This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
So, what's the test that ID will someday run? This paper looks like it was written in 2003. Why the holdup on testing ID if the paper indicates how ID can be tested?
I don't support having ID as separate scientific theory. But to answer your question, Cal, I would say the testing has been ongoing for years and years. It's not being called ID theory testing, it's just regular everyday scientific testing. That everyday testing provided people like Meyer and Dembski the data they needed to argue for ID theory. As time goes on, the data will either strengthen the argument or it will weaken it - or it will force people to revise the theory to better fit the data. I don't see ID theory going away until the appearance of design disappears - and I don't see that ever happening.
I've read only about half of the paper but already there is a major error: evolutionary biology does indeed make predictions. Just one example is Neil Shubin used evolutionary biology and paleontology to predict where a certain type of previously undiscovered fossil would be found. This prediction led to the discovery of Tiktaalik. (Highly recommended is Dr. Shubin's _Your Inner Fish_). This is the power of a good explanatory theory: to tell you things that you don't already know.ID is not a good explanatory "theory". I put theory in quotes because I am unconvinced that ID merits the term.
"So, what's the test that ID will someday run? ""ID is not a good explanatory "theory". I put theory in quotes because I am unconvinced that ID merits the term."Both of which are very amusing things for a DarwinDefender to say.
Post a Comment