Could I explain it to the satisfaction of somebody so blinkered as to:
view the simple assertion of the purported limitations of Methodlogical Naturalism as refuter to an argument;
consider the Howe diagram as a refuter to Common Descent; and
claim that Mike Behe’s vacuous assertion that some things exhibit a “purposeful arrangement of parts” is a “method”
… of anything that they did not want to know? Of course not.
I am sensible enough to not even try.
You William Cole have a well-earned reputation on this forum for being obdurately and willfully ignorant of any of the many arguments and evidence against, and indictments of, ID. Attempting to explain any such to you is therefore an exercise in futility.
Nothing you have said against the Wikipedia article has been backed by evidence, so everything you have said on the topic can be dismssed without presenting further evidence.
No you have beliefs that are deeply ingrained that you cannot see past. The fact that you cannot see the Howe diagram as a challenge for common descent of vertebrates shows me you are blinded in a paradigm. You are not alone here.
These are the same people that think the Wikipedia article demonstrates understanding of ID.
If you cannot make an argument for your beliefs it maybe time to take a serious look at what you believe to be true.
Also to the point, does Colewd suggest any ID theory or hypothesis that has been tested and found wanting? Just one or two? That can’t all be correct since a number are not cross-compatible.
Aside on the Wikipedia censorship angle: Andrew Schlafly is always looking for more contributors and editors for Conservapedia. They definitely don’t have evolutionary biases. Have at it, Eddie & Colewd!
One way to illustrate the objection is this: Consider two definitions of science.
Science is the activity of seeking explanations for natural phenomena.
Science is the activity of seeking only natural (i.e., unintelligent) causes as explanations for natural phenomena.
The first definition above is an objective, bias-free definition, for which intelligent design qualifies as science. However, the second definition above is one in which the objective definition has been qualified by the term “natural”, which assumes there are natural, i.e., unintelligent, causes for natural phenomena.
The second definition is the definition that methodological naturalists insist be adopted as the definition for science. However, the “natural causes alone” criteria for gaining scientific knowledges is based upon an assumption that there is a natural cause for all natural phenomena. If intelligent design is true, scientists operating by the second definition above will never be able to come to the truth. The insistence on only “natural causes” imports a philosophical bias into the objective definition, which is then defended based not on knowledge, but an assumption. Therefore, methodological naturalists “define out” of science intelligent design based on a philosophical assumption.
Here’s option 3. Science is the activity of seeking the simplest testable explanations with the greatest predictive and explanatory power, for natural phenomena.
Nobody says causes can’t be “intelligent”. But they do have to be testable. As in, they have to actually predict something so that their predictions can be compared with experiment and observation.
If you can come up with a supernatural explanation that has predictive power, then it can be tested, and then it can be part of science.
It occurs to me that those complaining about the contents of the Wikipedia Intelligent Design article fail to understand that Wikipedia is not just an online encyclopedia, it is also a set of processes, including rules, that allows thousands of volunteers, most of whom are anonymous, many of whom have wildly divergent viewpoints, to work together to produce this encyclopedia.
The people complaining about the ID article seem to have the idea that there’s some sort of magic wand that can be waved to change the article. There isn’t. The article is the result of applying the aforementioned rules and processes to the topic. Given that I can testify, at first hand, that this article’s compliance with those rules has been scrutinised within an inch of its life (as is the case of most articles on high-profile controversial topics), it is highly unlikely that the article can be changed significantly without first changing the rules (probably substantially). Changing those rules (even assuming you can get the changes agreed to) would potentially affect every article on Wikipedia.
An example of an online encyclopedia with different rules is Conservapedia (linked to above). If you are Andrew Schlafly, you have no problem getting any Conservapedia article to say anything you like. You will however have trouble (i) finding nearly as many volunteers as Wikipedia has, & (ii) stopping people from sniggering whenever your encyclopedia is mentioned.
In such a project, scale and control are two mutually-limiting objectives.
Conservapedia is wonderfully friendly to ID. Having spent some time there working on the articles referencing Lenski’s LTEE, I can say that they really would appreciate the assistance of someone with Colewd’s background of biological knowledge. Rather than complaining about stuff on Internet discussion forums, he could actually contribute something positive to pro-ID articles there with very little worry about censorship.
