> Stephen Gooch wrote
> >
> >Paul,
> >
> >You are using ID as a tool were it is not needed. One does not need to consider
> >ID to observe that some feature has no function.
>
> I don't think that was Paul's point. I think he was intending to point out
> that ID provides predictions, and failed predictions provide puzzles that
> should stimulate research. That reasearh might overturn the theory, but it
> is wise to first look for modifications in the theory that might explain
> the anomaly, and then try to establish some confidence in those
> modifications through further investigation. After all, that's how
> advocates of evolutionary theory would respond to a claim that a fact fails
> to fit the current theory: that fact indicates that more research is
> required to understand why the theory seems to fail in this instance. In
> principle the theory could be overturned, but the initial efforts to
> resolve a puzzle should logically look for how the theory might need to be
> modified, rather than throwing it out and starting fresh.
Of course, the only way of modifying ID is to change the assumptions
regarding the IDer, which we have no evidence of existing in the first
place without one's personal religious views. There is significant
evidence that evolution occurred, whether people like the idea or not.
The goal of evolution is to get at the mechanism of evolution. This is
the opposite of ID, where the mechanism is assumed from the beginning.
Tom