On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:46:37 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 21-4-2011 7:06, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:26:31 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>>> And what is the hypothesis? That a particular protein didn't evolve?
>>>> Or that some intelligence actually created that protein?
>>>
>>> That there are proteins (etc.) that didn't evolve by natural
>>> selection. Or even weaker that their presence is easier explained by
>>> design than as a result of natural selection. (hijacking Occam's
>>> razor).
>>
>> No, that's not correct.  Just because something can't be explained by
>> evolution (assuming it were found) doesn't mean ID is how it occurred.
> 
> In it's purest form ID does not give an explanation what did happen if
> it wasn't evolution.

Um, ID (by its very name) does attempt to explain what happened. "God did 
it".

>> What it means is we don't understand the process by which it occurred.
> 
> yes
> 
>> Leaping to the conclusion that it's ID because it isn't evolution is a
>> poor application of Occam's razor (at best) and lazy rationalization
>> (at worst).
> 
> See above. you are again assuming you know what the alternative should
> be. That almost everybody publicly defending ID shares your assumption,
> indeed moves them into the camp of easily proven to be non-scientific.
> My whole point in defending that ID in the form stated above can be a
> scientific hypothesis is that you have to forget about all the people
> that claim God did it.

No, I'm not assuming what the alternative would be.  There's a difference 
between "God did it" (or more precisely "An intelligent being created us 
out of nothing") and "I don't know."

That's what I mean by "it's ID" is lazy - whenever humans have reached 
the limits of their current understanding, the default answer for some is 
"God did it".  Then later, someone discovers, "Wait, it wasn't God, it 
was a natural process that we can now explain."

Jim

Post a reply to this message