Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
This has been a side topic in several threads so I wanted to start a new thread to make my point about this topic clear.
I don't feel that ID offers an explanation that is useful when it comes to the origin of life (OOL). Simply saying that an intelligent designer did it is not useful in any way. What ID needs to do is propose the mechanism that the intelligent designer used, so that there is actually an explanation that we can start making predictions about and testing. Some would say that I'm make an unnecessary demand by looking for an explanation (the mechanism) for the explanation (the intelligent designer).
But here's how I know this is the appropriate view to take on this subject. Let's look at abiogenesis. The idea is that the OOL has a natural cause. I'd like everyone to think about the following point. Nobody, no matter what side they're on, thinks that "a natural cause" is an explanation. Those in favor of abiogenesis don't think it's an explanation and they try to find the mechanisms and the process used in order to have an explantion. We also have the ID advocates who don't accept the vague claim of "a natural cause". In fact, the ID advocates say that since we don't yet know all the mechanisms involved, that it fails as an explanation. That same expectation isn't followed through with ID. There isn't even an attempt at giving a mechanism or a process for how the intelligent designer did it, it is a conjecture that is even more vague that just saying "a natural cause did it".
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
If I understand you right, I don't think it's fair to compare the two ideas that way. We expect a naturally occurring act to proceed according to laws we know something about, so it should be explicable theoretically at least. But a supernatural act? We know nothing about what that entails or what that means really. I wouldn't expect the supernatural to be explicable. And the fact that it is, or would be, inexplicable is not evidence either for or against it.
What ID needs to do is propose the mechanism that the intelligent designer used, so that there is actually an explanation that we can start making predictions about and testing.
This is beyond our scope.
__________________ loud graphical signatures are against my religion.
Only if you don't try to call ID a science. If you DO insist that ID is a science, well, you'd better accept it is at least as much in your scope as abiogenesis is to evolution.
I don't feel that ID offers an explanation that is useful when it comes to the origin of life (OOL). Simply saying that an intelligent designer did it is not useful in any way. What ID needs to do is propose the mechanism that the intelligent designer used, so that there is actually an explanation that we can start making predictions about and testing. Some would say that I'm make an unnecessary demand by looking for an explanation (the mechanism) for the explanation (the intelligent designer).
ID is useful for explaining origins, but not in a scientific way. The argument from design is philosophical, and was first proposed by philosophers like Aristotle and Descartes. Proprosing a mechanism by which the designer designed, isn't necessary since the argument from design isn't scientific.
But here's how I know this is the appropriate view to take on this subject. Let's look at abiogenesis. The idea is that the OOL has a natural cause. I'd like everyone to think about the following point. Nobody, no matter what side they're on, thinks that "a natural cause" is an explanation. Those in favor of abiogenesis don't think it's an explanation and they try to find the mechanisms and the process used in order to have an explantion. We also have the ID advocates who don't accept the vague claim of "a natural cause". In fact, the ID advocates say that since we don't yet know all the mechanisms involved, that it fails as an explanation. That same expectation isn't followed through with ID. There isn't even an attempt at giving a mechanism or a process for how the intelligent designer did it, it is a conjecture that is even more vague that just saying "a natural cause did it".
abiogenesis is still a somewhat new field, so it's premature to say that people don't think it's an explanation. I believe that abiogenesis is thought of more as a work in progress. given enough time and research, we may be surprised to see what abiogenesis can find.
__________________ Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is praise worthy--think of these things.
Great. So lets just keep it out of science, and allow scientists to get on with studying and teaching evolution as science, and everyone's happy.
agreed.
__________________ Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is praise worthy--think of these things.
This has been a side topic in several threads so I wanted to start a new thread to make my point about this topic clear.
I don't feel that ID offers an explanation that is useful when it comes to the origin of life (OOL). Simply saying that an intelligent designer did it is not useful in any way. What ID needs to do is propose the mechanism that the intelligent designer used, so that there is actually an explanation that we can start making predictions about and testing. Some would say that I'm make an unnecessary demand by looking for an explanation (the mechanism) for the explanation (the intelligent designer).
The methods and reasoning used to answer the question of is something designed is a science. The question of who the designer is a separate and distinct question. ID advocates make no attempt to hide the fact that they believe the designer is God, but this does not change the fact that detection of ID is a science. ID advocates do not reject natural causes in general, they contend that 1) there is evidence for design in living systems, and 2) the current best explanation for the OOL is that it was designed and not a result of a natural undirected process.
In fact, the ID advocates say that since we don't yet know all the mechanisms involved, that it fails as an explanation. That same expectation isn't followed through with ID. There isn't even an attempt at giving a mechanism or a process for how the intelligent designer did it, it is a conjecture that is even more vague that just saying "a natural cause did it".
This is not the position of ID advocates. Given multiple (designed or undirected) possible explanations for the OOL the best explanation is currently design. The choice is between a designed process or an undirected process. The undirected process or paradigm (by its nature )requires a mechanism to be substantiated.
Abiogenesis
Paradigm/Mechanism
----------------------------------
Designed/Christians believe God
Undirected/Chemistry, etc ...
SETI Signal Detection
Paradigm/Mechanism
----------------------------------
Designed/Alien Transmitters
Undirected/Patterned Noise
In both cases the detection of the paradigm, or process, is legitimately separate from the mechanism that drives the process. In the case of SETI if you contend it is undirected then you would logically need to propose a source for the noise. In the case of design you would by definition be unable to infer anything about the aliens except from the signal itself. Why? Because by definition that is the only source of information you have since they are an independent intelligence able to act of their own will.
Linear Mode
