SE: But Dembski points out that ID would be compatible with "the most far-
ranging evolution" because "an evolutionary process can exhibit such
`marks of intelligence' as much as any act of special creation."
So my question again to ID'ers is that if ID can detect design but cannot
exclude "the most far ranging evolution" because en evolutionary process can
exhibit marks of intelligence then what does ID have to offer that science
presently does not offer?
SE also wrote that:
If design is empirically detected it will be public property. *All* religions
and philosophies which claim there is design would find it confirmatory of
*their* position, including Christianity as only one among many.
So design can confirm all positions from evolution to religion alike. But
then ID has no explanatory power at all? People already 'detect design'
through their faith and ID changes nothing about the interpretation of this
"design".
SE seems to contradict himself when he claims:
Only those scientific philosophies which deny design (e.g. materialism,
Darwinism, etc) would find the empirical detection of design
disconfirmatory.
Are you now using the same definition of design Steve? And what is the value
of an empirical test for design when design can include all faith, religions
and science? It's clear that the main strength of ID, removing the designer
from design has also become its main weakness since design can point to a
large variety of designers, even natural forces. ID has become an empty shell
as has the meaning of the term design and designer.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 10 2000 - 13:58:25 EDT