Re: Developing a focused set of questions for IDists - Comments encouraged


Desertphile wrote:
noctiluca wrote:

Some of ID's brightest bulbs will be convening for a session at Biola
Univ. in L.A. wherein they will lay themselves open to their harshest
critics asking the tough questions. More on this here -
http://www.biola.edu/cal/cal_detail.cfm?e=222.

As I have been indolently accumulating a list of such questions I
thought this would be a good time to try and polish them up by kicking
them around here. What I'm looking for is comment on the phrasing,
fairness, inherent flaws in, possible answers to, these questions. The
point in asking questions like these is obviously to try to reveal an
actual flaw or contradiction in ID reasoning, but I have to accept that
there may be unfair assumptions built into the questions that I have
missed. If you see a problem please don't hesitate to point it out.

All of the questions will be posted at my blog -
http://www.litcandle.blogspot.com/ (comments there are welcome as well)
but I thought it might be best to deal with these one at a time here.

And so, off we go with the first question,

1. For those who suggest "common design" as a reasonable
explanation for common descent - hypothesize a biological datum that
would falsify "common design." Regarding this datum, please explain
how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a
fashion.

Some questions I would like to see ID proponants answer:

o) What tests have you applied to your ID hypothesis to prove it false?

It could be given evidence by finding hidden messages or images inside
of DNA. (Not a Christian doctrine, but not outside of "pure" ID.)

As far as falsifying it, even evolution by natural selection cannot be
universally falsified. Showing that evo did not happen in a particular
spot or planet does not prove that it cannot happen ever anywhere.
Thus, evo is not universally falsifiable, so why should ID be held to a
higher standard?


o) How does ID differ, if it does, from the "watchmaker" hypothesis?

o) If a bacterium's flagella require designers, why would those
designers not require designers?

This depends on the scope of ID. Does it try to explain the formation
of intelligence on earth, or intelligence in general?

One could propose that out of a jillion universes, a smart robot just
happened to come together by shear bulk of probability, found a way to
travel among universes, and created life on earth for the hell of it.

Or, that the creator travelled back in time to create themselves. This
possibility has not been scientifically ruled out.


o) Most of the many questions that ID raises are almost always answered
by ID proponants with "We don't know yet; that needs more research."
What steps has the ID proponant community put in place to answer those
questions?

o) Why is nearly 100% of DI proponant's efforts been spent in the
political arena and in the funding arena, instead of in the scientific
arena?

Truth is not inherarently tied to lobbying money. Features of the
universe do not turn themselves on or off based on the whims, fancies,
or efforts of humans. Thus, it is an irrelavent question. Saying that X
is false because X supporters lobby a lot is bad science. Would
relatively turn false if a billionare paid for pro-relativity lobbying?
This is stranger than Shroedinger's Cat. Something is not true nor
false until lobbying money is spent?

-T-

.