Darwinist
Out of context: Reply #411
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- flagellum0
hi mikotondria,
1. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn’t invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam’s razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.
2. On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism is effectively impossible. To do so one must show that no conceivable Darwinian pathway could have led to a given biological structure. What’s more, Darwinists are apt to retreat into the murk of historical contingency to shore up their theory. For instance, Allen Orr in his critique of Behe’s work shortly after Darwin’s Black Box appeared remarked, “We have no guarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway.” What he conceded with one hand, however, he was quick to retract with the other. He added, “But even if we can’t, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its gradual evolution.”
3. ID tells us very much about 1. origins: there was a designing intelligence. 2. Biochemistry: There exist Irreducibly Complex machines at the molecular level which Darwinian gradualism cannot account for. 3. Theology: ID tells us that the identity of the designer is a second order question that it cannot answer from the evidence. The designer could be space aliens or some nebulous telic "force", as much as it could be the Biblical God.
It is the fervency with with Darwinists try to prove that our's is a cold mechanistic universe which produced us in an accident, which demonstrates their fear that there may actually be a designing intelligence with whom they may need to be accountable to, one day. They would tell us that DaVinci's work was designed, but that DaVinci himself, was not. They would have us ignore the Anthropic Principle and the digital code in DNA and close our eyes tightly to a universe that screams design. They would have us believe that purely physical, non-telic processes produced that mind - that which is metaphysical and can love, hate, hurt, grieve and seems wire to ponder it's very existance. It would seem that the designing accident overshot it's target.
In short, NeoDarwinism is empty philosophy masquerading as science and it contains holes big enough to drive an intelligently designed truck through.