Mike Gene ID
by MikeGeneA couple of people in the comments section wanted me to distinguish my views about Intelligent Design from those that are commonly expressed (mainstream ID). So here's the short list:
- Mainstream ID argues that ID is indeed science. I do not think ID yet qualifies as science. I view ID more as a nascent proto-science and intellectual curiosity.
- Mainstream ID argues the evidence for design is strong and that we have identified systems that are best explained by design. I think the evidence for ID is weak yet there are examples where design is plausible. Thus, I am not out to convince skeptics and critics; I am interested in testing my own suspicions.
- Mainstream ID argues that irreducibly complex (IC) structures could not have evolved, while I think IC helps bring focus to candidates for design.
- Mainstream ID argues that biological systems demonstrate complex specified information (CSI), indicating design. While I think the method is a promising way of inferring design, I am not convinced that a true specification has been demonstrated.
- Mainstream ID seeks to challenge neo-Darwinian evolution. I think ID complements neo-Darwinian evolution.
- Many proponents of mainstream ID are anti-evolution. I am an ID evolutionist. There are a small number of cases where I tentatively propose design candidates that did not evolve (i.e., the flagellum), but I do not infer design by arguing they could not have evolved; I argue they did not evolve.
- Many proponents of mainstream ID argue that that information increase over evolutionary time cannot be explained by natural means. I don't agree.
- Mainstream ID seeks to detect design in a manner that is completely divorced from consideration of the designer. I am willing to make working assumptions (albeit, minimal) about the designer.
In the future, I will elaborate on some of this in much more detail.
September 4th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I'd actually be very close to your stated beliefs on all points (not aware of biology enough to pass judgement on the now-famous flagellum, though). Though on this point, I'd argue that the philosophical argument for seeing design in the universe is rather strong, though falsifiable candidates for design are another thing. But I'm guessing you're talking about scientifically weak against a null concept, rather than 'science proves the lack of design in most cases'.
Comment by nullasalus — September 4, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
I submit there are virtually no substantive differences here:
"º"º potÄ?to or potăto (differences resolved by defining terms)
"º"º differences in degree, not substance
"º"º potÄ?to or potăto
"º"º differences in degree, not substance
"º"º potÄ?to or potăto
"º"º potÄ?to or potăto
"º"º likely potÄ?to or potăto but I would like to hear more before I can decide for sure
"º"º a substantive difference
Comment by Tom Mundie — September 4, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Tom,
Could it be that you are personally unable to see the differences?
Your interpretation of Mike's differences is laughable – as if there really aren't any differences.
Tom, please don't think that because you are unable to see (or unwilling to see) the differences that they are not there.
I'm sure it's handy shoehorning every objection to your views into the same mold; but convenience doesn't translate into reality.
Comment by Doug — September 5, 2007 @ 11:14 am
September 5th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Thanks Doug. I think you interpreted by post as negative. It was not intended to be. Mike makes some interesting points. My point was simply I don't think the differences Mike suggested are substantive (except for the last). Mike might agree or disagree (although I guess it depends on how you define substantive). Two quick examples (because I do not type well):
Mike's 4th difference centers on two words: demonstrate and infer. A weak inference is seldom said to demonstrate something while a strong inference is usually used to make a claim that something has been demonstrated. Thus, I interpret the difference Mike cites as a difference in degree, not substance. It is certainly interesting discussion but in the end not substantive.
Mike's 6th difference centers on the term evolution. I don't think mainstream IDers would call themselves anti-evolution, in fact most claim exactly the opposite. Mike says he is an ID evolutionist but most on the other side of the metaphysical aisle would say he is anti-evolution. Thus, I think this difference is resolved by defining terms–potÄ?to or potăto. Cheers.
Comment by Tom Mundie — September 5, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
September 10th, 2007 at 6:26 am
I want to ask the time your book will be released. I pre-ordered it months ago and still waiting. Any news?
Comment by Farshad — September 10, 2007 @ 6:26 am
September 10th, 2007 at 6:44 am
Tom Mundie:
The operative phrase is "metaphysical aisle." Why does evolution entail ateleology of necessity?
Comment by Bradford — September 10, 2007 @ 6:44 am