Re: Question for ID propopents--the demarcation question

> Here's one from Dembski:
>  
> "To be sure, I am not a young earth creationist nor do I support their
> efforts to harmonize science with a particular interpretation of
> Genesis."
>  
> http://www.designinference.com/documents/
> 2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm
>  

The issue is not whether some ID advocates have stated that they are
not young Earth creationists, but rather whether the "theory of ID"
(however that is envisioned) has any scientific content that would
distinguish it from those who reject common descent, if not an ancient
Earth. Young Earth advocates and those who reject common descent at
virtually any level of the taxonomic hierarchy can, and do, consider
their arguments as employing ID.

In my view, the inability of ID to make any statement about when and
where in evolutionary history the design events are presumed to occur
shows the practical emptiness of their arguments. There is absolutely
no agreement among ID proponents about which structures or biological
transitions are those which demand the action of a non-natural
designing agent. Basically any transition or biological structure that
a particular individual sees as too complex to yield to future natural
cause and effect explanations can be cited as an example. There is no
consistent criteria by which other investigators can independently
identify a candidate structure.

Keith

Keith B. Miller
Research Assistant Professor
Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
785-532-2250
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
Received on Mon Oct 31 23:10:45 2005