What is wrong with intelligent design?

EurekAlert! ^ | 22-Feb-2007 | Suzanne Wu

[Boxen]

That's just a press release.

Here's the full-text of the article in question, "What is Wrong with Intelligent Design" by Elliot Sober, graciously hosted by the University of Wisconsin.

[Boxen]

As I'm sure PH would remark, let's try to keep it civil.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Everybody be nice! : )

[Sopater]

Bump for later...

[Coyoteman]

Bump for later...

Me too.

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

Thanks, Boxen.

This is a useful analysis, though it could just as well be titled "What's wrong with biological origins theories". One can forgive the author for the title and the emphasis, given the dominance of the religious consensus that governs biological origins theory today, and thus determines what makes it through the gauntlet of "peer review" into print.

What would make the discussion more interesting is if the evolutionist proponents could see themselves, and their "just so" stories about origins, in this analysis. I'm not waiting around for that, however. There are more productive ways to invest time.

[rickdylan]

An evolutionist is somebody who could open the hood of a car, look at the engine, and say to himself:

"Gee, isn't that a hell of a thing for all that aluminum, steel, porcelain and rubber and what not to have gotten blown into something that looks like that!!"

[ExtremeUnction]

Evolution happens.

[rawcatslyentist]

>"If a truly intelligent designer were responsible for the panda, Gould argues, it would have provided a more useful tool than the stubby proto-thumb that pandas use to laboriously strip bamboo in order to eat it."

Well what has god like genius Gould created?.....
Thought so!

[GSlob]

"What is wrong with intelligent design?"
Well. for the beginning the fact that its proponents seem to have been designed in a way that cannot be called particularly intelligent.

[unlearner]

"intelligent design: that it is unfalsifiable and that the many imperfect adaptations found in nature refute the hypothesis of intelligent design."

Good analysis. The problem is that both of these arguments are contradictory - something the article does not make as clear as it should.

It is inevitable that this debate enters the realm of the philosophy of science because it is not merely about what is correct or incorrect but what qualifies to be called "science".

One of the biggest philosophical problems introduced by evolution proponents is how the ToE is treated as an explanatory theory rather than a generalized theory.

Closer examination of these concepts leads to the realization that pure naturalism does not lend itself well to the formation of concepts with explanatory power. Everything just is because it is, for those who see the universe through this lens.

[voltaires_zit]

Does "ID" really compete with the Theory of Evolution?

Or does it more properly compete with other much less well developed "origins" theories like abiogenesis and panspermia?

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Intelligent Design can be used for a lot of things--even Macroevolution guided by God (as some Christian opine). Christians should be Creationists. Intelligent Design is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge umbrella term.

[highlander_UW]

The problem with intelligent design is that it posits a designer...and if there is a designer that powerful then we may not be the masters of our own destiny...this designer may expect something from us...and that is unacceptable to many of us.

[Rudder]

A third and valid criticism is that Intelligent Design has no empirical data to support it.

[aculeus]

Thanks for posting.

[festus]

As an intelligent design person myself there is thing I've never been able to explain.

Al Gore.

Seems to contradict the whole thing ;-)

[pillut48]

God knows!! :-)

[HoosierHawk]

Please, allow me to be the first.

Thank you. I've never had this opportunity before.