Replies

What an excellent post, betty boop! Well said.

Had they called this field something else -- anything else! -- it probably wouldn't be encountering all this irrational flak from "true believers."

I agree with you that the name "Intelligent Design" was an unfortunate choice of words. Of a truth, there is no distinguishable difference (IMHO) between Crick's theory of cosmic ancestry and Intelligent Design theory.

Another unfortunate choice of words, IMHO, was "irreducible complexity". If they had simply said "complexity" then all the arguments used for functional complexity and Kolmogorov complexity could be equally asserted. As it is, much of their time is consumed with defending a narrow definition while not being able to assert other types of complexity as illustrative of the points they seek to make.

The fact that Darwinism (at least neo-Darwinism) refuses to admit that there is any shortcoming in its theory whatsoever suggests to me that it has become a cult, in the strict meaning of that word.

Indeed. Seems to me that some "true believers" are brought kicking and screaming to acknowledging discoveries which either expose or help to close the gaps in the original theory. The central dogma of molecular biology and punctuated equilibrium evidently arrived with minor bumps compared to information theory and molecular biology, cellular automata, etc. which require giving up the notion of randomness as a driving force.

I have no problem wit intelligent design being a hypothesis. When it accumulates 50 years or so of supporting evidence then it might be called a theory.

Assuming it comes up with soe objective methodology for determining that something cannot occur through natural, regular processes.

You and I have been round and round on this. I have no problem with considering the possibility that existence is designed in order to bring about life. But that says nothing about the process or the history of life.