>
> Tom Moore raised several issues about ID which I deal with in this
> (my concluding) post.
>
My thanks goes out to Paul for trying to answer my questions
> He asked:
>
> >"bare generic intelligence?" What possible good is that? The reason I
> >said _extremely_ is because all your predictions you would have to base
> >on your "IDer." If you know nothing about a IDer, how do you expect to
> >predict anything of value at all?
>
> You form a hypothesis with all the evidence you think is relevant. Nothing
> mysterious about that. Most hypotheses fail, but so what? That's what
> hypotheses are for. "Bare generic intelligence" is a minimally necessary
> postulate which would allow one to say -- for instance -- that a pattern of
> prime numbers detected by a radio telescope may have an intelligent cause,
> other than human beings.
The point is there there is no hypthesis _at all_ that can test the
general concept of design. It's the basic assumption you are making. No
matter what the evidence was, you could say it's design. The only
difference with each hypothesis, you just change the nature of the basic
assumption - but it's still just an assumption
>
> Or that the informational content of nucleic acids may have an intelligent
> cause, other than human beings. The possible existence of such an intelligence
> allows one to make reasonable inferences from patterns of evidence, which,
> via experience, we know to be intelligently caused.
>
A rock on the ground is equally evidence of this same intelligence. I'm
not conviced by the assertion of design, what I keep asking is for
evidence of design.
> I just don't see what the problem is here. Of course ID theorists may disagree
> about the content of ID predictions. In fact, I'd *expect* them to disagree,
> and then to sort out their disagreements by comparing hypotheses. That's in
> large measure the agenda for the upcoming Mere Creation conference.
>
I hope you make progress (seriously)
> Thus, when you write:
>
> >Hmm, evolution - it's a prediction of IDer defined by
> >assumption A, PC - it's a prediction of IDer B, and on and on.
>
> I say, yes, sure, ID theorists will disagree. Of course. But maybe you
> expected unanimity? Does that exist in evolutionary theory? Look, this
> just isn't as mysterious or opaque as you're making it out to be. Form an
> ID hypothesis and throw it into the arena for discussion. That's what ID
> theorists do.
Which shows that the basic concept of ID _is_ intestable. If you can't
disprove it with evidence, what good is it? If you can't claim that it
could limit bad lines of research because pointing out bad lines of
research depend on the assumptions you make about the IDer.
>
> About Darwin. You wrote:
>
> >[ID] came up short in his text, but does anyone now give up their
> >acceptance of ID on reading this?
>
> Yes, if by that you mean a particular account of ID. I can't read Paley
> now without thinking, *organisms have histories* -- an aspect of
> biological reality almost entirely missing in the _Natural Theology_.
> Paley wouldn't last a minute among the ID biologists I know, because
> all of them have learned from Darwin something Paley should have
> known -- namely, that organisms have histories.
Paley should have known that? I'm not really sure that's valid. But if
Darwin followed Paley's ID argument, and didn't research in unfruitful
directions, we wouldn't have a great deal.
>
> In another post, you wrote:
>
> >which doesn't show ID as wrong. It only showed that Paley's assumptions
> >regarding God were wrong.
>
> Paley's ID hypothesis was falsified. Can we agree on that?
>
Only in the assumption regarding the nature of the IDer, not in ID.
> You stated:
>
> >You have not even answered my original question - what are
> >the criteria for design?
>
> Go to "Thinking about the Theory of Design" on the Access Research Network
> web page (a link exists from the talk.origins FAQ archive, I believe: I don't
> recall the ARN URL off the top of my head) for a discussion that's now a few
> years old. The later chapters of Mike Behe's book propose several related
> notions. See Stephen C. Meyer, "The Origin of Life and the Death of
> Materialism" in _The Intercollegiate Review_ 32 (Spring 1996):24-43. See
> William Dembski, "On the Very Possibility of Intelligent Design," in _The
> Creation Hypothesis_, J.P. Moreland, ed., 1994. For other concepts in the same
> family of ideas, do a search on the theoretical foundations of SETI signal
> analysis.
>
> Sorry but I'm not going to run a design theory tutorial for you, Tom.
> When I wanted to learn about evolutionary theory, I got off my butt and
> went to the library.
>
I'm not asking for a tutorial, Paul. You forget, I'm the one building
the creation/evolution reference database. I have see and read
a great deal of creationist papers on design, both old earth and young
earth. I do no see _any_ legitimate criteria in any of it. It's all
assertion. I've gotten off my butt and looked. So, ask yourself why I'm
still asking.
> Lastly, you wrote:
>
> >I want more details so you can show me that _it is_ testable. That's the
> >whole point in my asking in the first place. Unfortunately, you haven't
> >satisfied me.
>
> I didn't expect to satisfy you. Maybe a few years down the road, when
> the ID research community has matured and generated more publications,
> I'll have higher expectations. But right now, seeing the promise in ID takes
> some scientific imagination. Some creativity, if you will.
>
I'll grant you possible future research - but I hope you make progress.
tom