22
Feb
09

ID not a theory

Why is something called a theory? Primarily, it is a well substantiated explanation. I have, as yet, seen absolutely no substantiation for intelligent design. What would it explain? The existence of organisms magically appearing, well, that’s also something we haven’t observed. We must rely upon the observations we have to model an explanation. Lacking observations of phenomenon which cannot be explained with modern, substantiated theories, and barring evidence for the substantiation of a new theory, the formal structuring of a cdesign model is unjustified. On top of that, we have all the evidence of unintelligent design: vertebrate eye blind spots, thymine dimers, cytosine deamination, etc.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “ID not a theory”


  1. 1 Colloquy
    February 22, 2009 at 2:08 pm

    But, but, but, … The flowers are soooo pretty! Only a designer could have done that!

  2. February 22, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    Gotta make sure that they use the right definition of “theory”, because that’s where they get ya. They use the layman’s version, meaning something akin to “hunch”, in order to make it sound like scientific theories are as substantiated as their subjective assessment that everything looks so gosh-darned “designed”. To such a degree that they can’t even define what things would have to look like if we were to determine that they DIDN’T look designed. I mean, for Raptor Jesus’s sake, just look at a frickin’ snowflake. It looks awful designy, but unless you are willing to say that God is personally crafting every single one of them, and that it is somehow insufficient to rely on the naturalistic explanations behind their formation, then it is just another case of “complexity” arising without divine intervention, through natural processes.

    The entire movement is just induction gone awry; trying to shove all of the natural world into the category of “designed object” because it is “complex” enough at whatever convenient level supports their case to almost warrant such a comparison. A theory? Hardly. A (bad) philosophical stance? That’s a little more like it.

  3. 3 michellesedai
    February 25, 2009 at 12:29 am

    gosh cdesign is so much more sophisticated than creationism…oh wait…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Join the best atheist themed blogroll!

RSS Adventures in Ethics and Science

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Blag Hag

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS denialism blog

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS ERV

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Greg Laden’s Blog

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Laelaps

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Lawful Good Wonk

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted)

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Pharyngula

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Tetrapod Zoology

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS White Coat underground

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Older stuff

wordpress stats

%d bloggers like this: