What things can't ID explain? What things can't evolution explain? Bring it on!

[shinbits]

Anything can be explained by incredulity. "Goddidit" has been a standard answer forever. What ID or scientific creationism can't explain is what the designer is.

So... if there's a designer out there, identify it.

ID just sets out to prove that there is a designer. It doesn't need to prove who it is.

 

[Donkeytron]

ID just sets out to prove that there is a designer. It doesn't need to prove who it is.

^^^^
Just in case anyone wanted more proof ID is useless, here you go. I have yet to see a trait that can't be convincingly explained by mutation and selection. Shin, I think you should hop ship to the "critical evaluation" crowd, or whatever the newest creationism is called.

 

[Janus]

There's nothing Intelligent Design can't explain. It can explain biological diversity, it can explain the origin of life, it can explain gravity, it can even explain human behavior. There's not a single thing ID can't explain; but none of that is relevant to the quality of the explanation. To be a good explanation, i.e. scientific, a theory has to be predictive. What this implies, and this is something IDists never understand, is that a scientific theory can't use something that can't be explained to explain something else. It can use something that hasn't been explained yet, but if you use something that's inherently beyond human understanding, the theory is automatically worthless. This rules out any supernatural explanation, not because of some evil prejudice by scientists, but because of the very essence of what the supernatural is.



http://www.freeinquiry.com/naturalism.html

 

[LogicChristian]

ID just sets out to prove that there is a designer. It doesn't need to prove who it is.

So in other words ID is just broad enough to explain that everything happened and reassure us that there's a creator, but just narrow enough to give us no idea as to what that creator is or the mechanisms of how it made the world in front of us.

 

[shinbits]

So in other words ID is just broad enough to explain that everything happened and reassure us that there's a creator, but just narrow enough to give us no idea as to what that creator is or the mechanisms of how it made the world in front of us.

In order to find who, we must establish that there was a who.

This is what ID does, and all it needs to.

 

[TheBear]

"Bring it on"? What's this, an invite to a WWF match?

 

[OdwinOddball]

In order to find who, we must establish that there was a who.

This is what ID does, and all it needs to.

This statement clearly puts ID in the realm of philosphy and not science. Which makes comparing ID and Evolution fruitless as they are not the same field of study. Which is what we(evolutionists) have been saying all along. Thanks for proving our point.

 

[shinbits]

This statement clearly puts ID in the realm of philosphy and not science.

ID uses science to show that there is a creator, the same way forensics uses science to show that someone was murdered and and didn't die of natural causes.

Before finding out who, we must establish that there was a who.

ID uses science to do this, and that makes it science.

 

[Phred]

ID just sets out to prove that there is a designer. It doesn't need to prove who it is.

Is that what ID does? Well... now I'm sure ID isn't a scientific theory. Theories don't "set out to prove" anything. A theory explains the mechanisms behind a phenomenon.

Oh, and the emphasis above is mine. You already think you know "who" the designer is.

So the OP asks what ID can't prove? ID can't prove it's science.

 

[Phred]

ID uses science to show that there is a creator, the same way forensics uses science to show that someone was murdered and and didn't die of natural causes.

Really? So when I find a body on the ground with a gunshot wound and I claim "Goddidit" is the case solved?

 

[LogicChristian]

In order to find who, we must establish that there was a who.

This is what ID does, and all it needs to.

So we should replace evolution, a useful theory with real world application, with ID, a theory that just says "something designed it" but doesn't say who or how?

How is ID better then? It could explain everything, but not the mechanisms of how it was created. Moreover, since it stops at saying only that a creator exists, it has no application.

 

[shinbits]

So the OP asks what ID can't prove? ID can't prove it's science.

ID uses science to prove itself.

Evolution also attemps to use science in this manner.

 

[shinbits]

"Bring it on"? What's this, an invite to a WWF match?

 

[LogicChristian]

ID uses science to prove itself.

Evolution also attemps to use science in this manner.

No it doesn't, science doesn't start with preconceived notions about what it should find. ID does.

 

[OdwinOddball]

ID uses science to show that there is a creator, the same way forensics uses science to show that someone was murdered and and didn't die of natural causes.

Before finding out who, we must establish that there was a who.

ID uses science to do this, and that makes it science.

And there in lies one of the problems with ID. ID attempts to use science to prove something that science can make no statement about. Science ceases to function when you leave the natural world behind and enter the supernatural. Once you cross that line you are in the realm of religion/philosophy/meta-physics/pseudo-science, not science. The supernatural cannot be tested by naturalistic means, otherwise it is not super-natural. To make such a statement shows a woeful lack of science education on the part of the speaker.

The "who" is not, nor will ever be a subject for study with science.

 

[Phred]

ID uses science to prove itself.

Evolution also attemps to use science in this manner.

You obviously don't understand a thing you're saying.

 

[Dal M.]

ID just sets out to prove that there is a designer. It doesn't need to prove who it is.

Assuming that's the case, you'll still need to be able to describe the mechanisms used by the Intelligent Designer. Did he use mysterious psychic powers to string together organic molecules, or did he have some sort of nanomachines to do that for him? Did he just use magic? Surely IDists are looking into these important questions, right? They can't be wasting all their time on political maneuvers to discredit the theory of evolution - they are also doing research into the very subject they're trying to prove, aren't they?

(Note that "He's God, so he can do whatever he likes" isn't an acceptable answer because a,) it reveals that the identity of the Intelligent Designer is God - and that IDists are indistinguishable from creationists - and b.) IDists are setting up their idea as an alternative to evolution, whose mechanisms are well known and extensively described. If life was "willed into existence by the Host of Hosts," you'd better be able to explain what it means to will something into existence and exactly how it happens, step by step, down to the molecular level.)

 

[Lilandra]

ID can't explain the gall bladder as well as evolution can. I recently had mine removed after 6 years of agonizing flare ups. The surgery is the most commonly performed in the U.S.

Now, I don't feel that an organ that is prone to stones and infections is very well designed.

However, from an evolutionary standpoint. Meat eating animals all have the gall bladder in common. It is an adaption for animals to help process meat.

Mechanisms of evolution have no intelligence behind them. So if a human suffers pain, as long as it doesn't interfere with reproduction (death, sterility, etc.) and passes on their genes, they are still part of the gene pool.

However, ID does posit intelligence behind biodiversity in a more direct manner. Since, IDers are fond of mechanical analogies, say a particular engine has a manufacturer's defect like a fuel leak. In, future models of this engine this problem will be addressed by engineers. So applying ID to animals, if God is directly involved in his designs as a human designer is, answer this..

Why is faulty design present?

Conversely, faulty design in biological organisms are incorporated into future offspring as long as it doesn't hinder reproduction. Like the gall bladder. My ancestors could have all dropped dead from infection at 34, as long as they produced offspring.

To use the mechanical analogy, it would be like designing cars to work despite defects as long as they sold. Also, incorporating the faulty design into future models. Once they rolled out of the showroom, the flaws would cause the car to breakdown.

Is that easy to understand shinbits?

So we should replace evolution, a useful theory with real world application, with ID, a theory that just says "something designed it" but doesn't say who or how?

How is ID better then? It could explain everything, but not the mechanisms of how it was created. Moreover, since it stops at saying only that a creator exists, it has no application.

 

[Silent Bob]

I want to play as well.

What ID cannot explain? Design! They will tell you that the flagellum is designed but they cannot say how.

From the evo side Ken Miller has spoken already: The Flagellum Unspun.

In sort on design:
Evolution says random mutations, natural selection, genetic drift.
ID says: Goddidit.

Evo P0\/\/|\|Z ID

 

[MemeBuster]

If evolution is true how come if a person has tattoos his children don't have the same tattoos?

If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys around?

Evolution can not explain how something as complex as human eye came to be.

And oh yeah, evolution can't explain love.


MB.