ID & Explanations

Every camp in the ‘biological origins debate’ has its own explanation(s) as to where the complexity and diversity of life comes from. Some of these explanations would seem to be driven by prior commitments and ideologies (on both sides) and in some cases (notably from the DI and over at UD) they are part of a bigger assault on the opposing viewpoints perceived commitments themselves.

So what makes for a good explanation? Here’s a couple of resources I found interesting:

http://www.culturallogic.com/research-links/

http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2009/12/explanations-gentle-introduction_28.html

http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-good-is-explanation-part-1.html

http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-good-is-explanation-part-2.html

Perhaps we could have a discussion on what makes for a good explanation and look at the various available explanations for biological origins in this framework?

[Multiple edits]

102 thoughts on “ID & Explanations

  1. Steve: Organisms actively re-engineer their genomes in tandem with the given environmental circumstances they face.

    And therefore ID? Yeah, about that, I’m afraid you are simply wrong.

    But in any case, give an example of that happening, explain why it supports ID. You know, make an actual argument Joe!

  2. Steve,

    I have not stated that evolution does not occur. I object to the characterization of evolution as a mindless, goalless process. It is far from it. Observation confirms it.

    Observation so far has only supported the view that beneficial change is accessed through trial and error. If there is more, you (or your mate Shapiro) need to devise an experiment that can distinguish the assumed random process from a more goal-oriented one. ID-types typically aver that most (or all) mutations are harmful. Are you one of those who thinks this and yet thinks that organisms deliberately mutate themselves in order that, among the debris will emerge a success? As far as point mutations are concerned, the rate at which this occurs is of the order of the in vitro error rate of DNA polymerase. Is even DNA polymerase making mistakes, because it detects it could access beneficial change in its current ‘stressed’ environment?

    As to bacteria communicating through jars, its is not more far fetched then say humans communicating by iphone.

    [Miller backs away slowly groping for the door handle].

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.