Chris:
>In a way, you are right. Because design theory, as such, makes *NO*
>implications about how the world must be, it can fit evolution,
>non-evolution, *any* imaginable facts, whether real or not. If we assume God
>or some other omnipotent or semi-omnipotent being, *anything* becomes easy.
>It no longer matters *at all* what the data is. As Stephen virtually admits,
>while twisting points I was making in my comparison table, design theory is
>not an empirical theory at all. It is a *philosophical* theory. Design
>theory is as devoid of content as was much of Freud's psychological
>theorizing. Just as Freud's theory was so foggy that nearly any imaginable
>empirical behavior of a human being could be "explained" in terms of
>Freudian theory (but, oddly, *not* predicted on the basis of it), design
>theory can "explain" any imaginable natural event (but, like Freudian
>theory, it can't *predict* any such events). Thus, evolutionary theory
>*predicts* that animal breeding will work, that it *has* to work, but
>designer theory does not even predict that there will be *any* change in
>organisms from four billion years ago until now, and it cannot *even*
>predict that animal breeding will *continue* to work in the future, as
>evolutionary theory does.
Bertvan:
Hi Chris, we agree "design" is a philosophical concept, and is probably no
more likely to be "proven" than "lack or design or purpose". Proponents of
design will continue to offer evidence of design in nature and materialists
will continue offer evidence of lack of purpose or design. I believe both
philosophies are important to a healthy science. They keep each other
honest---EXCEPT when one side gains power and is able to denounce another
philosophy as a "threat to science". I would leave science to the
scientists if no one were trying to specifically defining nature as
materialistic, a process without plan, purpose or design, and to impose that
concept upon everyone.
Bertvan