><snip>
>
>RW>That depends on the definition of ID (which we're still waiting for).
SJ
>Well wait no longer! Here is a "definition of ID" from Dembski that is easily
>accessible on the web.
>
> "ID is the scientific claim that there is evidence of intelligent
> causation in the biological nature that is empirically detectable.
> What is science going to look like once Intelligent Design
> succeeds? To answer this question we need to be clear what we
> mean by Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is not repackaged
> creationism, nor religion masquerading as science. Intelligent
> Design holds that intelligent causation is an irreducible feature of
> the bio-physical universe, and furthermore that intelligent
> causation
> is empirically detectable. It is unexceptionable that intelligent
> causes
> can do things which unintelligent causes cannot. Intelligent Design
> provides a method for distinguishing between intelligent and
> unintelligent causes, and then applies this method to the special
> sciences." (Dembski W.A., "The Explanatory Filter: A three-part
> filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from
> intelligent design," The Real Issue, 16 May 1997.
> http://www.origins.org/real/r19602/dembski.html)
Chris
Dembski claims that ID is not creationism, but does not specify how it
significantly *differs* from creationism. In fact, the description he gives
looks like a description of creationism, with a few items left out, such as
the six-day thing, etc.
It *is* unexceptional (with some qualifications or exceptions! :-) )
"that intelligent causes can do things which unintelligent causes cannot,"
and that's actually a good way of approaching the issue. The problem is
that life as such and life in Nature exhibits nary a single *one* of those
things "that intelligent causes can do things which unintelligent causes
cannot." Further, there is a lot that intelligent causes can do that
unintelligent causes can *also* do, but in different ways. ID won't become
science until it either finds at least one such fact that intelligent
causes can do but which unintelligent causes cannot or starts specifying
design principles that the designer is supposed to be using, such design
principles well enough defined that they have *testable* implications.
Given the fuzz around the edge of what unintelligent causes can do and the
lack of testability, ID may not be technically religion, but it might as
well be, for all the *science* it is.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 20 2000 - 09:13:19 EDT