Cornelius wrote: ID, on the other hand, allows for making an objective, quantifiable, scientific design inference. It may fail, it may succeed, but it ought not be excluded (IDs of course are confident it can succeed). If I am correct about this distinction, then it seems to be that the basis for TEs to reject ID are:
1. The design inference doesn't do a very good job.
2. There are theological or philosophical problems with the design inference being posssible (POE, Leibniz' "God wouldn't intervene against his creation" argument, etc).
ID as it is formulated right now is scientifically vacuous. In addition to this simple fact, the ID approach chosen is flawed due to its sensitivity to false positives which combined with a negative argument make it useless. And ID lacks any scientific explanation. They claim that they can detect God's hand in areas which science not yet understands.
Why one would look for the bacterial flagellum as somehow designed is beyond me. While it is based on mostly our ignorance, and ignores viable scientific hypotheses, ID also leaves many relevant questions unanswered such as how, why, when... Why would God be intimately involved in the design of the flagellum, which seem to have found a use as TTSS (tupe III secretory system) in such friendly creatures as Yersenia (causes the bubonic plague). Was the bubonic plague which is seen as the cause of death of more than half the european population in the middle ages somehow intelligently designed? Or was it an unexpected side effect of the 'creative act' ? Why would God be so interested in the bacterial flagellum I wonder?
Received on Sat Oct 15 17:49:15 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Oct 15 2005 - 17:49:15 EDT