Stratnerd>> Warren, Thank you for your thoughtful answer. My problem with pulling in the supernatural is that is seems to be done at times when we have difficulties explaining phenomena (e.g., how could the flagellum evolve?). So is ID just a substitute for ignorance or can you think of situations that are explained well by naturalists but could be better explained by ID?
I haven't spent too much time thinking about this but evolutionary scenarios (which I take as hypotheses) can be falsified. For example, I can hypothesize that birds evolved feathers. This can be falsified, and has been, by finding feathers in more ancestral lineages.
Does ID make any sort of hypotheses that can be falsified?<<
Stratnerd,
Your questions are based on a couple of incorrect assumptions. First of all, ID is an empirical theory and doesn't invoke the supernatural. ID posits that certain aspects of biotic reality are best explained by reference to an advanced form of bioengineering and nanotechnology that is not beyond the grasp of human reasoning. Thus, a designer/ designers need only possess human-like intelligence and human-like motivations.
Secondly, ID is not anti-evolution. ID is an alternative theory of evolution that is in opposition to the theory that all aspects of biotic reality are the result non-intelligent processes. This kind of evolution is often referred to as the blind watchmaker. A good definition of non-teleological evolution was provided by the National Association of Biology Teachers a few years ago. In it's first draft it said:
"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies, and changing environments."
The NABT definition of evolution has successfully drawn the line between a non-teleological and a teleological interpretation of natural history. Note that evolution is defined as "unsupervised, impersonal ... natural process." There is obviously no role for any intelligence to even guide an evolutionary process.
This NABT position on evolution is identical to the blind watchmaker hypothesis promoted by Richard Dawkins:
"The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up. No, on second thought I don't give up, because one of my aims in this book is to convey something of the sheer wonder of biological complexity to those whose eyes have not been opened to it. But having built up the mystery, my other aim is to remove it again by explaining the solution.....Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life....Natural selection has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.""[Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1987), ix.]
Now, here's the point. There is currently no way to DIRECTLY detect the existence of either a teleological or NON-teleological cause from ancient history. ID and blind watchmaking are in the same boat in regard to direct verification. The ID critic's positon seems to be that there is positive evidence for blind watchmaking therefore in order for ID to compete with blind watchmaking it needs to present proof. But this isn't the case. The best either side can do when investigating ancient natural history is to infer a cause indirectly to determine how well those inferences make sense of the data we have.
ID and blind watchmaking are both based on inferences, not proof. ID critics don't seem to understand that. That is why I often ask them what evidence would cause them to infer intelligent design. When you examine their responses it becomes obvious they will accept nothing less than absolute proof. But if we had proof of ID there would be no need to infer it! The ID critics are incapable of inferring design. On the other hand, they have no trouble inferring blind watchmaking from very meager evidence. Why the double standard?
So, evidence for ID shouldn't be evaluated in isolation, rather we should compare it with evidence for blind watchmaking. Darwin often argued to his correspondents, that the theory of common descent by natural selection had to be weighed COMPARATIVELY, "vis-a-vis its competitors."
So let's compare ID with blind watchmaking. Please reference any peer reviewed article that demonstrates that a non-teleological cause was behind the origin of life or the origin of molecular machines or the origin of the genetic code or the origin of mammals or the origin of feathers. Also , please tell us how blind watchmaking (i.e. non-teleological evolution) can be falsified.
