ID In A Nutshell

ID is like the old locked room mysteries.

Scenario: Mr Body is found in a locked room with two bullet wounds in the back of his head. Lethal weapon found in his hand.

All the people known to profit from his death have airtight alibis. Security cameras show no one entering the room after Mr Body enters.

Only Mr Body’s fingerprints are found on the gun.

1. Suicide?
2. Magic or Divine Intervention?
3. Space Aliens having unknown technology?
4. Something else?

Interestingly, number one has actually been put forward in at least one actual, recent case.
If we substitute biogenesis for Mr Body’s death, ID proponents assume number two or number three.
If we substitute evolution for Mr Body’s Death, then Michael Behe and Mendel’s Accountant proponents assume number two or number three.

What do you guys think? What assumption do you think is most reasonable? I’m not asking what really happened. I’m asking what is the first working hypothesis that comes to mind?

60 thoughts on “ID In A Nutshell

  1. Robert Byers: God is not involveed in the working creation we live in at observable levels.

    Why don’t you and Mung work out who is correct (I believe he disagrees with you on that) and let me know out of the two of you who has the stronger position. Then, we can take it from there.

  2. Mung: I’m a little unclear on the evolutionist test though (as you know).

    See, they always have an escape clause for the non-random bits. Selection. So what’s the test, really?

    Any scientific position may be justly criticized as incomplete (if it is), or hand-wavy, or equivocal. If there are gaps, it is right to point them out. Doesn’t matter who does it.

    Pointing out areas of ignorance is fine. Shoving God in those areas is not appropriate, however.

  3. Robin,

    Robin, I am more than well aware that evolutionists everywhere try to run away from the purposeless accidents aspects of evolution (even though we all know that is what Darwinian evolution is claiming). But of course you run from it when debating, because it is so obviously troublesome for you to stand by.

    Don’t worry, I don’t take this evolution game of hide and seek seriously. Its so hackneyed and old hat. Everyone knows it by now.

  4. walto: Pointing out areas of ignorance is fine. Shoving God in those areas is not appropriate, however.

    Mung’s problem is illustrated by his thought processes. He projects how he is onto other people. He perceives scientists as desperately seeking ‘escape clauses’ to avoid, presumably, the truth those ‘non-random parts’ were put there by god.

    As that’s what he’d do in the same situation. He’d not present the facts as they are, he’d seek out an ‘escape clause’ to avoid coming to a conclusion he did not like. And so he assumes that everyone else would behave in a similar way.

    Mung, perhaps you would be best served by talking to Dr Swamidass who has just made an appearance on the Sternberg thread. Perhaps a fellow believer will be better able to convince you that real scientists are not at all as you perceive then. That there are in fact, decent honest people out there with integrity and honor. People that don’t in fact seek ‘escape clauses’, but are just honest truth seekers.

  5. phoodoo:
    Robin,

    Robin, I am more than well aware that evolutionists everywhere try to run away from the purposeless accidents aspects of evolution (even though we all know that is what Darwinian evolution is claiming).But of course you run from it when debating, because it is so obviously troublesome for you to stand by.

    I have no need to run away from a debate with someone who uses a term incorrectly. ‘Fraid that’s on you.

    That you are comfortable with a reality without some grand purpose is your problem, not mine.

    Don’t worry, I don’t take this evolution game of hide and seek seriously.Its so hackneyed and old hat.Everyone knows it by now.

    Yes I know…you’re quite happy in your ignorance. Go you…

  6. Robin: Yes I know…you’re quite happy in your ignorance. Go you…

    And you’re ignorant and mad. Bully for you.

    This means that accusing others of ignorance or stupidity is off topic

    EFF the rules.

  7. Mung: And you’re ignorant and mad. Bully for you.

    EFF the rules.

    LOL! I did not accuse Phoodoo of stupidity; I noted he is happy in his ignorance of the meaning of the term accidents. And he is demonstrably ignorant of the meaning of that term, to say nothing of being ignorant of evolutionary theory. So no rule-breaking on my part.

    That you are as uncomfortable as Phoodoo with the implications of evolutionary theory is also not my problem.

  8. Robert Byers: Creationism, YEC, demands no life except on earth.

    Patrick: Interesting. If SETI detected a signal would you immediately cease believing in YEC?

    I’m still waiting with baited-breath for a response to this one. However, I suspect I already know what the answer will be. I’m guessing that “demands” is the pivotal escape-hatch in this one. If I’m wrong, he could always commit fully to ID instead of YEC. All roads eventually lead to Rome no matter what camp you pitch your God-tent in.

  9. Robert Byers

    I also want to hear your answer to the SETI question, Robert.

    I suspect you will ignore it, because venturing down that logical path may lead you to encounter atheist dragons lurking there.

    And after you answer that one, here’s another:

    If you accept the snow donuts as natural, you are accepting that natural processes can take disorganized matter and turn it into more organized matter.

    Why do you not then accept this can happen in biology? Is it a matter of degree of complexity?

Leave a Reply

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