Comment Re:Intelligent Design (Score 1) 3451
I'm going to be away from my computer for a long weekend while I attend a wedding near DC, but I didn't want you to be left wondering why I haven't replied. I'll say one thing that immediately popped to mind when reading your latest.
Reg 4) I think you understand what I was trying to say about rate of change, acceptance of change, etc. You put it very elegantly. Where I want to comment in this short note is Instead, there must be some guiding force, whose methods are inexplicable in principle (because they are un-natural, or supernatural).
Why limit the force/deity to a role as a guide? Maybe that isn't what you intended to mean, but I think ID is more apt to say complex system were designed as a whole by the force/diety, rather than tinkering with a natural process to achieve a particular result.
Your definition of theory sounds a lot like "hypothesis". And your basic outline would be very proposable, if we knew all of the givens. With (A), I am aware that there is ample science about observed rate of mutations. Whether this rate has been constant throughout biological history is unverifyable. If you look to the fossil record for evidence of the consistancy in the rate of mutation, you err in accepting what you are trying to prove. (covered that ground already, that's bad!) With (B) I am not aware of a method by which we can measure this rate even in the current world. It simply takes too many generations for even the fruit fly to yield an answer, and that wouldn't be in a natural environment. With (C) there might be some good measurements (I'm not sure) along with a model to go along with it, but I'm sure there are variables for which we do not know past values, like rate-of-events that divide a population.
Without this data, a hypothesis like the one you began is hard to come by, and perhaps there is where ID fails for you, it doesn't provide this hypothesis that is testable. But I would argue that it doesn't make it any less of a theory, when you view a theory as a model, like I do. When Darwin proposed evolution, did he have rate of speciation, rate of mutation evidence? I confess that I have not read "Origin of the Species," but I doubt he did. He probably proposed a model to explain anomalies in the model of his day, and it was labeled a theory, right?
What started out short has turned out longer than intended. I shall comment more thoroughly after I return, as there is always lots to talk about, and I do have a lot more to say.
Just wanted to say how much I do sincerely appreciate your assistance in refining my ID arguments. It is a good intellectual persuit after a long day of programming. Hope this evening finds you well..
Reg 4) I think you understand what I was trying to say about rate of change, acceptance of change, etc. You put it very elegantly. Where I want to comment in this short note is Instead, there must be some guiding force, whose methods are inexplicable in principle (because they are un-natural, or supernatural).
Why limit the force/deity to a role as a guide? Maybe that isn't what you intended to mean, but I think ID is more apt to say complex system were designed as a whole by the force/diety, rather than tinkering with a natural process to achieve a particular result.
Your definition of theory sounds a lot like "hypothesis". And your basic outline would be very proposable, if we knew all of the givens. With (A), I am aware that there is ample science about observed rate of mutations. Whether this rate has been constant throughout biological history is unverifyable. If you look to the fossil record for evidence of the consistancy in the rate of mutation, you err in accepting what you are trying to prove. (covered that ground already, that's bad!) With (B) I am not aware of a method by which we can measure this rate even in the current world. It simply takes too many generations for even the fruit fly to yield an answer, and that wouldn't be in a natural environment. With (C) there might be some good measurements (I'm not sure) along with a model to go along with it, but I'm sure there are variables for which we do not know past values, like rate-of-events that divide a population.
Without this data, a hypothesis like the one you began is hard to come by, and perhaps there is where ID fails for you, it doesn't provide this hypothesis that is testable. But I would argue that it doesn't make it any less of a theory, when you view a theory as a model, like I do. When Darwin proposed evolution, did he have rate of speciation, rate of mutation evidence? I confess that I have not read "Origin of the Species," but I doubt he did. He probably proposed a model to explain anomalies in the model of his day, and it was labeled a theory, right?
What started out short has turned out longer than intended. I shall comment more thoroughly after I return, as there is always lots to talk about, and I do have a lot more to say.
Just wanted to say how much I do sincerely appreciate your assistance in refining my ID arguments. It is a good intellectual persuit after a long day of programming. Hope this evening finds you well..
