truthseeka... seems like a reasonable enough question, asked in an appropriate place, and definitely deserving of an answer. I will reply at length as
time permits. My wife want's me to take her out so I'll get as far as I can for the moment.
Originally posted by truthseeka
What good does it do to declare that an "intelligent designer" created life on Earth? I could see if the "theory" went further, but from I get
here, all it does is say that we can tell from looking at organisms that they were designed. There's NOTHING on the nature of the designer, NOTHING
on how the designer did it, and NOTHING on who designed the designer.
These are all more or less true... there is no info about the designer or the manifestation of design... but that's not the perspective you should be
considering it from.... As we've discussed before, the theory wasn't conceptualized for the purpose of acquiring info about the designer. The theory
was conceptualized to 'test' for the hallmarks of design in biological systems.
You can't even make predictions with it, besides "the next organism I look at will have evidence of intelligent design."
I used to believe the ID had no predictive power, but I now think otherwise. In fact, I believe its predictive power to superior to that of Darwinian
based theories, which pretty much have no predictive power.
Consider the example of 'junk DNA.' 'Junk' DNA acquired this unfortunate misnomer from the lack of foresight exhibited by many evolutionary
biologists. It was unknown if this non-coding DNA had any purpose, but many operating from the evolutionist perspective assumed this 'junk' DNA was
a mistake of evolution... a throwback to the imperfections of evolutionary mechanisms, etc.
The hypothesis from design makes no such assumption. IDT would predict
that this non-coding DNA was not in fact junk, but had a purpose. This
is of course being confirmed all the time: 'junk' DNA is not junk, but is actually essential in many cases.
The same could be said for pseudogenes. ET states that they are a mistake of evolutionary theory. IDT doesn't necessarily believe this.
So... IDT does
in fact have some predictive capability, more so than Darwinism
It does nothing for the medical field, which evolution does. It does nothing for agriculture, which evolution does. It does nothing for
pest control, which evolution does.
Hmmm... I am not sure how evolution does anything for medicine or agriculture, or pest control. I would imagine you are referring to the idea that
evolution 'predicts' that bacteria, plant pathogens, and insects all 'evolve' resistance. This is not so much of a prediction as it is an observed
Furthermore, these are not good representations of evolution.
Let's take the example of antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance existed before
widespread use of antibiotics. This can not only be
confirmed just through logic, but scientists have in fact isolated antibiotic resistant bacteria from sailors who were frozen before penicillin was
discovered. Antibiotic resistance genes existed before the introduction of antibiotics; if they didn't the organisms that make antibiotics would die
too. Most antibiotics come from streptomyces species, and sure enough most antibiotic resistance genes appear to have come from streptomyces.
Now back to the question of resistance. Antibiotics merely shuffle the ratios of pre-existing
alleles. What I mean is resistance is present in
the population before the use of antibiotics, and antibiotics create a selective advantage for the organism that possess these alleles. So the genes
actually exist irrespective of whether or not antibiotics are used. Antibiotics only change the proportions of alleles present within a population.
They don't 'evolve' resistance. Resistance is present in some individuals, and those individuals survive, end of story. No genes have changed, the
genes were already in existence, in many cases, the genes have been around for 100's even thousands of years. Antibiotics, insecticides, and other
such chemicals merely alter the frequencies of pre-existing alleles.
Really, what does the theory have to offer?
The theory serves as an alternate basis of hypothesis formation. It provides researchers with another basis to plan their experiments from. It
provides researchers with an alternative explanation for observed biological phenomena and systems that are not well explained via existing theories,
and further allows those researchers to form hypotheses based on different assumptions, hopefully furthering the scientific process.