I assume you are talking to me here ? I am refering to Stephen's "intelligent design" comment. With predictive power I refer to the hypothesis of 'intelligent design'. What predictive power does this hypothesis have ? The theory of Evolution has been used to predict. So can we make the 'intelligent design' hypothesis 'scientific'
>Stephen: But so blinded is Gould by his materialistic-naturalistic
metaphysical assumptions that it escapes his notice that built-in capacity for the
future is the mark of far-sighted *intelligent design* not a blind watchmaker. >>
I wrote:
>Is it ? The arguments are both quite convincing, only with the added
problem of requiring an intelligent design. Absent any evidence one might
wonder why one has to invoke such 'intelligent design' ? After all, after
the fact one can always invoke such argument with little predicting power.
>
>As a scientific explanation, intelligent design loses on many fronts. But
it does make for an imaginative explanation though.
>