Notes From The Septic Zone

-
The things anti-IDists say never cease to amaze me. One drooling imbecile who has many sock puppets recently posted a new low, even for him. It starts:

A topic I’ve been rolling around for a while now is ‘How completely can ID be described without once referring to Evolution/Darwinism (i.e. any non ID explanation of biological objects)‘?
 

Didn't Paley do something like that over 200 years ago? Also ID would refer to evolution, as in designed to evolve and evolved by design. And the only reason darwinism or the the modern synthesis is even mentioned is because those are the accepted explanations (that don't explain anything). Which brings us to the "any non-ID explanation of biological objects"- those don't exist. Not in a scientific context anyway.

So, along those lines, if we were to “forget” all we know about biology and the origin of species etc, what would “Intelligent Design” look like?
 

That's just dumb as ID is based on our knowledge of biology and cause and effect relationships. So if we just forgot about evolutionism, ID would flow naturally from biology. THAT is what ID would look like- a correct rendering of what we observe.

How well could it be described? To what depth?

As well as we can describe biology with the technology at hand and to the depth that technology takes us. The language in peer-reviewed journals would just no longer be metaphors (just as we have been sayin').

Would it actually then “explain” anything?
 

Yes, it would explain what we observe.

As if, as Behe thinks, the “designer” just edges things (somehow) over the edge, then they’d still end up with exactly what we have now. And, the strange thing is, we have that now. So without Darwin Behe could never have written his book. Odd.
 

Behe wrote the book because Darwinism, it all of its forms, exists, because not one of those forms has any science to support its claims and because ID is a better explanation for the evidence.

But yes, we would still have what we do now, it's just that now we would have an actual explanation.

Freaking evoTARDs too cowardly to support their position but plenty proud of their ignorance to attack ID with it.

This just in- Patrick, aka mathgrrl, chimes in:

More generally, I’d like to see an ID proponent detail the observations they are attempting to explain, provide an hypothesis to explain those observations, and describe the tests that would serve to confirm or disprove the hypothesis.
 

We have done that, Pat. Where the hell have you been? OTOH your position hasn't done any of it. Perhaps you should start there.