This talk of bad ID arguments comes up all the time. I’ll watch the video carefully to see whether any examples are given. There is a difference between all ID arguments are bad and some specific ID argument that may not be a good argument, but I rarely see anyone making that distinction.
Feel free to present your “good” argument for the intelligent design of biological life. Every last one I’ve seen has been nothing but hand waving attacks of existing evolutionary theory.
Some ID arguments are not good.
Thus far, all of the ID arguments that I have seen fit that characterization.
I say that there some good and some bad ID arguments. The good ones are some of the pop gen work Ive seen (not all of it, and I’m not sure it’s ID) and things like the moral argument. The bad one are work like irreducible complexity.
Of course I’m willing to drill down in the details very deep and explain the the mistakes too.
Moral argument? what it has to do with ID?
John West tells me that the Moral Argument is an ID argument. I know it existed long before the ID movement was formed, but if that is an example for ID, then I think it is a good ID argument.
In ID literature there is no moral arugument, maybe some gave public opinion on it, but in literature it is never presented as a argument for ID. ID looks only in physical nature, like properties of universe, conditions that support life and biological data.
Moral argument is much used in William Lane Craig talks
Why do you think John West called it an ID argument?
Just Personal opinion, for official one should look at published books, articles, and official website
Actually the DI’s claims about ID in books, articles, and its website are nothing but personal opinion. For scientific evidence one looks at the peer-reviewed professional scientific literature. That’s the place ID has yet to produce a single shred of positive evidence for its position.
There are reasonable arguments for finetuning. And we don’t know how the first life arose.
My frustration about ID includes their ability to take these perfectly good points past the breaking point, claiming too much about them, which can end up poisoning the well. Still they are good ID arguments, even if their execution is riseable.
ID is at its best when it stays within its own philosophical system and doesn’t try to be scientific. It’s the constant effort to look scientific that trips them up.
45 posts were split to a new topic: Comments on Good and Bad ID Arguments
A post was split to a new topic: Is There an ID Double-Standard Regarding Sufficient Evidence?