Mechanism is nice, but not essential

This interesting post at Telic Thoughts makes an underappreciated point: ID science does not always have to provide a mechanism for everything. Science can be descriptive to some level without knowing the underlying level. When Newton described the relationship F=g*(m1)*(m2)/(r^2), only a fool would have refused to use the equation because Newton didn’t know the underlying mechanism of gravitons. Newton’s description of the force was perfectly valid science, and incredibly useful, even though his explanation was without mechanism. Ditto for ID.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s