My beef with the versions proposed of ID is that it doesn't produce a falsifiable theory. This is also a beef I have with many versions of Darwinism (both neo- and classical), including all the universally explanatory versions that occur in atheistic polemics. Sir Karl Popper was correct both in his dismissal of Darwinism as a "metaphysical research program" rather than a scientific theory, and in his subtly worded "recantation" of that position: that it could be reformulated as a falsifiable theory [in specific instances]. I feel the same way about ID being a metaphysical research program, and very much wish that its advocates could reformulate it as a falsifiable theory in specific instances, since as I pointed out, I am sympathetic to ID -- such a reformulation needs to begin with a scientific theory of intelligence. There is one on offer in the work of Marcus Hutter (who works on AI and for all I know doesn't care a whit about the "crevo" debate) on maximal intelligent agents, but applying it leads to my position that neo-Darwinism implies intelligent design: it is fairly easy to argue that the biosphere itself, as conceived by the neo-Darwinian synthesis, fits the Hutterian definition of an intelligent agent.
The problem that genetic programming reveals with critiques of Darwinism is that the critiques try to show that the mechanism -- stochastic variation and selection -- can't produce novel complex functional structures (novel in the sense of having functionality no precursor structure had). You are right to note that this is done by showing that in a cleverly designed environment a Darwinian mechanism of stochastic variation and selection produces novel functional structures meeting some criterion (the criterion in nature is producing more approximate copies over a long period of time, or as the Scriptures put it in the case of plants "bring forth seed according to their kinds" -- the criterion in genetic programming might be picking winners on the stock market). Thus, at the level of philosophical debate, genetic algorithms actually support the existence of a intelligent creator, since the only place we know a Darwinian mechanism produces novel complex results is in a cleverly designed context, and provide no aid or comfort at all to atheist polemicists however much they might fancy it does, except in as much as it overthrows any attempt to argue the contrary position on the basis of specific features needing to be directly designed (which is what ID folk seem to want to argue).
The point of my critique of the debate was not that either position in the debate is per se stupid, but that the contradictions between theistic creation and neo-Darwinism both sides harp on are based on false assumptions. (Much though I might wish the Scriptures said "He who says in his heart there is no God is a fool," they don't say that, they say "The fool says in his heart there is no God," so I won't even attribute stupidity to the atheist polemicists, even though they are wrong.)
If one wants to believe on the basis of reading the Scriptures -- ignoring the views of the Fathers of the Church that "It matters not whether you say 'day' or 'aeon' the thought is the same" (St. Basil the Great); that the first two chapters of Genesis are "doctrine in the guise of a narrative" (St. Gregory of Nyssa); or that they cannot be literally true (Blessed Augustine of Hippo); ignoring the fact the Hebrew word Englished as "day" is ambiguous in denotation; ignoring the fact that rabbinic commentators hold that only the first sentence of Genesis actually describes creation -- that the universe is a prepared system about six thousand years old, that the preparation of the system took 144 hours, and that retrodiction by the laws of physics further back than that produces an illusory history, there is nothing stupid per se about that as a philosophical position. It is not, however, a scientific position, as it is not falsifiable: no conceivable experiment or observation could show that the universe is not a prepared system, or show that any details of an account of its preparation are false.
As the main point of this thread is ID, as to your other point on the origin of death, I will not go on at length, but refer you again to Kalomiros's The Six Dawns, who does a much better job of dealing with the matter than I (hardly surprising, he being the best Greek Orthodox lay theologian in recent years).
thanks for the reply Dave- I’ll get to this tonight- probably be pretty late- aroudn 1 am or so
but briefly, I’ll just quickly touch on this statemnt [[My beef with the versions proposed of ID is that it doesn’t produce a falsifiable theory.]]
Actually intelligent design is falsifiable- whereas macroevoltuion hypothesis is not- Microevoltuion is another story- it certainly is falsifiable- quite a number of macroevoltuion advocating scientists have proposed scientific arguments aimed at falsifying ID- like behesaysd- one can’t have it both ways- evoltuion advocating scientists claim there is evidence agaisnt ID, but then turn aroudn and cvlaim it is unfalsifiable- that truly is a case of havign your cake and eatign it too-
If you are goign to claim that ID isn’t falsifiable, then you are goign to have to admit hte same for macroevoltuion (again- natural selection is indeed falsifiable and has been proven to be a fact- macroevoltuion on the other hand is a whole diffrerent animal)
As Behe points out correctly (and has been proven by the cosntantly movign goalpoasts that macroevoltuion advocating scientists keep advancing)
“Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes? (Professor Coyne’s remarks about a Precambrian fossil hominid are irrelevant since I dispute the mechanism of natural selection, not common descent. I would no more expect to find a fossil hominid out of sequence than he would.) If a scientist went into the laboratory and grew a flagellum-less bacterial species under selective pressure for many generations and nothing much happened, would Darwinists be convinced that natural selection is incapable of producing a flagellum? I doubt it. It could always be claimed that the selective pressure wasn’t the right one, or that we started with the wrong bacterial species, and so on.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe06.asp
The quote from the article above is a fascinating article as a whole as well which basically states that of course ID is falsifiable- you can establish a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ conclusion that will show a designer was needed- As Behe points out SETI is a search for evidence of intelligence, and is a falsifiable hypothsis’ that there is itnellgience soemwhere ‘out there’ that is capable of comunicating it’;s intellgience to us in the form of cumincation- they are looking for jkey markers that indicate intellgience which owudkl seperate intelligent comunication, or intelligent noise, from unintelligent background noise- (and as Behe correctly points out again- these governemnt fudned scientists are ‘appealign to design’ despite never havign experienced that design from an alien source personally. Even though there hasn’t been (to ur knowledge) evidence of intelligent alien noise, to say simply that ‘it isn’t science because it hasn’t been proven yet’ isn’t how science works as we’ve seen fro mthe federally funded govenrment program looking for intelligent alien noise-
[[As the main point of this thread is ID, as to your other point on the origin of death, I will not go on at length, but refer you again to Kalomiros’s The Six Dawns, who does a much better job of dealing with the matter than I (hardly surprising, he being the best Greek Orthodox lay theologian in recent years).]]
In a seperate post- please give an outline of his explaination for hte problem of death BEFORE the fall of man- I’m bettign it’s a deconstruction of God’s word to make it fit an a priori beleif that life evovled fro mnon life, but I’ll await your synopsis if you’ll be so kind-