Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/16/04 3:12pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Things I'd consider" on 10/ 9/04 8:12pm
>>That depends on what philosophy of science you're
>>using, but I'm interested in the details. Exactly why
>>isn't ID a scientific theory?
>
>My criteria is that theories should explain the data
>in such a way that predictions or postdictions of an
>empirical sort can justify or refute the theory in
>question.
ID meets that. One could potentially falsify an ID claim (with the current version of ID) by showing how it could have developed naturally, or yielding unfavorable (for ID) calculations from the explanatory filter.
>As far as I can tell, ID does nothing in the line of
>predicting "positive evidence" that is dealing with
>evidence that is observable/has been observed (i.e.
>not lack of evidence).
Depends what you mean by "postive evidence." It does predict that a natural means would not be discovered, though also earmarks of intelligent design (e.g. predicting the existence of biological information) etc. Basically think of it in terms of more casual design detection. ID can be a very rational theory depending on the circumstances, and in principle the same can be true for life.
>That makes it not empirically
>subject to verfication or refutation, which fails my
>first criteria.
ID is quite subject to refutation, e.g. the major prediction being refuted.
>As far as explanatory scope of the observable
>evidence, ID does not explain such things as why
>creatures should share similarities;
It sure does: the designer uses similar structures for similar functions. As a programmer, I use similar code for similar functions.
> why some
>creatures seem to have parts that serve no function;
Organs deteriorate and become vestigial.
>why the building blocks should be the same;
Again, similar structures...
>why some
>species exhibit extensive mating patterns; why
>altruistic types of behavior should exist in such
>systems; why some species have more offspring than
>others; why new viruses come to be; why that as we get
>closer to the beginning of life fossils seem to be
>simplistic; why some types seem to be more plentiful
>than others and on and on.
Some of those things evolution does a better job of explaining than ID. However, ID does explain things like the existence of those sophisticated biochemical machines resistant to gradualist scenarios (e.g. irreducible complexity), the origin of biological information, the sophistication and workings of the blood cascade, the chemical incompatibility of those RNA components and many other facets surrounding the origin of life etc.
>I have seen absolutely no effort in ID camps to
>mathematically attempt to justify their theories
Then you should read Dembski's The Design Inference. How does evolution justify itself mathematically by the way (apart from microevolutionary statistics).
>to make them specific enough so that there can be no
>question what they are predicting or postdicting.
Many ID adherents have made their claims quite specific. Again, perhaps reading some ID material would be beneficial.
Additionally, many of your criteria seem to be what characterizes a good scientific theory rather than a scientific theory per se. There are dozens of theories that definitely fit the category of being "scientific" even though they are discredited and don't match your criteria very well at all.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 