Wednesday, September 14, 2005
NCSE on Wells
This is the response from the National Center on Science Education to Wells' Icons of Evolution. It looks reasonable on the face of things. Can anyone provide a response on Wells' behalf?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't understand the demand for independant research. The point seems to be that current conclusions of research already done is skewed by naturalistic presuppositions. It seems that ID can advance by suggesting alternative interpretations of the existing research. Similarities in genetic code or biologic mechanisms may be interpreted as evidence of common ancestry or evidence of a common designer. The research at hand is open to interpretations in either direction. And woe be to the research assistant who interprets contrary to the established evolutionary dogma.
Ahab,
I don't think you have to determine identity or motivation in the designer. That may be something you pursue after you find indications that a designer exists. You don't need motive and description of a suspect to determine that the cause of death is likely a homicide. But you will need it for a conviction of the perpetrator. I think ID at this point wants to make the point that the evidence seems to indicate that the "death" is not best explained by natural causes.
Either common designer or common ancestry can adequately explain similarites and differences in the genetic code. The existence of differences also fits either model. The point I am suggesting is that intellegent design may stand as an interpretive model to redirect the extended conclusions of existing research.
Where I object to evolution theory is not in the facts it observes but in the ontological interpretations that are not supported by the facts.
For example, some organs of the human body are defined in evolutionary theory as vestigial organs like the appendix and coccyx. "Vestigial refers to an organ or part (for example, the human appendix) which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional. " Dictionary.com
There is no room in the definition to consider that the source of the organ could be common design. There is nothing in the facts of the existence of the organs that is evidence either for an evolutionary or common design cause. The onotological assumption within the definition is that the essential nature and origin of man is linked to other vertibrates. If you consider common design as an equally viable interpretation of the data, you can't even use the term, vestigial because it assumes so much.
Post a Comment