No. of Recommendations: 4
Changes show the issue is not settled, thus deserving of a little less dogmatism from the supporters of whatever theory is the current consensus.

Kind of ironic that a supporter of the Discovery Institute should be complaining about dogmatism. But keep in mind, the fact that evolutionary thinking is continuously changing indicates that you might be exaggerating the dogmatism issue. Give a good scientific argument and the field changes. Lots of debates on evolution going on. For example:

And it is becoming more and more scientific as time goes on. Research has been done and published, and they continue to seek funds for more.

Research and funding in areas tangential to ID doesn't make ID scientific. The central tenet of ID is that something was created by an unknown intelligence of unknown origin of unknown abilities using unknown methods. That is hardly a testable hypothesis and it doesn't explain anything. If I claimed that Hurricane Katrina was caused by "an unknown intelligence of unknown origin of unknown abilities using unknown methods" how would you prove me wrong? How is that science? Yet that is exactly the conclusion you and other IDists propose for the origin of flagella.

If ID research shows that it is practically impossible for Darwinian mechanisms to create the new structures necessary for large changes to occur, then that impacts everything in evolution, humans included.

And if pigs could fly I wouldn't need to fertilize my lawn as much. But showing the limitations of Darwinian mechanisms doesn't make ID more plausible any more than proving Ebola is not caused by a virus would make witchcraft a more likely explanation. In fact, the limitations of Darwinian mechanisms were recognized a century ago without increasing the plausibility of IDism. Evolutionary theory has evolved to include genetic drift, epigenesis, epistasis, horizontal gene transfer, symbiosis, complexity theory, among many others.

There is a group who would like to replace the current "modern synthesis" with something called "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" that is consistent with classical Darwinism but incorporates some new scientific disciplines. This is an example of what happens when limitations in any scientific theory are hypotheses involving other naturalistic processes are proposed. Science will always keep looking for explanations consistent with and limited by the laws of physics. That includes intelligent design if the designer is assumed to be part of the natural universe and there are testable predictions(see the SETI project or what any anthropologist, archeologist, or police detective does). ID doesn't come close to meeting those criteria.
Print the post  


What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.