[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted:08/15/04 5:33am
Ever noticed that you never hear an affirmative definition of Intelligent Design Theory (ID)?
I think this is the reason why. For any positive statement of a theory, you first state the assumptions required for that theory. For much of mainstream science, these assumptions are often taken for granted, such as:
1) We can perceive the universe through our limited senses, using direct and indirect methods of measurement and observation.
2) These observations and measurements are things that are reproducible, or repeatably observable.
3) Things that we cannot observe or measure, we cannot know about.
4) We MAY make assumptions about these unknowable things, which allows us to continue our exploration of our universe, even if we cannot know certain things.
4a) BUT, since we're trying to truly understand the universe around us, we must require that these assumptions be minimial, and the assumptions we make MUST be "reasonable".
(4a is just an alternate statement of the well-known philisophical saw, "Occam's Razor")
---
The power of assumption is used in mathematics and science to great effect. We "assume" certain things that we cannot prove or disprove, and then build a scaffolding around these assumptions of verifiable observations and measurements. Some day, these assumptions may be falsifiable, which would allow us to set in concrete the foundations of some of our scientific advances. We must, with our logical minds, somehow come to a consensus of what assumptions are reasonable, and what assumptions are not. The general rule we, as humans use, is "the simpler the better."
The problem with ID is that we, as curious humans, are prone to asking questions about our assumptions. In fact, this questioning of assumptions is a neccesary part of "sanity checking" the assumptions we've made about any given theory.
If a scientific theory cannot allow a rigorous discussion of its assumptions, and why they are reasonable and valid, then it is not a scienfitic theory.
And this leads us to the crux of the problem with ID. What, exactly, are the assumptions of ID? I challenge (dare) anyone to unambiguously state the assumptions required for ID theory, and then to allow open discussion of those assumptions.
You cannot, as the proponent of a theory, state the theory, state it's assumptions, and then forbid discussion of those assumptions.
Here's a hint to anyone that might attempt to respond to this:
Intelligent Design Theory assumes the existence of a sentient being or beings who may or may not exist presently, that, through unknown means, created specific biological systems in either exactly, or close approximation to, the forms in which they exist today.
Yep. ID assumes that. I've heard (read) ID proponents hedging and dodging discussion of this assumption, with statments like, "Woah, now... I never said ANYthing about the designer itself! Did you hear me say 'GOD?' I didn't think so! ID says nothing about the designer, so we can't talk about that."
Only we can, and must, if ID hopes to become a competing theory, instead of being regarded as a half-baked psuedo-intellectual knee-jerk reaction to the fact that current science has killed the very imaginary super-friend that so many people seem to depend upon for happiness.
So, ID proponents, my direct challenge is this:
State, unambiguously the assumption(s) of ID theory, and allow us to discuss the reasonableness of them in open forum. Allow us to compare them in complexity and ennumeration to the assumptions required by current evolutionary theory.
Let us really see the foundation of ID. I, and many, many others believe it's a deceptive religio-political agenda. Here's your chance to show us all otherwise.
