Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Last Intelligent Design Post for Awhile (Hopefully)
I hope this will be my last Intelligent Design post for a while. I've posted a lot lately, since it has been in the news. I've tried to handle the issue from a meta level, examining the flaws in the logic and thinking of the anti-ID folk.
As I said before, scientists may not make the best thinkers, but they are smart. And since I haven't detected their ability to either correctly grasp either Intelligent Design theory nor the nature of evolutionary science, I want to figure out why.
In a recent post, I mentioned how a scientist believed that if she created an ariticial single-cell organism (using her own intelligence), that she would have proven you don't need God to create life, thus refuting Intelligent Design.
Now at first, I felt she just made a glaring mistake. And, yes, she made a glaring mistake. But I think I understand her problem and the mistakes others like her make.
If I may paraphrase, I heard the following: ID tells people you will never figure this out. It's too complicated. So don't try. Don't bother making a hydrogen car, etc., etc.
Now, what the theory is really saying is that we can a) detect intelligence b) there are things out there which are too complicated to arise from a step by step problem.
Some scientists just think ID proponents are saying I can't figure this out, therefore it must be God. And that makes sense why they thought discovering how bees fly refute ID.
But ID doesn't say that you can't figure out a system. But it is saying that when you figure out irreducibly complex system, it will be too complex to arise from Darwinian processes. I hope that clarifies were Intelligent Design opponents have gone awry with some of their argumentation.
Darwin himself said that if you could find an organ or something in a biological system which couldn't be produced by connsecutive steps, you would have disproven his theory. What I'm hearing from modern-day Darwinists is that you have to trust in the Darwin-of-the-gaps. In other words, the theory has become unfalsifiable. The bacterium flagelum may look like it needs more than one thing to happen at the same time, but trust Darwinian processes. It has become an article of faith for materialists as opposed to testable science.
Hopefully, I can gear up for the Da Vinci Code movie and find some good beer-related articles for my kind readers.
I hope this will be my last Intelligent Design post for a while. I've posted a lot lately, since it has been in the news. I've tried to handle the issue from a meta level, examining the flaws in the logic and thinking of the anti-ID folk.
As I said before, scientists may not make the best thinkers, but they are smart. And since I haven't detected their ability to either correctly grasp either Intelligent Design theory nor the nature of evolutionary science, I want to figure out why.
In a recent post, I mentioned how a scientist believed that if she created an ariticial single-cell organism (using her own intelligence), that she would have proven you don't need God to create life, thus refuting Intelligent Design.
Now at first, I felt she just made a glaring mistake. And, yes, she made a glaring mistake. But I think I understand her problem and the mistakes others like her make.
If I may paraphrase, I heard the following: ID tells people you will never figure this out. It's too complicated. So don't try. Don't bother making a hydrogen car, etc., etc.
Now, what the theory is really saying is that we can a) detect intelligence b) there are things out there which are too complicated to arise from a step by step problem.
Some scientists just think ID proponents are saying I can't figure this out, therefore it must be God. And that makes sense why they thought discovering how bees fly refute ID.
But ID doesn't say that you can't figure out a system. But it is saying that when you figure out irreducibly complex system, it will be too complex to arise from Darwinian processes. I hope that clarifies were Intelligent Design opponents have gone awry with some of their argumentation.
Darwin himself said that if you could find an organ or something in a biological system which couldn't be produced by connsecutive steps, you would have disproven his theory. What I'm hearing from modern-day Darwinists is that you have to trust in the Darwin-of-the-gaps. In other words, the theory has become unfalsifiable. The bacterium flagelum may look like it needs more than one thing to happen at the same time, but trust Darwinian processes. It has become an article of faith for materialists as opposed to testable science.
Hopefully, I can gear up for the Da Vinci Code movie and find some good beer-related articles for my kind readers.
