Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
5
11
15
14
12
8
11
9
7
7
10
8
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology
So where are the calculations
-- Jay --
Intelligent design (ID) has scientific merit in paleontology because in many instances, it can be applied to the fossil record to detect where design has occurred in the history of life by finding the rapid introduction of large amounts of complex and specified information (CSI).(2) (CSI was described in greater detail in my first opening statement.)
---
First of all, no such calculations have ever been applied so it is at best a promissory note. Worse, CSI is not even a reliable detector of 'design' as it cannot preclude natural processes. Worse of course is that even if CSI could be calculated, it would have no relevance as it provides us with no explanations, no mechanisms, nothing. At best, a minor mystery for science to unravel.
What is fascinating to me is how Jay continues to quote mine Darwin and misrepresent the science when it comes for instance to intermediates. Worse, he continues a fine tradition of quote mining Gould. And then he claims that Gould somehow changed his position. While rhetorically understandable, I find it hard to understand why such arguments are made since they not only are trivially shown to be wrong or misleading. But lacking science of their own, what other choices are there for ID proponents?
Now it can be at least partially excused by observing that Jay is not a biologist and thus he may have failed to appreciate Gould's statements which are not contradictory. According to the DI's website, Richard is
--
Jay Wesley Richards has a Ph.D.(honors) in philosophy and theology from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he was formerly a Teaching Fellow.
--
I am sure that his theological backgrounds have found a good home with the center of Intelligent Design, the Discovery Institute. One may ask oneself what theology and philosophy have to contribute to the scientific status of ID. On the other hand, given that ID is scientifically without content, the theological angle may be more promising? Of course, even there ID has countered much opposition from Christians.
But perhaps Jay can help us understand how ID explains these observations? Was a God involved in all these species transitionals, although he was less involved in transitions between higher groups? How was such achieved? Why are species still following the expected nested hierarchies? Is the creator restricted in how he can create? Surely such questions seem perhaps more appropriate for a theology PhD to address?
- PvM
September 10, 2008 10:11PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gould quote mines
---
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
----
Part of the extensive resources at Talkorigins, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html
More after I do some more research, it's time to reject these arguments once and for all because they add no credibility to ID and they serve to do a disservice to these scientists.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 10:16PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.