Amazingly, I have some thoughts on Intelligent Design that don’t seem to fit into any of the 900 or so threads on the topic. :whacky:
One poster claimed that those that study ID use the same tools archaeologists use to determine whether something is designed. I’ve been pondering this for awhile now, and seems an excellent way to contrast ID with an actual science. When one looks at the two side-by-side the contrast is striking.
IDers state that complex systems require a designer. Of course, they also claim that the universe has been fine tuned and therefor everything is designed.
Archaeologists look for “culturally modified objects”. These are objects that have been modified from their original state by humans. There is a clear distinction between what is culturally modified and what isn’t.
IDers, not wanting to be branded a religion, don’t specifically name the designer, nor do they try test hypotheses of how certain designs came about.
Archaeologists know who created the CMO’s. We know the limitations and capabilities. We know their needs and their desires. We can also replicate the work of these creators to try and understand both the tools and the tool users better.
Other than trying to prove that what exists couldn’t have existed without intervention, IDers don’t have much they can test or observe.
Archaeologists use the principles of provenance and context to help understand CMO’s. For instance, when trying to determine whether a piece of obsidian is a tool or just a naturally occurring shard of obsidian, it helps to know that there is no obsidian occurring naturally for miles around.