ID paradigm and changes with time? was Re: Evolutionary Psychology and Free Will

Does Ted mean that the ID advocates need to explain diversity re time
as well as diversity re space before they can have a functioning
scientific paradigm?
If so, then I agree with him.
Don

>OK, Greg, I'll respond now. I was frustrated before by what appears to be
>different ideas of what I meant, when I used the term, "theory of
>everything." I'll spell it out.
>
>I have been using the term to mean simply this, nothing more. "Evolution"
>presently functions in science as a "theory of everything," by which I mean
>that mainstream science tries to offer explanations for when/where/how
>things came into being. An example: the earth is ca. 4.65 BY old, and the
>Cambrian period began ca. 530 MY ago (if my memory is wrong on either
>number, I'm happy to be corrected, it isn't germane to my point). And the
>K-T boundary, corresponding geologically to the mass extinction at the end
>of the cretaceous, was ca. 65 MY ago. Ditto the huge crater near the
>Yucatan on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, the "smoking gun" for the
>Alvarez asteroid extinction theory.
>
>Creationism also tries to be a "theory of everything." The fossils, e.g.,
>virtually all came into being at the time of Noah's flood, whatever recent
>date we assign for that event. The dinosaurs did not become extinct until
>shortly after the Flood (an interesting claim in itself, given the trouble
>that God put Noah into by having to round them up in pairs). And the earth
>is ca. 10KY old, not 4.65 BY old. This is a false theory of everything, but
>a theory of everything nonetheless.
>
>ID, by contrast, is not a theory of everything. It deliberately avoids
>commenting on phenomena such as those above. My overall claim is then as
>follows: Unless/until ID advocates put forth a theory of everything that is
>more convincing than the mainstream theory of everything, they have no
>chance at all to be taught as an alternative to evolution in public schools.
> I base my claim on the belief that Kuhn was right about paradigm changes,
>that scientists don't abandon a paradigm until they see a better one out
>there. And if ID doesn't try to be a theory of everything, it won't be seen
>as a better theory of everything.
>
>That's the whole of my point, and the reason I've been referring to a theory
>of everything. I mean no more than this.
>
>Ted
>
>
>

-- 
Donald A. Nield
Associate Professor, Department of Engineering Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland, NEW ZEALAND
ph  +64 9 3737599 x87908 
fax +64 9 3737468
Courier address: 70 Symonds Street, Room 235 or 305
d.nield@auckland.ac.nz
http://www.esc.auckland.ac.nz/People/Staff/dnie003/