What are the core principles of ID?

Is this really all ID has to offer?

Probably.

they are not specific facts regarding how “design” actually occurs.

Agreed.

1 Like

OK, well thanks for clarifying tha.t

1 Like

You’re welcome.

“It’s not creationism”
“It’s not about God”

1 Like

ID, as a movement, argues that it is possible to “prove” that God made (or sometimes didnt make) an evolutionary jump possible by designing a mutation or SET of mutations.

Some ID folks add the requirement that there is no Common Ancestor between humans and the other primates because would ot want there to be commo ancestry.

“ID theory” wouldn’t have to be about creationism—but it so often is.

“ID theory” wouldn’t have to be about God—but it so often is.

In its purest form, ID investigation could be about determining if the scientific method can be used to unambiguously identify whether an intelligent agent was/is associated with some phenomenon or object. Yet, in actual fact that doesn’t seem to be a goal of most ID researchers.

Last time I checked, no archaeologists or geologists use “ID theory” to determine if something mysterious which they unearthed was produced by an intelligent agent or by natural processes. If ID “science” is so insightful, why hasn’t it led to accurate predictions of future discoveries and useful new analytical methods?

If I unearth a never before seen Object X, will ID theorists help me to determine whether it is the product of an intelligent agent?

In other words, why isn’t this worthy goal a core principle of ID?

3 Likes

Sounds like the intro to a Texas sharpshooter argument.

Of course it isn’t. Nor is design evidence against universal common descent. Yet you frequently claim that it is.

What does that mean?

1 Like

I was asking Dr. Harshman what HE thought.

So this is what Dr. Harshman thinks:

Sounds like the intro to a Texas sharpshooter argument.

I was hoping for a simple “yes” or “no”, but thanks for replying anyway.

It wasn’t a yes/no question.

1 Like

That explains why Behe overlooks so much compelling evidence…

No one can make it work as praxis, either.

It clearly isn’t. I think that they lack faith in what they are selling. Clearly, what they do is easier than working.

Because testing an ID hypothesis has the potential to falsify it.

As a scientist, the more excited I am about a new hypothesis, the more eager I am to test it.

Ironically, it boils down to a lack of faith.

3 Likes

Ok then. I’ll go for “yes”.

3 Likes

:stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

Sal tends not to think these things through.

There are some interesting teleological biases shared by ID/creationism and other fringe ideas and conspiracy theories. One of the more interesting things I hear Flat Earthers talk about is how a flat earth factors into their view of where humans fit into the universe. If the Earth is flat and sits inside a designed dome, made just for us, then this means we are special in some way. However, if the Earth is a globe, one globe of trillions in the universe, then we are somehow meaningless. This is offered as evidence for Flat Earth, ignoring the rather obvious Argument from Consequences. I see the same thing offered as part of ID/creationism, as if being a descendant from a common ancestor shared with other primates somehow makes us less important. Of course, this supposed problem is solved rather elogantly within theistic evolution, but ID/creationists seem to shy away from TE for some reason.

1 Like

I guess I didn’t ask, but now I will: If you found two coins on a table, both showing heads, and had no other information, could you determine if this was by chance or “design”?

1 Like

I don’t mean to pick on @stcordova; he is not the one who invented this arguement:

It’s the redefinition of evolution that kills this argument. All I need to show this is toss a jar of 500 coins in the air, pick up all the tails, put them back in the jar. I then repeat this process, tossing and collecting the tails about 10-11 times, and I will have all or nearly all heads remaining on the ground. I will have arrived at 500 reads by a random process plus selection, where selection is the important detail the 500 coins argument ignores.

To relate this to the topic, many ID claims depend on a fundamental misrepresentation of the question. A core principle of ID might be misunderstanding the real question.

Thank you for saying so.

5 Likes

You’re welcome.

I agree @stcordova, it is helpful when people are willing to “break ranks”, as it gives opportunity to clarify and make sense of what is really importnat.

Sometime, probably on another thread, I’d like to know why you think CSI is unworkable and how you came to that conclusion.