Intelligent design in the last five years: What do we do after we have staked out the limits of Darwinism?
|September 3, 2011||Posted by O'Leary under Darwinism, Science|
In “Darwin’s failures are positive sources of information for ID,” I noted
Failures of Darwinism are not merely a negative. They are a positive. The growing number of stress points at which Darwinism fails can, taken together, form a picture, one that points to general laws that govern how high levels of information are produced in life forms.
And in “All renovation projects start as teardowns”
Throwing out assorted Darwinisms is like renovating a badly treated century home. The first thing we do is rent a dumpster. Because we must clear away the rubbish to rescue the core value. One outcome is that 99% of the initial work is, unavoidably, teardown.
The teardown takes longer and costs more than we hope. But now we’re here. So what’s next?
Next is assessing the size and shape of the fail points. What are the similarities and the differences between the gaps that Darwinism* cannot bridge.
The boundary of what, it is generally agreed, cannot happen by chance in this universe.
Darwinists do everything they can to stop people from applying that obvious measure.
Ignoring them, can we gain information that enables us to make successful predictions that can be generalized?
It’s hard to say what comes afterward simply because we need the answers to some of these questions to know precisely where further research into actual causes of evolution would pay off.
But we will accumulate a big database that can be used to test hypotheses.
Put another way: Intelligent design will prevail when engineers rule.
*Darwin himself usually resorted to slippery, well-executed rhetoric at these points. We admire such displays but prefer information.