Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: gondramB

Here’s more:

“Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

The Short Answer: Yes. Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an “irreducible core.” Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested—and have been confirmed through testing”

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156


300 posted on 05/14/2007 7:44:53 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies ]


To: CottShop
Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity.

ID doesn't "predict" that at all. For a scientific theory to "predict" something it has to have a mechanism or mechanisms and/or to make reasonably specific empirical claims. To "predict" means that the operation of the theory's mechanism and/or deducible implications of the theory's empirical claims entail consequences that can be observed.

ID has no mechanism. It asserts that there is, by inference, an "intelligent designer" [or designers?] but it refused to describe (or even speculate about) this designer in any way which would usefully characterize it as a theoretical mechanism. Thus ID makes no empirical claims. It won't say (or even suppose) either when, where or by what means the designer actually instantiates design events.

IOW your claim about this "prediction" is exactly backward. The existence of complexity is not an implication of ID, but simply an observed fact (and almost the only observed fact) from which ID is inferred. However proponents of ID falsely imply that these kinds of complexity uniquely implicate ID, which is false. There are well known mechanisms, for instance, whereby ordinary evolution (i.e. preceding in small, progressive steps, each individually viable) can produce "irreducibly complex" systems.

303 posted on 05/15/2007 9:34:20 AM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies ]

To: CottShop
2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record

Well, that one's shot. The fossil record goes back almost 4 billion years. The first few billion it contains ONLY prokaryotes (cells without an organized nucleus) like bacteria. About a billion years ago, IIRC, nucleated cells finally make an appearance. Then it's hundreds of millions of years before the first multicellular creatures appear. Then for a long time after that it's nothing but worms and other simple invertebrates. Etc, etc. The emergence of complex animals took literally billions of years.

304 posted on 05/15/2007 9:39:28 AM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies ]

To: CottShop
3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms

Since ID refuses to posit any specific claims about HOW the Intelligent Designer goes (or went) about formulating or embodying his [her? its?] designs, how can ID possibly "predict" this?

305 posted on 05/15/2007 9:42:31 AM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson