My position: I think that the question of whether or not something is
intellegently designed is a worthy question for science. But as pointed
out, it has some sticky problems with ways to predict and test outcomes if
things are ID. I like what Brian quoted:
NTSE Final Report prepared by the organizer,
> Rob Koons [NTSE = Conference on Naturalism, Theism, and the
> Scientific Enterprise held at the University of Texas at Austin,
> February 20-23, 1997]
>
> #"If theistic science or intelligent design theory is to become
> #a progressive research program, it must do more than poke holes
> #in the evidence for Darwinism: it must acquire auxiliary hypotheses
> #about the intentions and preferences of the designer from which we
> #can generate specific, testable predictions and informative
> #explanations." --Koons
I would like to venture a purpose to the design. The purpose would be to
create a system which could be aware of and comprehend the universe. This
comprehension would result in the ability to create more, which is another
purpose. In essence, the purpose is a system which can self create. The
greater the ability to efficiently create without intervention of the
creator, the more succesful the system is. Systems can be individuals,
social groups, species, life as a whole, a solar system...
This is just a seed of an idea, but so far, I think it can be tested and
corrolated with knowledge. It would have certain predictions. It is broad
and affects even non-biological activity. It even suggests why mass
extinctions aren't merely random occurances, but part of the progression
towards the success of this purpose.
As to what Glenn has said: while the ID idea may have originated in its
present form from Christian thinkers, if it were only a comment on Christian
philosophy and ideology(however true I may believe it to be), it is removed
from the venue of science. Therefore, my suggestion is that even an
agnostic may comprehend this purpose as I have stated and apply it to
scientific inquiry. Personal revelation may have guided science, but
science does not comment on religious truth.
What Brian is saying, is that this purpose must be able to be subjected to
scientific scrutiny. Certainly, each scientist can have their own "divine
revelation", but we can see who is right by which theory is the most
explanatory and conforms with data the best. If this revelation cannot be
tested, then it falls out of the ability of science to comment on it.
Any comments?
Thanks,
Ami Chopine