The anti-ID community has been very scathing about whether Intelligent Design is actually a theory, or whether it makes any testable assertions, or whether it has published any papers. This article, on the ID - The Future blogsite, is a useful antidote.
Incidentally, it now has at least three theories to my knowledge - Specified Complexity, Irreducible Complexity and the Privileged Planet.
Thanks for the comment. Good points.
ReplyDeleteI think the distinction between theistic evolution and ID is that ID chooses to remain agnostic about timescales and mechanisms. What ID is saying is that evolution without external input is not sufficient to be an engine of evolution - but that we don't know what the input that is required would look like. In particular, the explosion of body plans in the Cambrian era doesn't appear to correspond to an evolutionary development.
With regard to whether there is a theory, the author later says (which is what I was getting at): "Only with the publication of books such as Darwin's Black Box (1996) or The Design Inference (1998) do hints of a positive theory of design begin to emerge."
None of the three examples are scientific theories of design really. IC is merely an argument that certain systems cannot be explained by direct Darwinian pathways. The latest version of IC is even more watered down. The conclusion, thus designed is one based on ignorance not a positive theory.
ReplyDeleteprivileged planet is similarly flawed, but does not even eliminate regularities as explanations. CSI is the argument that our ignorance should lead us to conclude design without any positive theory of design.
Let's not confuse theories with releigious faith now shall we?