>Quick response, i will address the full posting later.
>Behe's ID and that of others suggests time after time that
>ID shows evidence of a design and a (supernatural) designer.
>If the argument of ID is that the use of metaphorical language
>can help us describe and understand science better then that's
>fine with me. But I don't think that too many ID'ers would
>appreciate that conclusion.
I am not making "the argument of ID." Thus, what many
ID'ers appreciate is not relevant to my points.
As for metaphorical language, you beg the question in
assuming it *is* metaphorical language. If you have
any evidence that this language is nothing more than
the use of metaphors, let's hear it.
>However is such a use of metaphorical language evidence of
>design ? Of course not.
If one sets the argument up by begging the question in
assuming the language is only metaphorical, then yes,
you're probably right. But I have no reason to approach
this topic by sharing in your assumptions about the world.
Here's how it is. Biology has been so successful because
it has drawn extensively on the language and concepts
from intelligent design. Reread the abstracts Steven posted.
You'll notice just how indebted this research has been
to both ID language and concepts. Thus, this *is* science
guided by ID (and NOT the blind watchmaker). [And
BTW, science is getting more and more "ID" everyday.
But a truly ID scientific approach would involve little
more than a slight nudge, where what you consider
as metaphors are simply reinterpreted more literally.]
Why do I consider this evidence of ID? Because if life
owes its origin to intelligent design, we would *expect*
that an approach guided by intelligent design concepts
and language would successfully deconstruct life in
order to figure it out. In other words, an ID origin
*implies* biology would be so dependent on ID
concepts and language. Thus, we find the very thing
implied/predicted by an ID origin. And to me, this
is yet another line of positive evidence for an ID origin.
If you have any argument which clearly shows this
is not positive evidence for ID, I'd be interested.
But remember that explaining why you are not
convinced of ID is not showing this is not positive
evidence.
What's more, an origin explanation that does not
invoke intelligent intervention does not clearly imply
ID language and concepts would be so important in
biological understanding. Physicists, chemists,
geologists, astronomers, etc. don't need it. Thus,
while the importance of ID concepts and language
follows from an ID origins behind life, it does not
follow from a non-design origins.
Finally, since I have not the foggiest notion what you
would accept as evidence of design, I assign (rightly
or wrongly) your "no evidence" claims to the meaningless
category. But judging from your language and positions
thus far, I suspect that evidence you demand is simply
a disguised demand for something that approachs absolute
certainty.
>The reason I am so skeptic of ID is the (ab)use of it to
>pretend the existence of evidence (i.e. data observable to us and
>quantifiable) of supernatural design in nature.
Your subjective opinions on these matters are noted.
I suspect you have such an axe to grind against ID
that you can't help but think those who disagree with
you "pretend the existence of evidence."
I reasons why I am not so skeptical of ID are many.
First, and most importantly, ID works. Secondly,
I don't see any good evidence indicating ID is
false; ID is simply ignored by most people. Thirdly,
with regards to certain biological phenomena,
I find non-ID origin explanations to be quite weak,
ad hoc, and quite dependent on those ground rules
that exclude ID. ID looks like a better explanation
to me. At least that's how I see it. If you don't agree,
well, so be it - it really doesn't matter.
Mike