Replies

The ID hypothesis does not stipulate whether the "intelligent cause" is a phenomenon (emergent or fractal) or an agent (God, collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc.) - much less a specific phenomenon or agent.

Interesting point--but it's actually quite a massive leap from 'intelligence' to 'intelligent cause'--and its one for philosophy or theology, not science.

Basic epistemology (the 'how do we know what we know') is a great topic for Philosophy 101. And basic scientific methodology (which is epistemologically grounded) is an absolute staple of Science 101. So--what does ID actually bring to the table in the science classroom? Nothing of value, I'm afraid, other than an object lesson on what science does not resemble.

Thank you for your reply!

Interesting point--but it's actually quite a massive leap from 'intelligence' to 'intelligent cause'--and its one for philosophy or theology, not science.

On this we shall have to disagree - though certainly much of the investigation wrt autonomy, decision processes and communications are more directly seen as "information theory" - a branch of mathematics. Nevertheless, mathematics and physics are like mirror images of one another ("the unreasonable effectiveness of math" - Wigner, Vafa, etc.)

Concerning the epistemology - there is considerable "poaching" on either side of the divide. In that regard, I agree with betty boop that Niels Bohr had the right solution:

“It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature…. Our task is not to penetrate into the essence of things, the meaning of which we don’t know anyway, but rather to develop concepts which allow us to talk in a productive way about phenomena in nature.”

Nevertheless, as long as the Dawkins, Pinkers, Singers and Lewontins continue to "poach" then science ought not protest when the theologians and philosophers return the favor.

A parable: "when you complain about farmers, don't speak with your mouth full".