[extropy-chat] against ID

[gts]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:32:02 -0500, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:

> Now suppose ID/SD is formulated like: "I believe there is sufficient
> experimental evidence against Darwin´s hypothesis that random mutation
> and selection processes are sufficient to explain today's biology,
> therefore I think we should consider also other possible processes,
> including purposeful design by intelligent entities", it becomes a
> scientific statement.

I accept, along Popperian lines, that science is not only about evolution  
but also an example of it. A theory has value not because it is true, but  
because it solves problems of survival. If this is so then one might ask  
in what way ID/SD can solve any problems of survival.

ID amounts to the proposition "There are some things in biology that seem  
inexplicable. We don't understand how these things happen, therefore some  
intelligent alien or god must be responsible."

How does that idea do anything to further science? Seems more like a  
return of the "God of the gaps": if we don't understand something, we can  
always cut science class and blame our ignorance on God, just as we did  
before The Enlightenment.

The proponents of ID attempt to skirt the issue of separation of church  
and state by leaving open the possibility that some intelligent alien, not  
God, is the intelligent designer. They keep silent about the nature of the  
Intelligent Designer. But who are they really fooling?

-gts