>
> Tom Moore wrote (summarizing his long post about ID):
>
> >It takes a great deal of evidence to demonstrate intentional design.
>
> Agreed. It takes a great deal of evidence to demonstrate ANYTHING
> of genuine moment in science.
>
> >Then it takes a great deal of evidence to demonstrate the particular
> >designer.
>
> Agreed. But how serious a problem is this, really?
extremely, see below
>
> "...the whole of natural theology, as some people seem to maintain,
> resolves itself into one simple, thought somewhat ambiguous, at least
> undefined, proposition, *That the cause or causes of order in the
> universe probably bear some remote analogy to human intelligence*..."
> (David Hume, _Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_, pt XII).
>
> At the end of the _Dialogues_, Hume consents to this attentuated
> statement of design, but says it "affords no inference that affects
> human life." In other words, design may be true, but it is empirically empty.
>
> Seen from an ID perspective, however, a bare generic intelligence
> may afford one a great deal indeed, scientifically speaking. Everything turns
> on how the ID theory cashes out that intelligence in relation to the phenomena
> to be explained. And that "cashing-out" cannot be pre-judged. One has
> to look at the ID theory in some detail, in particular, in relation to its
> competitors.
"bare generic intelligence?" What possible good is that? The reason I
said _extremely_ is because all your predictions you would have to base
on your "IDer." If you know nothing about a IDer, how do you expect to
predict anything of value at all? Gee, depending on the nature of the
IDer, it would predict the entire gambit of past, present, and future
hypotheses! Hmm, evolution - it's a prediction of IDer defined by
assumption A, PC - it's a prediction of IDer B, and on and on.
So, if you have a way to constrain all these assumptions, other than your
own religious beliefs, I'd be glad to listen.
>
> Tom concludes:
>
> >So, the question I asked, is it useful? If, and only if, there is any
> >chance of determining if it is design and who designed it in an objective
> >fashion. The alien hypothesis, at least, has the potential to meet these
> >criteria. ID, in the supernatural sense, does not.
>
> If ID "in the supernatural sense" is, in principle, empirically empty, then
> what was Darwin doing in the _Origin of Species_?
>
> "He who believes that each being has been created as we now see it,
> must occasionally have felt surprise when he has met with an animal
> having habits and structure not at all in agreement. What can be plainer
> than that the webbed feet of ducks and geese are formed for swimming?
> yet there are upland geese with webbed feet which rarely or never go
> near the water..." (_Origin of Species_ [1859, 185])
>
> Ernst Mayr, in his introduction to the 1964 facsimile reprint of the _Origin_,
> writes of this and many other sections in Darwin's "one long argument,"
> that Darwin
>
> was converted to his new ideas only after he had made
> numerous observations that were to him quite incompatible
> with creation. He felt strongly that he must establish this
> point decisively before his readers would be willing to listen
> to the evolutionary interpretation. Again and again, he
> describes phenomena that do not fit the creation theory.
>
> Darwin, to his everlasting credit, took the "ID theory" of his time seriously,
> and tested it. The theory came up short, but it *did* come up short. It was
> testable, and Darwin tested it. This simply cannot be done from a
> philosophical armchair, however.
>
It came up short in his text, but does anyone now give up their
acceptance of ID on reading this? Chances are they won't be impressed
with Darwin's assumptions regarding the nature of the designer (so, does
anyone think that an IDer would never do what Darwin observed?)
> Many current skeptics of ID want to shut down the theory before testing
> even commences. They'd like a philosophical shortcut to dumping ID.
> It can't be tested *in principle*, thus the argument runs, so don't even try.
>
> That's too easy (actually, too lazy). As Del points out in his book,
> there just aren't good philosophical shortcuts in science. You've
> got to get down and dirty with the theory at hand and the data, and,
> for that task, in-principle arguments about the "supernatural" and the
> putative limits of science won't do.
>
And it keeps getting shown over and over why appealing to the
"supernatural" is scientifically a waste of time. You've helped my
argument by quoting Darwin and asking why the designer makes a
difference. You have not even answered my original question - what are
the criteria for design? Now, you've helped me add, what are the
criteria to even define a prediction for ID?
> As with other ID skeptics on this list, Tom is 100 percent right to want more
> details. But he shouldn't in the same breath declare the theory inherently
> untestable.
>
I want more details so you can show me that _it is_ testable. That's the
whole point in my asking in the first place. Unfortunately, you haven't
satisfied me.
Tom