Sunday, July 17, 2011

All bluff and bluster, no actual results




2:49 am

Thomas: As I’ve argued repeatedly, in its theoretical purity, ID must stop after settling the question of design vs. chance. The next question, how did design get into nature, raises the natural vs. supernatural question. But that question is not about design, and therefore is not part of ID’s mandate. It belongs to philosophy or theology.

As you may know, I have a position which is slightly different. While I agree with you that there are certainly many aspects on the problem of the designer which are of pertinence of philosophy and theology, I b elieve, and have always stated here, that ID must not necessarily stop at the design detection, but has the possibility and the duty, as a scientific paradigm, to go beyond as much as possible.

I will be more clear. Once we infer design, the design can be observed, analyzed and evaluated. ID gives us a way to identify, as much as it is possible with present data, specific deseign inputs (for instance, the emergence of protein superfamilies). There are many aspects, observabble aspects, facts, about design input which are in the range of science. Those aspects can certainly give at least some information about:

a) The nature of the designer

b) If only one desiner ot many designers can be reasonably inferred

c) The nature, structure, and possibly some of the pusposes of the design (while the whole purpose of biological design is probably a philosophical subject, specific sub purposes and strategies can certainly be inferred form the observed design).

d) The modalities of implementation of design in natural history, such as cronological properties (gradual, sudden), and possible implementation strategies (guided mutation, intelligent selection, direct writing, etc.)

All these things, and probably others, are IMO perfectly in the range of ID as science. It is true that the existing data can shed only a very partial light on these problems, but data are increasing, and our scientific mind must be open and try to build reasonable inferences and explanations whenever possible.


Yet another long spewage of all the allegedly wonderful things ID can do, or is capable of doing, but where are the actual results? IDiots won't agree on how information, CSI, specified complexity, FSCI, FSCO/I, functional complexity, complexity, function, irreducible complexity, etc., should even be defined. They won't agree on, or to, any ID tests. They won't agree on much of anything, so how on Earth are they ever going to figure out and demonstrate anything at all?

They can't and won't even calculate the alleged "CSI" in a banana. So much for their grandiose claims.