Djugashvillain

But how is it testable and falsifiable if there is nothing to test and falsify?

Santas little helper

But the theory of evolution did not describe a mechanism in the beginning , did it ?

Actually I don't think that the notion of mechanism is a useful one. You can always keep asking questions at a more basic level. For example:

What causes both , organisms to inherit characteristics of their parents but not perfectly ?
Answer: DNA replication and DNA mutations respectively.

What is the mechanism for DNA replication ?
Answer: essentially chemical reactions.

What is the cause of chemical reactions ?
Answer: bonding between the electrons orbiting the atomic nucleus of the various elements.

What causes this bonding ?

And so on. You will eventually reach a point where you don't have a mechanism any more. You just witness something happening. It was the same thing when the effects of X rays were observed. Some non-visible form of energy made photographic plates go dark. But noone knew what or how.

So the problem with ID isn't that it doesn't propose a mechanism ; the problem is that it doesn't propose anything. It doesn't make predictions , it doesn't tie in in any way with other things we know about the natural world , it's just the observation that some things look designed and a lot of empty rhetoric following that.

llDayo

But without knowing a purpose how can one argue for an intelligent creator? If no purpose is known through scientific observation then there's no reason to accept that humans are intelligently designed.



That would be the point I'm getting at, an admittance to only having a religious answer and not a scientific one, which would point out there is no scientific position on the subject. :thumbs:

Hehe, I doubt he'd make this position as I stated above that without a purpose there's no reason to accept an intelligent designer.

Graculus

Yes, it did: variable inheritance and natural selection

It was the mechanism of inheritance that wasn't described, but even if inheritance hadn't been through DNA, the Theory of Evolution would have stood, so long as whatever mechanism it was allowed for variable inheritance.

RBH

Nitpick: variable particulate inheritance. IIRC, Darwin stewed a lot about inheritance, but knew it had to be particulate rather than blending, and was wrong in the end about "gemmules".

RBH

Koyaanisqatsi

Here's another thought; show up with enlarged Rorschach test cards and just ask him (and the audience) what he sees with each one until everyone gets the point.

Jennie

The purpose of humans is to illuminate the Designer.

The purpose of humans is unknown. (Just as the mechanism of abiogenesis is unknown.)

The purpose of humans is a spiritual question, not a scientific one.


I'm sure I could think up even more answers to this question that would delight the propenents of ID even more than these given time. This question plays into their hands, I wouldn't use it at all.

_Naturalist_

The trouble is that they will say that it's up for discussion or further research, or that the designer simply existed. The End.