Quote:
|
Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Can you provide some more literature on ID? I don't see how it's useful as a scientific theory -- does it allow you to make predictions? If so, are the predictions identical to those produced by evolutionary theory? If so, why not use Occam's Razor and take out the silly part about an intelligent designer? |
I never said ID was a scientific theory. I merely agree with Del Ratzsch when he says:
"If things in nature can appear designed, if nature can produce things that are as if designed, if results of natural selection function as if designed, then doing science as if nature was designed - methodological designism - might be a productive, rational strategy."
And this just happens to be the "rational strategy" employed by many mainstream scientists when they do research. Michael Ruse says:
“Both history and present Darwinian evolutionary practice have shown us that design-type thinking is involved in the adaptationist paradigm. We treat organisms –the parts at least --as if they were manufactured, as if they were designed, and then we try to work out their functions. End-directed thinking – teleological thinking – is appropriate in biology because, and only because, organisms seem as if they were manufactured, as if they had been created by an intelligence and put to work.”
Michael Ruse, Darwin and Design: Does evolution have a purpose?, p. 268