Ed Brayton is clueless about ID
The reality is that there is no "intelligent design theory" in the first place. ID is not a testable model or theory, it is little more than a collection of arguments against evolution, most of them taken directly from old creationist material but dressed up in new scientific-sounding language. Every one of those arguments was either a criticism of evolution (e.g. all of Wells' "icons of evolution") or required the failure of evolution as one of its logical steps in establishing itself as valid (e.g. Behe's "irreducible complexity" and Dembski's "explanatory filter"). Thus, when they said "we don't want ID taught, we just want the arguments against evolution taught" they were engaging in a tautology. Since "ID" and "the arguments against evolution" were one and the same, they were executing a classic bait and switch.(emphasis added)
Wrong, Ed. ID and the "arguments against evolution" are not one and the same. ID is specifically the idea that living things must have been designed because they are too complex to have evolved. There are arguments against evolution that have little or nothing to do with "design," intelligent or otherwise -- e.g., arguments concerning co-evolution and the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction.
Surprise, surprise -- efforts to redefine ID to encompass all arguments against evolution intensified after Judge Jones declared ID to be unconstitutional (in public-school science classrooms, at least).
I will agree with Ed on one point -- if a scientific theory or hypothesis is defined as a complete scientific explanation of some natural phenomenon, then ID is not a scientific theory or hypothesis. But there is no good reason why a criticism of a scientific theory must provide a complete alternative scientific explanation in order to be considered to be scientific itself.
Darwinism itself is in some ways not testable or falsifiable. If Darwinism were introduced for the first time today, I wonder if it would be accepted as a scientific theory or hypothesis.
Labels: Ed Brayton (1 of 2)