Top critical review
3.0 out of 5 starsIntelligent Design Dilemma
Reviewed in the United States on October 24, 2012
It's good to have Charles Darwin Evolution challenged. This how good science is done. The Cambrian Explosion has needed a good explanation since it discovery. However, Charles Darwin did mentioned that he's work was not complete and he predicted that observing fossils in this period that an older fossils would needed to be found that would be much simpler in form. How about the 3 billion year old cyanobacteria that formed those mound-producing stromatolites. You also, mentioned in your documentary a time period called Ediacaran (635-542 mya), these are definitely more simpler in form than the Cambrian creatures. I'm afraid, Charlie was right. Could it be that the fossil record is void of very early life do to plate tectonics, erosion and/or single cell creatures do not fossilize, except those that formed colonies.
The continuos transitional forms as describe in your documentary that should be shown in the fossil record with gradual changes from parent species to offspring species is not possible in the majority of cases. I'm not geologists, but what geology that I have learned, indicates that the fossil record is no where near complete and is very sparse compared the number of fossils found and the age of the earth. Has anybody heard about Un-Conformity? The Grand Canyon was eroded by the Colorado River that exposed geological rock formations going back to about 1.8 billion years. As these rock formations were study by geologists, they discovered, what they called the Un-Conformity are geological rock formations which are missing. How can we have a complete fossil record? The missing rock formations were either caused by plate tectonics, glaciation or simply eroded away. If we had these rock formations, I believe the fossil record would be more complete, but not entirely.
My understanding of a theory should be based on the most workable philosophy of science. That it will explain a wide range of phenomena on the basis of a few postulates that can be tested and make definite predictions. If the theory passes the tests and the predictions are true, the theory survive's. How does Evolution theory (Evo) and Intelligent Design (ID) stand up to this definition?
Is ID based on a workable philosophy of science? I don't think so, because the philosophy is to study natural phenomena through their natural process excluding intelligence within the process. By this definition, ID fails, since it is not natural, but artificial. Of course Evo makes the grade since it's trying to explain life only through a natural process.
Now I don't know if the proponents of ID are using it as a theory? If so, again it fails, since there are no postulates that describes how it works, it can't be tested nor make predictions. This answer is a dead end street that goes against by ideas on how scientific concepts operate.
"A good scientific concept will not only describe natural events, but can be used to seek further answers to other related questions." For example, Plate Tectonics is a new science that was developed in the 1960's. Prior to this science, very little was known how the earth functions such as mountain building, carving of great canyons, fossils of marine life on top of mountains, etc. Afterwards, all these mysteries went away. How do we use ID to further scientific knowledge? Can it be used to combat diseases that become resistant to our medicines? How about controlling pests that ravage our crops? The answer to these questions are NO. Can we use Evo to answer these questions and the answer is YES, because developing resistance is a natural cause and Evo is used by medical scientists and entomologists to combat these diseases. Why do you think you need a flu shot every year, that's because Evo is on the job.
In conclusion of these comments, I'm reiterate my prior questions. Where is your book on "Origins by Intelligent Design" At least Charles Darwin book explain's all the postulates along with the mechanism that makes it work. Where are ID postulates? What is ID mechanism? How does ID work? What makes ID function? With no answer to these questions, ID has no value and is meaningless in science. I believe we left behind 1200 years of Dark Ages with the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment. All ID will do, is put us back into another Dark Age.
