I have never argued that gaps in the fossil record prove creation. It never could just like non-gaps could never prove evolution. What has always been my stance is that it's not incompatible with creation just like it's not incompatible with evolution. The same goes for every other part of the theory.
Fair enough.
While I agree with most of what you say or at least I don't disagree I feel there is something I need to add. While some sciences can be classified as empirical it does not mean that these should be regarded as more important or be preferred over others.
We should also all stop to insist that one science can be defined in terms of another or that there is one standard method to follow. If this was done archeology would fall flat and indeed further invalidate evolution as a science. Each science has its own discipline that yield results and what works for one will not always work for another. Such a requirement is an impediment to progress. The way we get to the truth ultimately does not matter and the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from someone objecting to this is that they are prejudiced towards which conclusions may be drawn.
Indeed when someone says that something isn't science they may be referring to empirical science but many however go further and call it pseudo-science. This is a very clear distinction from not being an empirical science towards not being science at all. Ultimately all that actually matters to an objective person is the truth.
There's
a nice article on Design Arguments that examines what may or may not be science and
another by William Dembski.
I know some will no doubt scoff at these names. All I can say to those is please continue your ignorance. You are doing more to further my cause than you could ever know.
Thanks for the articles, they are interesting. My understanding of ID is as follows:
Intelligent Design is defined as (intelligentdesign.org):
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
From
uncommondescent (citing intelligent design.org):
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.
Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.
An agreement on definitions for the following terms is needed:
A) Intelligent and intelligence (there is no agreed upon definition for this term)
B) Cause
C) Natural selection
D) Chance
E) Natural law
F) Information
G) Complexity
So there is a definitional challenge for ID.
Now, obviously Intelligent Design is relevant where an intelligent cause needs to be detected for example anthropology and forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).
I think an argument can be made that ID can be an empirical physical science and can get you to an intelligent cause. But again, there are challenges with regards to definitions.
Let's now for arguments sake assume ID is an empirical science and it has somehow detected an intelligent cause.
What assumptions can be made about this "intelligent cause"?
Over at uncommondescent
vjtorley makes five assumptions about the designer based on the fine-tuning argument:
1. The Designer is an Intelligent First Cause. Specifically:
(a) the Designer is a Being Who can be meaningfully said to know, to understand, to want, to intend, to choose, and to act intelligently – i.e. to act in a certain way in order to achieve the ends that He wants;
(b) the Designer is the Cause of space and time, and of the laws and principles underlying our universe.
2. The Designer is a Master Mathematician, who understands the laws and underlying principles of this universe, as well as the laws and underlying principles of other possible universes that He could have made.
3. Mathematical laws are part of the “warp and woof” of physical entities. If there were no laws, there would be no physical entities.
4. The Designer made this universe because He wanted to make a universe whose laws are ideal for living things in general, and especially for intelligent life.
5. The Designer is reliably capable of making a universe with the laws He wants it to have.
In the case of biology the intelligent causes can be said to cause "irreducibly complex" structures with large amounts of "specified complexity".
Supporters of ID make it also very clear that ID does not posit a supernatural designer (
for example here).
Now the question is, can ID and ID supporters ever conclude or prove that ANY of their discovered intelligent causes is actually God? Or can it only ever claim it to be just another intelligent cause among other intelligent causes in the universe or multiverse?
It appears to me that ID can only ever discover intelligent causes that are "tinkerers". For example some clever intelligent cause that tinkered with the genome of some ancient species, or tinkers with other causes to make "irreducibly complex" structures with large amounts of "specified complexity", or perhaps a master mathematician tinkerer that is the
per accidens first cause of a universe (which happens to be ours) that played a little bit with a few constants for some purpose.
I think an argument can be made that the empirical discoveries of ID can in principle never be used to prove that any of the discovered intelligent causes actually is God and not just intelligent causes other than God.
What I am trying to say is, that even if ID is an empirical science, it can never be used to support classical theism, in fact, at best some form of deism, but even that cannot be proven using ID.
Sign up with Google
