@Paul_Nelson Perhaps you can have an open dialog about this here at PS.
That’s what legitimate scientists have been doing for 150 years already.
If ID Creationists want to join that process, nothing is stopping them. Other than their ideological and intellectual deficiencies, that is.
I wonder why Nelson said “take what Darwin got right” about evolution and not “take what all of modern science up to 2020 got right”? Seems like there must be a DI company rule no article can be released unless it mentions Darwin instead of modern evolutionary theory.
Since the article seems to be an admonishment to ID scholars I wonder if the same lecture is being given to the rest of the DI “scientists”.
2 Likes
Yes @Paul_Nelson. I was just complaining to a friend the other day how ID never promotes evolution and all of y’all think it happens to a certain extent. It’s always been confrontational. Focus more on how it fits into ID and promote the science. It’s really cool science! Even if you don’t think it can explain the entire biosphere
@Paul_Nelson or @pnelson :
Do you know anyone else in I.D. who agrees with your position?
“As Paul explains to host Andrew McDiarmid, he rejects the idea that the agenda for intelligent design should be to “punch Darwin in the nose.” Not at all. “Darwin got a lot of things right,” including about the role of history in shaping species.”
“The task for ID is to “take what Darwin got right and build that into your theory of design.” In other words, while discarding the weaknesses of the competing evolutionary theory, the job is to integrate the strengths of the old with the strengths of the new.”
Isn’t @swamidass’ Genealogical A/E exactly what we are talking about here ???
Where is that “Theory of Intelligent Design”? All I have ever seen is the asssertion that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause”.
That is it. I have never seen anything of finer granularity - nothing about the what, when, where or how of this Intelligent Design. Lots and lots of free-floating maths and Darwin bashing, but no actual research program into the entailments of this ‘theory’ at all.
There was a thread here asking for a specific ID hypothesis. It went on for (too) many posts but no ID hypothesis was ever offered.
I would call ID a philosophical musing, but certainly not a theory, let alone a scientific one.
That’s an insult to philosophical musing.
ID is religious apologetics, done badly.
3 Likes
Wait, isn’t Paul Nelson a YEC? What are the things he supposes that Darwin got right? Certainly not common descent, except with strict though never stated limits. Certainly not natural selection to any very significant degree, as there hasn’t been time since the Flood for it to operate sufficiently. Coral reefs, ditto. Perhaps he agrees that earthworms are a major force in soil formation?
2 Likes