiden |MikeGene is largely missing the joke, and he seems to be oversimplifying some things. He notes that:
- a) that ID is untestable and unfalsifiable and
- b) that various imperfections in nature argue against ID.
And further notes that these two contradict one another. He’s right… sort-of.
I’m not sure that ID is de facto untestable, nor can I think of anyone– purely from memory, mind you– who has argued such. Frankly, I’d probably oppose such an absolute position if I saw it. I’ve even seen suggestions by ID critics as to how to go about testing ID. That said, a great many particular incarnations of ID are untestable. Many of its arguments are untestable– ID’s sacred Irreducible Complexity, for example, strikes me as untestable by definition–, and at least some of ID’s proponents go to great lengths to makes sure that ID remains untestable. In that sense it is perfectly accurate to say that ID is not testable– ID theorist have not produced anything that qualifies, and they’ve had, more or less, all of history to do so.
On the other hand, there is a very real issue, besides the comical theological one, with sub-optimal design.
Designed objects are, more or less by definition, designed to do something in particular. This means that there is a relationship between an object’s design and its effectiveness for a particular purpose. There is a lot of slop in the calculation, but this basically means that the more effective an object is at performing a particular function the more likely it is that it was designed specifically to perform that function. This also means that as the fit between form and function becomes messier, as efficiency drops, so does the likelyhood that the object, or system, was specifically designed to perform the function it performs.
If anything, pointing out such problems with the design inference is doing ID proponent’s work for them.
Still, I agree with MikeGene’s primary point.
The discrimination issue (”must be tested against one or more competing hypotheses”) is better dealt with after a positive expression of ID is fleshed out. As it stands, ID today is little more than skepticism of evolution because there is precious little of a positive ID framework. It makes more sense to develop ID in a positive way and then compare/contrast the teleological and ateleological interpretations of the data to determine which best accounts for them.
ID theorists really ought to be developing real live theories. Perhaps funding said research by diverting some cash from the massive propaganda campaigns?
Popularity: 1%
