Is there a worse argument??

[Guest]

It that merely an observation on your part or something more like disappointment at having discovered no signs of hypocrisy?

It was an obvservation - and it was actually meant to be a positive one. I've listened to others who consider the ToE (to say the least) 'unestablished' - as you do - but also (unlike you) seem to have very little issue with practically any other scientific theory you could name.
Only the ToE - apparently - has any real 'serious issues'.

I have no respect for that particular position.

I have a lot more respect for your kind of position. OK - I still don't agree with it, but I have more respect for it.

But you can see it as a patronising dig if you like. *shrug*

And I respectfully disagree because I really don't think you know me well enough to make that assessment.

Roger - you are declaring (at least) two of the biggest scientific breakthroughs of modern times - the Big Bang and the ToE - 'unestablished'. When I - and the vast majority of scientists on the planet - consider both of them 'established' -as far as scientific standards are concerned.

If a solid scientific theory provides the best possible explanation for all available data and has not been 'falsified' - then that is 'as good as it gets' - in scientific terms.

Not much other than for me it would be inappropriate to describe such things as "facts."

Is anything ever 'proven true' in science - in the sense you mean?
...if you lived pre-Einstein, would you have any reason not to believe that Newtonian physics had been 'proven true'?

That there might exist any liquid tasting better than Dr. Pepper. That there ever was or ever will be a better sit-com than the Dick Van Dyke show. And maybe a few other secondary things.

Excellent points - well made :)

Perhaps not, but a number of people have "seen" earthquakes.

Indeed. We've also measured the movement of continents to a degree that I think would fit your 'standard' of 'observation'. We can 'see' continents moving a matter of inches on a yearly basis.

...but - wouldn't this be an example where we might be tempted to 'extrapolate' past the literally observed? Why do earthquakes and a few inches movement per year give us the right to start talking about 'ancient super-continents' and huge land masses traveling right around the globe!!

Isn't that the difference between 'micro' plate-tectonics, and 'macro' plate-tectonics?
The first has been 'observed' The latter has not. Isn't that right?

I don't know... but I'm guessing large black (apparent) voids show up on telescopic images.

So would - ermm - literally nothing! How are you supposed to tell the difference in a way that isn't 'extrapolation'? Relatively weak 'inference' based around what's going on near the 'supposed black hole' - rather than seeing the black hole itself? How does this pass your standard of 'observation'? Or does it?

Probably not. I don't know too many people who can "see" air, but we tend to breathe a lot.

Well - I think we can see the movement of air molecules in a more direct manner than we can claim to see 'quarks' or 'black holes'. But point taken.
But what's your take? Is the concept of air 'established'? I'd say yes of course....
I guess your point might be 'Yes - of course we've 'established' air. In a completely different way - to a very different level - than things like Big Bangs or (maybe) Quarks.'.

Or maybe that won't be your response. I guess I should just wait and find out... :)

I am not at all opposed to theories and hypotheses--even when they may differ from the implications of my own wv.

Well - it's one thing to say you are not 'opposed' to X, Y or Z theories / hypotheses. It's quite another to have a very different standard of what constitutes the 'establishment' of the 'truth-status' of a theory / hypothesis.

by the way - do you have a solid idea on what the difference is between a theory and a 'mere' hypothesis? In scientific terms, the technical difference is quite stark...

I just get annoyed at the idea that macro-evolution has been established as though it were a fact, when the reality is, it is a theory (and yes I understand the significance of that term when used within a peer-reviewed scientific context vs the general weakness of the same term when used by the general public).

Well, since you understand that 'theory' - in scientific terms - means something quite different than what the average joe might think of when they hear the word 'theory' - I guess I don't need to go over that.

I think the trick here (to get across my point of view) might be the notion that nothing (and I mean nothing) is ever established as The Truth (with a capital T) - in a scientific sense.

I still think the best example of this has to be Newtonian physics.
If we were both living pre-Einstein, we might both be tempted into perfect agreement that Newtonian physics has been undoubtedly established as Truth - with a capital T.

...what a shock we'd be in for huh...?

Of course it should be taught... preferably not as "fact."

So what can be taught as 'fact'? Gravity - a.k.a. General Relativity? That's 'rock solid' is it? Never going to be challenged? Never going to be 'super-ceeded' in the future?

Not as fact, however, as recent DNA reversals makes abundantly clear.

I think we mean two different things by 'established'.

I don't take established to mean 'can never be proven wrong in the future.' There is literally nothing (I mean absolutely nothing) I would dare to hang on such a flimsy coat-peg.

I take 'established' to mean 'We have no good reason to not believe 'X' is true'. I'm afraid that's the best we mortal, fallible humans can hope for - as far as I'm aware...

[_mikwut]

E:

? That argument is commonplace. Not only do I know lots of people willing to make it explicit, many more are willing to engage in similar design arguments that trade on the same basic flaws in reasoning.

Of course it is. I am not arguing it doesn't exist. I am simply arguing it doesn't exist in a vacuum. I don't know (anecdotally) one person I attend church with who accepts the premises of a basic design argument that wouldn't also accept the putative nature of the basic awareness or perception of God. Certainly you agree that "I walk with God I talk with God", "my relationship with the Savior" and other phenomenological examples all express this basic and fundamental Christian (and theistic) practice and understanding. I simply accept the fact that when you engage the Christian in a design argument you are having an argument in a vacuum - but the Christian is not, rather he/she is arguing from and within the putative awareness of God. The premises of the design argument simply bolster that already held fundamental belief.

God of the gaps arguments border on ubiquitous.

You are correct, they are commonplace.

Sensus divintus arguments? Not so much.

Putative awareness of God, perception of God, mystical experience of God, basic and fundamental belief in God are all quite common place and I would argue are much broader across the theistic spectrum, they aren't simply ubiquitous within a a conservative Christian population (such asn sensus divinitus ala Calvin - Reid - Palntinga) , but would extend to Jewish (the great I am literature), Buddhist (the awareness and nirvana), Indian (Jainism - divine consciousness), etc.. theistic frameworks.

Heck, on this very thread - on this very page - Roger is making the same kind of "ridiculous" argument with respect to abiogenesis. I don't know if you are getting the same google advertisement, but the one I have purports to show the intellectual untenability of atheism with 6 arguments. 4 of them are straightforward design arguments not unlike the OP's. 4.

All frameworks bring basic assumptions to the cognitive and rational table, hence my first post. The theist is arguing from a completely different framework when engaging the origin of life, beauty, moral values, purpose, etc... I simply think that is axiomatic. I also find it interesting that so many atheists sophistication doesn't seem to transcend the arguments within a vacuum position. I believed in God when I was a young child probably because my parents, when I was teenager - not so much I began developing differing ideas and concepts - but as a teenage my belief didn't rest on any sound understanding of the logical premises Richard Swinburne lays out. That isn't to say anything in regards to the value of those arguments - I think them quite valuable within the basic theistic framework. They support a putative basic cognitive awareness that the majority of mankind shares and some repress.

[_EAllusion]

Jainism is nontheist in nature as are large factions of Buddhism. I think that shows a looseness you are now playing with "sensing God" here to get over the intersubjectivity problems. Both involve mystical experience, sure. But a claim that spiritual experiences are common across people and cultures is different, and uncontroversial, than claiming people see God in children's eyes like they see pupils in children's eyes.

The theist is arguing from a completely different framework when engaging the origin of life, beauty, moral values, purpose, etc... I simply think that is axiomatic.

Not really. For instance, professionals in the fields related to these topics who happen to be theists overwhelmingly hold secular views just as accepted by atheists alike. Both atheist and theist philosophers alike tend to find grounding morality in God or arguing that belief in God adds something useful to moral theory to be wrong. Both are apt to support views on meta/ethics that are secular in nature. The framework isn't necessarily so different.

Further, let's suppose that God exists and there exist justified reasons to think so. That wouldn't make the kind of biological design argument Roger likes above sound reasoning. It still would be bad, like arguing that hot air balloons float in the air because invisible angels carry it through the sky. It still fails. Given the context, your reply implies that armed with some basic knowledge of God's existence, that isn't the case.

[_JAK]

Post Reference

ROP,

With interest in your discussion, I’m somewhat puzzled by your use of “establish” in a context and “established” in the same context. Is there a significance in that?

At the end of the above cited post:

ROP wrote:
I think we (you and Roger) mean two different things by 'establish'.

I don't take establish to mean 'can never be proven wrong in the future.' There is literally nothing (I mean absolutely nothing) I would dare to hang on such a flimsy coat-peg.

I take 'established' to mean 'We have no good reason to not believe 'X' is true'. I'm afraid that's the best we mortal, fallible humans can hope for - as far as I'm aware...

Is there a particular reason that you used the negative construction in the last part?

Established as we use it in the past tense would seem to mean that we have good reason to conclude what we conclude given what we know or can know (via the research of others).

Hypothesis and theory are not the same (as I think you noted). Does Roger make the distinction?

JAK

[_Ren]

Hey JAK,

With interest in your discussion, I’m somewhat puzzled by your use of “establish” in a context and “established” in the same context. Is there a significance in that?

No reason for the 'establish' - 'established' change - just didn't notice I'd done it.

I should have used the word 'established' throughout I think... I've gone back and edited the post in question.

Is there a particular reason that you used the negative construction in the last part?

I guess I put it across the way I did to emphasise the Popperian notion of theories 'never being proven' - no matter how much positive evidence we have for them. Using the negative phrasing - I thought - might get across that notion better.

But the way you put it:

Established as we use it in the past tense would seem to mean that we have good reason to conclude what we conclude given what we know or can know (via the research of others).

...is also fine in my opinion - in fact probably more accurate (generally) than the way I put it.

I think both are 'acceptable' though - in describing what 'established' means. in my opinion.

Hypothesis and theory are not the same (as I think you noted). Does Roger make the distinction?

Not sure. I'll wait for him to reply to find out :)

[_Roger]

ROP:

I just lost about an hour's worth of work by pushing the wrong button. I hate it when I do that. So if my answers seem "trite" that may have something to do with it.

It was an obvservation - and it was actually meant to be a positive one. I've listened to others who consider the ToE (to say the least) 'unestablished' - as you do - but also (unlike you) seem to have very little issue with practically any other scientific theory you could name.
Only the ToE - apparently - has any real 'serious issues'.

I have no respect for that particular position.

Well frankly the TOE has much more potential impact on my wv than most other theories I am aware of so it is reasonable for me (and theists in general) to "care more" about it.

I have a lot more respect for your kind of position. OK - I still don't agree with it, but I have more respect for it.

But you can see it as a patronising dig if you like. *shrug*

I'll take your word on it that no patronizing was intended.

Roger - you are declaring (at least) two of the biggest scientific breakthroughs of modern times - the Big Bang and the ToE - 'unestablished'. When I - and the vast majority of scientists on the planet - consider both of them 'established' -as far as scientific standards are concerned.

My objection was to your assertion to know how much "credit" I give or do not give to science. Ultimately, my granting of credit means little one way or the other. I recognize that science in general has contributed greatly toward improving the lives of humans and has certainly increased our knowledge. At the same time, through the ages, many theistic scientists have helped to make those contributions.

As to the Big Bang... I was not aware that 100% of "scientists" accept it as "established." Are you suggesting that is the case? If not, what percentage would you say do accept it and to what level do they?

As to TOE, obviously not 100% of scientists accept it as "established" since there is a whole movement of educated persons who challenge it. Of course I am aware of the mainstream attempts to paint ID adherants as "not real scientists" but I am not very impressed with such credential waving. I'd rather look at merits of the arguments (at least the ones I can understand as a layman).

The way you phrased your response above prompts the question: are you a scientist?

If a solid scientific theory provides the best possible explanation for all available data and has not been 'falsified' - then that is 'as good as it gets' - in scientific terms.

So I've heard... but then wouldn't that imply that there exists a wide dynamic range of "as good as it gets."

Is anything ever 'proven true' in science - in the sense you mean?

Not that I am aware of. How about in the sense that you mean?

Isn't that the difference between 'micro' plate-tectonics, and 'macro' plate-tectonics?
The first has been 'observed' The latter has not. Isn't that right?

Observation of macro-plate tectonics is theoretically possible. How would you propose to observe macro-evolution?

So would - ermm - literally nothing! How are you supposed to tell the difference in a way that isn't 'extrapolation'? Relatively weak 'inference' based around what's going on near the 'supposed black hole' - rather than seeing the black hole itself? How does this pass your standard of 'observation'? Or does it?

I would think both observation and 'inferance' will have value in creating hypotheses having to do with the concept of black holes. Do you agree?

Well - I think we can see the movement of air molecules in a more direct manner than we can claim to see 'quarks' or 'black holes'. But point taken.
But what's your take? Is the concept of air 'established'? I'd say yes of course....
I guess your point might be 'Yes - of course we've 'established' air. In a completely different way - to a very different level - than things like Big Bangs or (maybe) Quarks.'.

Or maybe that won't be your response. I guess I should just wait and find out... :)

Well... since you've already stated it, do you disagree?

Well, since you understand that 'theory' - in scientific terms - means something quite different than what the average joe might think of when they hear the word 'theory' - I guess I don't need to go over that.

Only if it makes you feel better. I understand the difference.

I think the trick here (to get across my point of view) might be the notion that nothing (and I mean nothing) is ever established as The Truth (with a capital T) - in a scientific sense.

I agree. So then everything comes down to a majority opinion... and certain opinions carry more weight than others--until the data contradict them.

The fact that "nothing is ever established as The Truth (with a capital T) - in a scientific sense" does not, in itself, establish macro-evolution occured. What I am willing to agree to is that the majority of scientists the world over think that macro-evolution is responsible for the wide variety of life forms we see today. Do you acknowledge the fact that there are some dissenters? Some of them even appear to be at least somewhat qualified? Or are you of the opinion that all ID theorists are a bunch of publicity seeking quacks?

So what can be taught as 'fact'? Gravity - a.k.a. General Relativity? That's 'rock solid' is it? Never going to be challenged? Never going to be 'super-ceeded' in the future?

Perhaps you should tell me... what can be taught as fact?

I take 'established' to mean 'We have no good reason to not believe 'X' is true'. I'm afraid that's the best we mortal, fallible humans can hope for - as far as I'm aware...

Fine... why then shouldn't this also be true for the argument in favor of design? When we observe information, what good reason is there to assume it did not arise from intelligence?

[_Ren]

I just lost about an hour's worth of work by pushing the wrong button. I hate it when I do that.

Damn - I've done that before. I think I was nearly ready to throw my monitor out of the window!!
I feel your pain...

So if my answers seem "trite" that may have something to do with it.

Understood.

Well frankly the TOE has much more potential impact on my wv than most other theories I am aware of so it is reasonable for me (and theists in general) to "care more" about it.

Right - that makes sense. Although I would have thought it does put your judgments on scientific matters into question after such an admission. I don't mean to say that it's not 'reasonable' in some 'bigger picture' kind of context. I would only question how 'reasonable' such an approach could be if we seeking answers to the specific question: "What has science 'established'?"

I am an atheist. But I am far more tied to the principles of the scientific method and to scientific investigation than I am to atheism.
If I was forced into a 'choice' between the two - atheism would be the first out the door.

It's possible you may think I should be forced into that position already - or at the very least contemplating the possibility. Perhaps if you see arguments from design (in terms of evolution, cosmological constants etc.) as not only valid, but also compelling scientific propositions...
(I guess I'd agree with 'valid' in a technical sense, but I'd disagree with compelling - based on the available evidence).

It's also possible you may see such a tight 'clinging' to the scientific method as - well - certainly something that can be challenged in terms of how 'advisable' it is.

Maybe this is something we'll get into... But at this point, just making it clear where I'm standing at this point...

My objection was to your assertion to know how much "credit" I give or do not give to science.

I just stated that it seems clear that I see science as more 'far-reaching' than you do. In other words, I think it 'establishes' more than you think it does / can.
Don't you think this is true? I wouldn't have thought that's a particularly controversial thing to say to be honest. Isn't that pretty clear from our conversation thus far?

Ultimately, my granting of credit means little one way or the other.

Well - mine neither :)

I recognize that science in general has contributed greatly toward improving the lives of humans and has certainly increased our knowledge. At the same time, through the ages, many theistic scientists have helped to make those contributions.

Of course - I don't see any inherent contradiction or problem with theistic scientists. I don't think understanding or practicing science properly and correctly is bound to make one an atheist...!
It seems to me that a world-view is as much about personal interpretation of what reality 'means' as much as a determination of what actually 'is real'.

I do have issues with theistic 'scientists' who pick and choose what science they will respect - and which they won't - on what seems quite clearly to be 'world-view biases' though. (I mean I have issues with them in their scientific understanding / integrity - not 'personally')
But then, I also have issues with atheistic 'scientists' who do the same. In all honestly, I see less of the latter generally. But I know it happens too - it's not a one-way street. (In principle, nor in practice).

As to the Big Bang... I was not aware that 100% of "scientists" accept it as "established."

I didn't claim that. What I said was:

When I - and the vast majority of scientists on the planet - consider both of them 'established'

If not, what percentage would you say do accept it

As far as percentage - it's got to be in the high 90%'s. 95% - 99%? Something like that. I'll try and track down a solid figure if you really like, but this seems like general knowledge to me. There is next to no movement against the Big Bang theory in mainstream science.
There is debate on the details (there always is in any theory) but not on the 'bigger picture' that all matter in this universe - approx. 13-14 billion years ago - was all scrunched into an extremely small point...

and to what level do they?

Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean how much they believe it is true? Or do you mean how well educated / qualified the scientists in question are?

As to TOE, obviously not 100% of scientists accept it as "established" since there is a whole movement of educated persons who challenge it.

Yes - of course. I don't think you can ever claim '100% of scientists' accept any scientific theory at any given time. I've seen some pretty spirited attempts to discredit General Relativity - fairly recently.

Do I question just how 'scientific' some of these 'scientists' are. Perhaps. But regardless of perhaps quibbling on individual cases, I think you never really truly have 100% consensus. Ever. I'm sure this is true, and has been true throughout the history of modern science.

You do - however - usually have not just a majority consensus position, but a 'strong' majority consensus position. Both the Big Bang and the ToE fall into this category at this point in time.

Of course I am aware of the mainstream attempts to paint ID adherents as "not real scientists" but I am not very impressed with such credential waving. I'd rather look at merits of the arguments (at least the ones I can understand as a layman).

ID proponents are not classified as 'non-scientific' because they propose a designer might be involved in the development in life. I think that's a perfectly valid position to investigate.

The reason ID proponents have been declared 'unscientific' by almost all scientific bodies with any standing in the world is not just that they haven't constructed scientific 'theories' that follow the standard scientific method - they aren't even trying to.

The way you phrased your response above prompts the question: are you a scientist?

No. I'm just an interested amateur - who is throwing his chips in with the majority of scientists. Hopefully in a reasonably informed manner I'd hope...

So I've heard... but then wouldn't that imply that there exists a wide dynamic range of "as good as it gets."

Yeah - I guess there is some kind of 'range'. Take two different 'established' theories (dealing with two different subjects) and you could say one is 'stronger' than the other I guess...

I really don't know just how 'wide' such a dynamic is though - in practical terms. In the end - if there is only one solid, proven theory in a given field of inquiry - and no other theory touches it - then it's really a relatively small detail whether it could be 'stronger' on some specific points or aspects.
In the end, that's the best we've got, and the best we CAN have.

Theories are never 100% complete. Answers simply lead to more questions.

Not that I am aware of. How about in the sense that you mean?

Nothing can really be proven true in the sense I mean either.
I'm talking in a very technical sense there though. Obviously I take some things as 'true' on a practical level - day by day. Otherwise I'd find it very difficult to function!

But on a technical level, I don't take any scientific proposal as 'proven absolutely true'. I think that's the correct, appropriately 'skeptical' stance to take - on any issue. I think history has shown us the dangers of taking any other position.

Observation of macro-plate tectonics is theoretically possible.

Really? ...how?

How would you propose to observe macro-evolution?

The same way we 'observe' 'macro' plate-tectonics. By inspecting as much evidence as possible and comparing it against solid scientific theories. If a theory survives, than we have no reason to believe it is not true. If it doesn't, then we need another explanation.

I would think both observation and 'inferance' will have value in creating hypotheses having to do with the concept of black holes. Do you agree?

Yes - but you can go further than that. A hypothesis is essentially a theory that hasn't (really) been 'tested' yet - because it hasn't been worked out how to. (Often it's something like a technological advance, or a particular development of a hypothesis reveals a solid way to test it that is 'practically feasible').

Abiogenesis is an one such example. String Theory is another. Both are taken seriously by a lot of scientists, but they are certainly not 'established'.

When a hypothesis finds a way to become a full-blown theory, that's when we can start to talk about it 'establishing' scientific truth.

Well... since you've already stated it, do you disagree?

I personally think we've established the Big Bang and Quarks to the 'same kind of level' as the concept of 'air'.
Is air 'more' established? *shrug* I guess - probably. But the practical difference is actually quite minimal really - in technical terms...

The fact that "nothing is ever established as The Truth (with a capital T) - in a scientific sense" does not, in itself, establish macro-evolution occured.

Not in and of itself - no, of course. It doesn't establish 'anything' in and of itself.
But to agree on what has been 'established', we have to agree on what the standards for 'establishing' something are... Talking about how nothing is proven as 'Truth' was just meant to tackle something like the DNA-evidence reversal you bought up.
My only point was, if we can't take something as 'established' just because it could be proven wrong in the future, then (from my POV) we couldn't establish anything. Literally nothing.

What I am willing to agree to is that the majority of scientists the world over think that macro-evolution is responsible for the wide variety of life forms we see today. Do you acknowledge the fact that there are some dissenters?

There are definitely dissenters - yes.

Some of them even appear to be at least somewhat qualified?

They are qualified in the sense that they often have decent degrees from decent universities. But I think they also - routinely - trample freely all over the standards of the scientific method. Without apology or - frankly - any embarrassment.
They certainly seem like they should be capable of practicing 'good science', but they often seem to miss the mark quite badly.

A soldier can be a 'good' solider, without really understanding - or even caring - what the point of the war he's fighting is and whether he 'should' be involved at all.

Or are you of the opinion that all ID theorists are a bunch of publicity seeking quacks?

I wouldn't describe them as 'quacks'. I have no problem with hypotheses that appear 'strange', 'out there' - whether to my ears or anybody else's. The history of science is littered with 'crazy ideas' that turned out to be correct.

Here's what I see as the real problem with the ID position:

Einstein didn't topple Newtonian notions of gravity by writing endless 'anti-Newtonian' articles - going on and on about how Newtonian physics has 'issues', how it had 'gaps' etc. etc. etc.

The way Einstein did it was by developing the Theory of General Relativity. It was eventually 'confirmed' by such relatively 'simple' observations as light being bent by nearby stars, and - later - by clocks being shown to run faster in orbit, when compared to clocks on the earth.

ID would like to think of itself as analogous to 'General Relativity' in this regard I'm sure. Where the ToE is in the place of Newtonian physics, and ID is the 'new contender' - Relativity.

But what has ID got that even compares to the evidence we have for General Relativity?

Irreducible Complexity? That's an anti-evolution argument. How is that evidence FOR an intelligent designer?! And past that? What other 'evidence' does ID even claim that it has? Statistical analysis that 'shows' the ToE is inadequate to produce the kind of structures we see in nature? Again - more anti-ToE arguments.

Where are the pro-ID arguments / evidence? Once somebody actually shows me such a creature, then I'll start to take ID a little more seriously.
Until then, it's clear what it is. Religious ideology wrapped up in enough scientific terminology to make the 'pill' appear swallow-able to the relatively untrained eye.

Perhaps you should tell me... what can be taught as fact?

I have no problem teaching all currently accepted scientific laws and theories as 'facts'. But I'd want a very clear 'disclaimer' made clear - routinely. Namely - that all 'facts' can be questioned, challenged and potentially shown to be 'wrong'.

Does this make a mockery of the word 'fact'? Hmm - maybe. But, well, you can only spend so much time trying to develop epistemological stances and standards in 10 year olds. In the end, you also have to - at some point - get onto Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc.

Fine... why then shouldn't this also be true for the argument in favor of design?

What is the evidence for design?

When we observe information, what good reason is there to assume it did not arise from intelligence?

When a solid, tried and tested scientific theory like the ToE explains the same phenomenon. Unless there is a better theory (i.e. a theory that better fulfills the 'requirements' of the scientific method), there is no-where else to look.

[_Roger]

ROP:

First, I appreciate your cordial manner. Unfortunately my time is next to nothing at present so I will focus on this:

But what has ID got that even compares to the evidence we have for General Relativity?

Irreducible Complexity? That's an anti-evolution argument. How is that evidence FOR an intelligent designer?! And past that? What other 'evidence' does ID even claim that it has? Statistical analysis that 'shows' the ToE is inadequate to produce the kind of structures we see in nature? Again - more anti-ToE arguments.

Demonstrating the weaknesses in a theory is what peer-review is supposed to be all about. Good peer review doesn't happen when all the peers accept the same assumption as the theory postulates. It is valid for ID theorists to point to weaknesses in the TOE.

Establishing enough weaknesses in the TOE does not in and of itself establish ID, but, in the absence of a third major explanation, as you might acknowledge... what other alternative is there? Therefore showing weakness in the currently accepted theory, supports any other plausible theories by default... I am not aware of many other plausible theories.

As to this question:

what has ID got that even compares to the evidence we have for General Relativity?

I would say the strongest evidence in support of ID (that I am aware of) is the notion that information requires intelligence. Bona-fide Information does not arise by chance. This observation is so basic as to be simple common sense. I'm sure there is a better--more scientific--way to put it, but I think even you would have a difficult time demonstrating otherwise.

Anyone who understands English knows that there is an intelligence behind the words I am typing right now. (In my case, not much of an intelligence, but that's another issue). The point is no sane person that I am aware of disputes that concept. We nearly always intuitively understand the difference between a brick and mortar wall (for example) and a pile of rocks. If we come to the point in our observations where we recognize that what we are observing is in fact information, then the question is raised... how is it possible that information arose without intelligence behind it? That is the problem facing abiogenesis.

I do not believe it is possible. Such a thought is something akin to a miracle--which is the very thing you--as an atheist devoted to science--do not wish allow into your postulating. Yet how do you get around it?

When we observe information, what good reason is there to assume it did not arise from intelligence?

When a solid, tried and tested scientific theory like the ToE explains the same phenomenon. Unless there is a better theory (i.e. a theory that better fulfills the 'requirements' of the scientific method), there is no-where else to look.

The problem is, it doesn't. The TOE does not explain the spontaneous, undirected rise of information necessary for life. To my knowledge, aside from intelligence, there is no explanation for that.

[_Sethbag]

Forget information. You're using the word in a very fuzzy and ill-defined way, and your assertion that it cannot arise without intelligence doing it on purpose is founded on nothing more than your say-so that it's common sense.

Think of DNA not as information, but as a self-replicating machine.

When a chromosome replicates inside of a cell, do you believe it is doing so intelligently? Or chemically, like a machine?

[_JohnStuartMill]

The problem is, it doesn't. The TOE does not explain the spontaneous, undirected rise of information necessary for life. To my knowledge, aside from intelligence, there is no explanation for that.

This is not such an insurmountable problem. All you have to do to cure yourself of this mistaken belief is enroll in a biology class at the local community college. You can also check out Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea from the library and get mostly the same results.