> I think it would be very tempting but nonetheless a serious error to
>conflate Michael Behe (or Nelson, Dembski, Meyer, et al) with his supporters
>here. ID gets a quantitatively strong defense on this list, but the quality
>is sadly lacking. Remember, I agree fully that ID is a philosophical
>research program (no insult there, in my view), often supported by unsoundly
>over-stated arguments, that conceivably may someday become scientific --
> it's certainly not a serious scientific rival for evolution right now.
Two things:
1. ID need not be a 'serious scientific rival for evolution' for the simple
reason that ID need not be opposed to evolution. ID's real rival is the
blind watchmaker mechanism that is believed to be behind most/all
of evolution (the only other "designer" besides an intelligent agent).
Now, there is plenty of good evidence for evolution. But
there is little-to-no good evidence that the neo-darwinian mechanism
is indeed the mechanism behind all this evolution (and, of course, was
not behind abiogenesis).
2. What does it mean to be a serious scientific rival? Does it mean
ID should have the ability to come up testable hypotheses that can lead to
experimental results which shed light on the world? If so, I have already
shown this is easy to do with a specific example (and can do it again with
other examples if anyone wants). Or does it mean that a significant number
of scientists have to abandon methdological naturalism, so that we redefine
science and how it gets taught in the public schools? If so, this is a
change that involves a heck of a lot more than simple evidence and
hypothesis-generation.
Mike