To your point about web services - if you look at that as "what are some cool things I can do with public web services" you may have a point, Google is being pretty innovative. But the real work on web services is happening in Business Component architecture - component to component communication. Both MS and IBM are in a differnt ballpark altogether than Google here. This is a place where IBM is reinventing itself and MS sees an opening to get into the big business game. IBM on J2EE and MS on.NET.
Yes that is it - as far as ID is concerned - it does not try to explain everything just as Evolution does not try to explain how the Universe could exist in the first place. There are other theories that deal with that.
You can subscribe to the theory of Intelligent Design whether you beleive that Goh, Allah or a superior alien race is responsible. You could be an Atheist and beleive in Intelligent Design.
Likewise, you can subscribe to the theory of Evolution if you are an Atheist, Agnostic or Christian.
It disturbs me that most critics of Intelligent Design try to pretend that it is something that it is not in order to criticize it. It is a theory that has nothing to do directly with Christianity.
If you want to talk about WHO the Designer is - this is not covered in ID. It is however covered in Christianity. As a Christian I beleive that nobody designed the Designer - that God always existed and was never created - again I beleive this because that is what the Bible says about God.
All the "ID crowd" says is: There is evidence of design in nature.
That's it. No comment about who/what/whif about the designer.
Christians, however, beleive that God is the designer and that God was not created. Why do Christians beleive this? Because that is what the Bible says about God. I beleive what the Bible says - if you don't that's OK, you don't have to.
You left out the part of science where the theory is tested by experimentation. I understand that testing evolution is hard considering the time expanse involved. So maybe we need a seperate category for theories that we are pretty sure are right, but darn it, we just can't test them.
"ID isn't a theory. You can't test it and you can't falsify it..."
You can say the same thing about evolution now. Do to the amount of time involved, you can't test 'punctuated equilibrium'. And you certainly can't falsify evolution for the reason I stated above: "Evolution explains the evolution of the wing because the wing evolved".
ID is not proposing to prove that there is a creator, but to prove that there is evidence of design. The beleif in a creator is left up to you. You could just as easily beleive that an alien race is responsible.
So is there evidence of design in nature? Test it. You might start at the feeble rationalization that is 'punctuated equilibrium'.
This is the scientific method in action. The scientific method:
1) Propose a hypothesis 2) Test hypothesis 3) Change hypothesis according to test results
Darwin's Hypothesis - life evolves with time and natural circumstances to become more and more complex.
Intelligent Design Hypothesis - life shows signs of design and not just adaptation
The problem I see with the Darwinist proponents is they are not willing to ever get to step #3. When life seems to have made a jump (for example the wing - what possible competitive advantage would a half developed wing have served) there is no change in the hypothesis - it is simply ignored (why not, no other theory is allowed to exist - there can be no other explanation). The proof start to become self-defining - evolution explains the development of the wing because the wing evolved. hmmmmm.
While many here are making parallels to Galileo and the heliocentric theory - I see a parallel as well -- the Church did not want a competing theory to their own. What is the harm in allowing more than one theory to exist.
Slashdot Mirror
To your point about web services - if you look at that as "what are some cool things I can do with public web services" you may have a point, Google is being pretty innovative. But the real work on web services is happening in Business Component architecture - component to component communication. Both MS and IBM are in a differnt ballpark altogether than Google here. This is a place where IBM is reinventing itself and MS sees an opening to get into the big business game. IBM on J2EE and MS on .NET.
Yes that is it - as far as ID is concerned - it does not try to explain everything just as Evolution does not try to explain how the Universe could exist in the first place. There are other theories that deal with that.
You can subscribe to the theory of Intelligent Design whether you beleive that Goh, Allah or a superior alien race is responsible. You could be an Atheist and beleive in Intelligent Design.
Likewise, you can subscribe to the theory of Evolution if you are an Atheist, Agnostic or Christian.
It disturbs me that most critics of Intelligent Design try to pretend that it is something that it is not in order to criticize it. It is a theory that has nothing to do directly with Christianity.
If you want to talk about WHO the Designer is - this is not covered in ID. It is however covered in Christianity. As a Christian I beleive that nobody designed the Designer - that God always existed and was never created - again I beleive this because that is what the Bible says about God.
All the "ID crowd" says is: There is evidence of design in nature.
That's it. No comment about who/what/whif about the designer.
Christians, however, beleive that God is the designer and that God was not created. Why do Christians beleive this? Because that is what the Bible says about God. I beleive what the Bible says - if you don't that's OK, you don't have to.
You left out the part of science where the theory is tested by experimentation. I understand that testing evolution is hard considering the time expanse involved. So maybe we need a seperate category for theories that we are pretty sure are right, but darn it, we just can't test them.
Maybe call it a Guessory.
"ID isn't a theory. You can't test it and you can't falsify it..."
You can say the same thing about evolution now. Do to the amount of time involved, you can't test 'punctuated equilibrium'. And you certainly can't falsify evolution for the reason I stated above: "Evolution explains the evolution of the wing because the wing evolved".
ID is not proposing to prove that there is a creator, but to prove that there is evidence of design. The beleif in a creator is left up to you. You could just as easily beleive that an alien race is responsible.
So is there evidence of design in nature? Test it. You might start at the feeble rationalization that is 'punctuated equilibrium'.
This is the scientific method in action. The scientific method:
1) Propose a hypothesis
2) Test hypothesis
3) Change hypothesis according to test results
Darwin's Hypothesis - life evolves with time and natural circumstances to become more and more complex.
Intelligent Design Hypothesis - life shows signs of design and not just adaptation
The problem I see with the Darwinist proponents is they are not willing to ever get to step #3. When life seems to have made a jump (for example the wing - what possible competitive advantage would a half developed wing have served) there is no change in the hypothesis - it is simply ignored (why not, no other theory is allowed to exist - there can be no other explanation). The proof start to become self-defining - evolution explains the development of the wing because the wing evolved. hmmmmm.
While many here are making parallels to Galileo and the heliocentric theory - I see a parallel as well -- the Church did not want a competing theory to their own. What is the harm in allowing more than one theory to exist.