In the post Conservatives Against Intelligent Design, Indian Cowboy reveals the astounding ignorance of what ID proposes which is sadly so common among those who oppose it, especially those who do so because they consider it a "perversion of science".

I've looked at his prior posts and see nothing indicating depth where this issue is concerned. The rub with ID proponents isn't and has never been 'evolution', but the Darwinian inference those changes and ultimately life itself is a result of undirected mutations and chance. This is not provable by any experimental standard Indian Cowboy would consider good science. I'd challenge him and others to point me to the experiment designed to observe random and undirected mutations over vast time without any intelligence influencing the mutations!

From a blog entry I wrote a few months back:

When critics dismiss ID arguments out of hand as 'not Science', they attempt a pass on addressing the arguments that are being put forward for this theory.

If one were to study intelligence and come up with general rules or properties of intelligence, would critics consider that science? If they were then to apply those rules to observable and documented processes or structures in nature (for instance, the ATP synthase motor), is that science?

The fact is, critics do not know if the micro-evolutionary process of adaptation is built in (ie 'designed') or if it is part of a larger purposeless process. They start with the premise it must be the latter and circle around to prove their original premise.

NDE proponents do not know that natural processes account for the origin of life. That is simply a matter of their own faith! Got gaps? Natural selection or infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters eventually producing the works of the old Bard is the answer!

I'm wide open to science and believe in the scientific method and the rigor of review and critique. It is critical to a decent understanding of our physical world. But I also know that with humans, the philosophic framework by which we view the world around us informs our conclusions about that world. Naturalists deny this when they deny their faith in science to provide the answers and their faith that observable, quantifiable nature is the means to all ends of understanding.

The bottom line? Critics should practice a little more intellectual honesty with their own faith based narrative and acknowledge the science upon which the nascent ID movement draws the design inference.

Intelligent Design is more a modifyier of Evolutionary Theory (in all its forms), than a replacement. I know of few ID proponents who discount the mountains of science showing the earth and universe to be very old and living things to undergo change over that time.

Is anyone game for polite exchange on the topic? Help resurrect this old post on my forum and join in!

PS: Scrappleface brilliantly made the point several months back!

Name:

Email:

URL:

Remember me?
YesNo

Comments: