Intelligent Design: Lacking in Scientific Rigor
Well, I have posted on this before and many people disagree with it. But here is an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent making the same argument I have made.
Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We donÃ¢€™t have such a theory right now, and thatÃ¢€™s a problem. Without a theory, itÃ¢€™s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, weÃ¢€™ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as Ã¢€˜irreducible complexityÃ¢€™ and Ã¢€˜specified complexityÃ¢€™-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.–Paul Nelson, Touchstone Magazine 7/8 (2004): pp 64 Ã¢€“ 65.
Seems pretty obvious to me that ID has a pretty long ways to go before it comes even close to being thought of a respectable scientific endeavor. As such bringing it into a high school science course would be detrimental to the students.
Quote via Pandas Thumb.
Update: For completeness here is Paul Nelson’s response to the use of this quote.
Note, that the response is basically that the quote is accurate and that right now at best ID is some sort of proto-theory that needs quite a bit more work before it is ready for primetime. All the other gibberish about getting stoned by touching a silver ball is just Nelson’s way of trying to not admit he has pointed out a serious issue with ID…it ain’t a scientific theory. Nelson and his ilk, if the rest of them were honest, would add, “Yet”. My question is, what are they waiting for? Formulate some hypotheses, test them, gather data, present the results. Of course, that is alot harder than merely sneering at the notion of speciation or pointing to gaps in the fossil record.