Chris [
Rant Warning! Rant Warning! Rant Warning! Rant Warning!
Rant Warning! Rant Warning! Rant Warning! Rant Warning!
Rant Warning! Rant Warning! Rant Warning! Rant Warning!
Rant Warning! Rant Warning! Rant Warning! Rant Warning!
Rant Warning! Rant Warning! Rant Warning! Rant Warning!
Rant Warning! Rant Warning! Rant Warning! Rant Warning!
(It starts off mildly, but builds a moderate head of "rantness" by
the end.)
]
Huxter, that's because it's *religion*, not science. They *literally*
have no scientific theory, so all they *can* do is pick at
naturalistic evolutionary theory. But the joke is on them, because,
even if they are *successful* in refuting naturalistic
*evolutionary* theory, they *won't* have proved design
(intelligent or not -- and what would be *unintelligent* design?)
unless they can eliminate naturalistic alternatives altogether.
Stephen spends his days (seemingly) largely misrepresenting
evolutionary theory and evolutionists' views (see my posts on
Fred Hoyle and the "mathematics of evolution" (that is,
HOYLE'S theory of evolution!!!!) for the latest several of dozens
of examples -- though I grant that he's been less rabidly
misrepresentative lately than he was before Susan and I called him
on the dishonesty of such misrepresentations).
The big problem, as I said in an earlier post, is that ID theory has
*no* causal principle, no *mechanism* to make it explanatory. It
posits a cause, but no causal *principle*. Even if you believe that
naturalistic evolutionary theory is false, you have to grant that it
at least *tries* to make sense of the data. It offers an explanation
of *why* genetically more-complex organisms do not appear
until *after* simpler ones do. It offers an explanation of why the
offspring of organisms are not genetically identical to there
parent- organisms. It offers an explanation of why animal
breeding works (and even why, after a time, there is a slow-down
to further breeding along any one "dimension" until the rest of the
genome has a chance to adjust to and re-integrate with the
modified genes). And this all comes from *two* principles:
Variation and the need of the replicator to have characteristics
that enable it to survive in it's environment long enough to
reproduce sufficiently to perpetuate itself.
The causal principle of design theory would have to be a claim
about the designer's abilities and methods and purposes. That is, if
they posited that God sought to design things specifically so that
scientists in our time would come to think that naturalistic
evolutionary theory was *essentially* right, *then* they'd have
something. But not much, because then, if what the designer does
is the same as what is posited for *naturalistic* evolution, why
bother positing the designer? But there are other possibilities. The
designer could be not very bright (for a "Designer") and so needs
to *experiment* by occasionally poking his "finger" into genes
and then watching what then occurs naturally. Or, the designer
could be, despite the evidence against it, deliberately
*preventing* macroevolution (for what purpose, though?).
Without such a principle, and without a plausible basis for it, and
without a "package" of logically required implications that match
*many* of those of evolution, the whole thing is a kind of fraud.
Has *any* design theorist on this list *ever* proposed a testable
causal principle that *requires* their designer? Stephen is eager to
jump on evolutionary theory regarding falsification (in a way that
is *obviously* fallacious), but does he bother to present a
falsifiable principle for his *own* theory?
If he did, I missed it. When I presented some possibilities myself,
they were mostly *rejected* because they did not accord with
list-members' *particular* pet views as to how the designer was
supposed to behave (e.g., once, I suggested attempting to
measure statistical deviations from what would be expected by
the chemistry of genetics to see if there were any that were so
large as to be a statistically significant indicator of some outside
force, and this was effectively shouted down because (of course!),
either the particular designer people had in mind did not work this
way, or they simply did not *want* their theory tested).
I have a feeling we are going to wait one hell of a long time for
IDers in general to deal with *scientific* topics (*except*, of
course, when they can find a way to make it appear that some
aspect of naturalistic evolutionary theory is in trouble, whether
truthfully or not -- this is one of Stephen's favorite ploys). I think
that, if they *actually* had something, they'd have made a *big*
issue of it by now (does anyone think they'd be holding *back*
something like that?).
Scientific theories, like the process of evolution itself, are largely
selected on the basis of relative fitness. But, with respect to
evolution, the IDers have *no* competing scientific theory. They
have a competing (non-naturalistic) *philosophical* view, which
they try to spread by means of attacking naturalistic evolutionary
theory, without regard for truth in some cases.
*Until* they come up with at least *one* causal principle with
implied empirically observable facts, such that it *requires* the
designer, *and* that is not in obvious contradiction with
*known* observational facts, the whole "program" is largely less
than fully honest (though some may in fact *believe* that their
Designer exists, and they may even be honest in some of their
criticisms of naturalistic evolutionary theory).
Why do I say this? Because they *KNOW* that they do not have
an empirically testable theory, they *KNOW* that this is
*required* for empirical science (because we are dealing with
*empirical* questions, with things that happen in the physical
world, *that's* why). I'd bet that some of them even know that
they do not even have the *beginnings* of a scientific theory.
And yet, some have the *gall* to pretend that their *absolute*
lack of scientific theory is the result of lack of funding, rejection
by the scientific establishment, and the dominance of evolutionary
theory in the school system. (if this last is true, why is it that
almost *none* of today's high-school graduates have an
understanding of how naturalistic evolution is supposed to work
-- why are they almost *always* even *more* ignorant of actual
evolutionary theory than some of the more devotedly ignorant
members of this list!!!!?????).