Posted on 04/01/2008 12:21:24 PM PDT by Zender500
Look well at your allies I.D.’ers. They don't just deny evolution but geology, plate tech-tonics, astronomy, physics, and modern medicine. And these Luddites actually claim they are going to ‘rescue’ Science or ‘advance’ Science with their philosophy of the ‘designer of the gaps’.
“I understand that Ben Stein is a smart man, and quite knowledgable about various subjects. I don’t know if he is qualified to debate Evolution, however.”
Stein isn’t claiming to be the expert...his point is that the Darwinists refuse, even run from, real debate...and use fascists tactics to stifle debate.
This was not the treatment of the subject that would be of any use to these students in their career as Biologists, and was not the subject she was hired to teach. I would have swapped out that class just as fast as if I entered a class and all they talked about was the lies and flaws of fallacies and nut jobs associated with Creationism. Neither is of any use to an aspiring Scientist.
Not quite a correct analogy I think...
Upon viewing a crop circle, I would suggest that creation by an intelligent being is much more likely than spontaneous occurrence.
Following that, I would suggest that creation by a human with stakes, ropes and a lawnmower is much more likely than creation by a little man in a UFO. The motivation of the "prankster" is irrelevant.
Both assertions are dependent upon (1) Ockham's razor, and (2) the willingness to research exactly how those circles were made and how the feat could be duplicated.
Any ID proponent who is willing to similarly research and develop a coherent theory as to how the designer actually does it will have my respect.
If you stopped there without speculating as to how it was done, it seems you would be in a stronger position with regard to Occam's razor (I think the Latin spelling is more traditional).
Consider these two assertions:
1) The crop circle was made by some intelligence.
2) The crop circle was made by a group of one or more humans with the use of stakes, ropes, or lawnmower or similar tools.
Unless you consider humans not to be a form of intelligence, the first assertion is always true if the second is. But the second is possibly not true if the first is.
The more specific an assertion is within the subset of another assertion the less likely it is to be true. This is essentially the definition of the largely misunderstood or misapplied Occam's Razor".
Any ID proponent who is willing to similarly research and develop a coherent theory as to how the designer actually does it will have my respect.
Agreed such research would be most impressive! But I don't think mortal science is up to the task.
But please notice how you just applied a high value to the non application of Occam's Razor? Indeed, a more specific assertion, if true, is more valuable then a less specific assertion that could be deduced from it. Occam's Razor only applies to the relative chance of veracity, not the value of the assertion itself.
It seems to me my objection to your original criticism of ID stands unscathed:
My issue with ID proponents is that, having posited that the origin of life is complex beyond the capacity of science to understand
ID proponents do not hold that the complexity of life is beyond the capacity of science to understand. Rather they hold the complexity as evidence that there was intelligence behind it.
...they resolve that dilemma by...
The dilemma seems purely your invention here.
introducing a creator more complex still, by several orders of magnitude!!
The creator doesn't make it more complex at all. The model of the creator used is based on very broad parameters, because the details are beyond the scope of what they are promoting.
Indeed they are applying Occam's Razor and you seem not to, as if you merely wish them to assert more then they reasonably can.
Now is ID a valid form of science. No, I don't think so, but is it a reasonable philosophical doctrine. Yes, it would seem so.
Exactly.
When a proposed explanation for "the way the world is" moves from natural to supernatural causes, it leaves the realm of science and enters into the realm of philosophy.
Not any less "valid", just a different mode of approach.
Thanks for your well thought out posts!
Yet “I.D.” makes specific claims regarding Science and the nature of this “designed creation”; namely that the mechanism put in place to allow for the change in living species in response to environmental pressures (natural selection of genetic variation) is insufficient to accomplish any major changes that we have observed in what species have inhabited the earth.
That is why, to me, I.D. will always stand for Incompetent Design rather than Intelligent Design. A truly Intelligently Designed universe would have a mechanism in place that was sufficeint to the need rather than some shoddy haphazard system only capable of ‘micro’ changes.
Maybe I should call what I believe “E.M.I.D.” for “Even More Intelligently Designed” or perhaps “N.I.D.” for “Not Incompetently Designed”.
Most Scientists in the U.S.A. are Christian (I am one of these), and they also mostly believe in a “not Incompetently Designed” universe. Many of them are named Steve apparently.
Yet “I.D.” makes specific claims regarding Science and the nature of this “designed creation”; namely that the mechanism put in place to allow for the change in living species in response to environmental pressures (natural selection of genetic variation) is insufficient to accomplish any major changes that we have observed in what species have inhabited the earth.
That is why, to me, I.D. will always stand for Incompetent Design rather than Intelligent Design. A truly Intelligently Designed universe would have a mechanism in place that was sufficient to the need rather than some shoddy haphazard system only capable of ‘micro’ changes.
Maybe I should call what I believe “E.M.I.D.” for “Even More Intelligently Designed” or perhaps “N.I.D.” for “Not Incompetently Designed”.
Most Scientists in the U.S.A. are Christian (I am one of these), and they also mostly believe in a “not Incompetently Designed” universe. Many of them are named Steve apparently.
Good point, if there is a designer he certainly takes his time about it, and does a lot of learning from trial and error.
Yeah, a non-transcendent, non-god-like designer that actively moves evolution along doesn't seem plausible to me either.
They couldn't pay Jimmy enough now.
Jimmy is replacable, although certainly he was a key ingredient to the show. I suggest they replace him with a scantily-clad buxom brunette.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.