Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
Thanks for the reply.

ID is not theology, and ID theorists are not clairvoyant, so they can't say much, if anything, about the designer if they want to base the theory on scientific observations <insert Chris's objections here>. We recognize design; who or what the designer is may not be ascertainable by the scientific method.

I don't see why. If the design is sufficient to infer intelligence, then I don't see why one can't use the quality of the design to infer some things about the quality of the designer. If I land on a planet and find a highly complex weapon that causes great pain, I can infer something about the character of the entity that made that weapon. If I find a watch that runs inefficiently, I can certainly infer something about the capabilities of the watch designer.

If an intelligent designer created flagella, and that flagella is used by bacteria to more efficiently infect other creatures to cause disease, doesn't that tell me something about the character/nature of the designer? If the designer created humans and 50% of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort, doesn't that say something about the importance the designer places on the early embryo? Obviously I'm picking my examples to make my point, but I think it is a credible one. I don't think the religious right has considered all the possible consequences of this issue.

In short, I don't see why speculations on the nature of the designer based on things that are claimed to be designed would fall outside of ID theory or be out of bounds in any discussion of ID in classrooms. Afterall, scientists continue to speculate about the nature of the big bang.

Behe says many things may be designed, but without IC, you can't prove it scientifically.

I conclude then that Idists admit that there are only a small number of structures that can confidently be said to be intelligently designed.

Dembski describes a "universal probability bound" , where any probability less than 1 in 10 ^150 remains improbable, and a design inference is warranted.

Finally, some quantitation! I gather then that no design inference is warranted unless it can be demonstrated with some confidence that there is only 10^[-150] probability of a natural explanation.

I don't think science would be changed at all.

So ID theory is really only relevant to theologists and philosophers.

I asked: 4. How does one decide that enough research has been done on a phenomenon to declare that a natural explanation is impossible?

Bryan: Probably never will be a consensus on that. Look at cosmological models. There are die-hards for every proposed model that will not give up the ship no matter how many others abandon it.

You seem to be saying that there is no objective method to demonstrating the impossibility of a natural explanation. This would seem to be a problem with ID since the only method given to confirm ID (or any other supernatural event) is to demonstrate the impossibility of a natural explanation.
Print the post  

Announcements

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.
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
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.