Xeluan

This is not an original thought but I've been throwing around ideas whether ID can adequately explain mass extinctions.

Though the Theory of Evolution (ToE) cannot predict mass extinctions nor can it predict (exactly) which species will survive mass extinictions, extinctions have played a part in the history of life on Earth and is something that ToE acknowledges and can accomodate . One problem I see with ID is that it cannot accomodate such mass extinctions into any ID framework (apart from YEC - The Great Flood did it).

I think this is one reason why ID advocates claim that we cannot know nor discern the intentions of the designer. This is an intellectual cop out and tries to hide how useless ID in explaining the history of life on Earth. The ID movement all but posits the God of the Bible as the designer in the public and not so public arenas. Explaining the nature of the extinctions under such an ID framework (God as the designer) poses some problems. If the designer is omnipotent then mass extinctions are sign of either poor planning (using the extinctions to clean up some mistakes or not forseeing how climate change may of affected his work etc) or a wrathful, vengeful designer (Dinosaurs pissed him off with their wicked and sinful ways so he sent an asteroid along to wipe them out). Extinctions make more sense if the designer is someone (or someones) who while handy at genetic engineering or whatever, could not intervene (or forsee) the events that caused the extinctions. In this case I argue that extraterrestrials as the designer makes more sense or some minor diety who most likely did not get a promotion after the Cretaceous period.

I'm actually think that the leading ID advocates have considered how mass extinctions fit into their concepts of ID. Hence the "designer works in unknown/mysterious ways" argument. Stops them from thinking too hard.

Dr.GH

I agre that this is a large problem for ID, more so than for YEC. YEC just denies that there ever were mass extinctions.

Doubting Didymus

Actually, I don't think I have ever seen an IDiot actually propose anything at all. I have never seen any claims about the age of the earth, the history of earth, or any other theoretical proposals.

The entire point seems to be to critique the evolutionary theory in very small ways. When Behe says that flagella are irreducibly complex, he is not really proving (if he were right) that 'therefore the whole of evolution is totally wrong'. If behe was right, all that would prove is that some designer helped the flagellum over an insuperable bump.

All the evidence for old earth, and slow, progressive lineages still hold, so my guess is that ID would not be harmed by mass extinctions. ID is really only proposing a couple of tiny god of the gaps arguments be included in the current theory. (I know they frame it as an alternative theory, but I am talking about what would actually happen in science is an IDist got something right.)

Xeluan

Well, YECs admit to one mass extinction.

I'm trying to think of ID objections to my argument. The best I can think of is "Well, how does Darwinism deal with mass extinctions?" which is typical ID rhetoric.

I intend to flesh out the ToE side on mass extinctions a bit more (just as backgound/contrast to ID). Then I'll post it on some of ID friendly discussion boards and see what happens.

Xeluan

Neruda

well, lucky them!

Xeluan

I agree but given how vague the concept of ID is but based on the rhetoric around, ID seems to want to overthrow ToE not just augment current ideas. If Behe was right, most of ToE would still be valid. However, I think most IDs don't understand that what they want (ID to replace ToE) means ID must be able to explain what ToE could do and extend on the theory. Even though Newtonian Physics was supplanted by Relativity, Netonian Physics still more or less works for low velocities.

<strong> Agreed. To point out the bleeding obvious, ID advocates have little understanding of how science works and how ToE can explain the history of life.

The main point re ID I've been picking up from ID proponents is that ToE should be thrown out. If that is the case then ID needs to be able to explain mass extinctions.

Xeluan

Doubting Didymus

If that is the case then it needs to account for a fuckload more than just mass extinctions!

But from a scientific veiwpoint, the wishes of those who are proposing the theory have no bearing on how that theory is accepted into science. If Behe and every other irreducible complexity supporter were totally right about the features that evolution can not explain, then science would not throw out the evolutionary theory but keep it mostly intact, pointing to a few spots and saying: 'here a designer helped the flagella out a bit, for some reason.'

Because of this, I don't think it is the responsibility of ID to overcome those barriers that evolution solves. This is simply because evolution has already solved them, and ID is simply no contest in those fields.

If I suggested that plate tectonics was helped out by a designer at some point in history, and I was right, and I could prove it, then plate tectonics does not dissapear. Instead, what would happen is that tectonics theory would be augmented by the information that in the past, plates were intelligently moved and that this no longer occurs today.

Whether or not I, as an Intelligent Tectonicist, wish to see the tectonics theory go has no bearing on whether it actually does go. As such, IT does not have to explain mountain formation independantly of standard plate tectonics, because it does not compete with most of the standard plate tectonics theory.

Xeluan

Indeedy. I just like extinctions as the easily illustrate that lack of power ID has as a hypothesis.
<strong> Agreed. The trouble is that the "big tent" approach ID has taken in gathering creationists, people such as Behe and a host of other ToE skeptics together means that ID as a whole is an ill-defined mess of ideas and motives.
<strong> If ID was only irreducible complexity I would agree but it is not.
<strong> I understand the analogy but I think the problem is that you are looking at irreducible complexity whereas I'm looking at the whole ID movement and taking into account the feeling that ToE (or Darwinism - ugh I hate that word) need to be excised from science entirely. If Behe and friends can uncover evidence for irreducible complexity (other than taking potshots at ToE and mistaking that for research) then yes, enter it in as part of ToE and a means of further discoveries.

But for those who want ToE dethroned then they do have the responsibility to be able explain what ToE can account for.

Xeluan