Skip to comments.What is wrong with intelligent design?
Posted on 02/22/2007 6:22:34 PM PST by Boxen
In a thought-provoking paper from the March issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology , Elliott Sober (University of Wisconsin) clearly discusses the problems with two standard criticisms of intelligent design: that it is unfalsifiable and that the many imperfect adaptations found in nature refute the hypothesis of intelligent design.
Biologists from Charles Darwin to Stephen Jay Gould have advanced this second type of argument. Stephen Jay Gould's well-known example of a trait of this type is the panda's thumb. If a truly intelligent designer were responsible for the panda, Gould argues, it would have provided a more useful tool than the stubby proto-thumb that pandas use to laboriously strip bamboo in order to eat it.
ID proponents have a ready reply to this objection. We do not know whether an intelligent designer intended for pandas to be able to efficiently strip bamboo. The "no designer worth his salt" argument assumes the designer would want pandas to have better eating implements, but the objection has no justification for this assumption. In addition, Sober points out, this criticism of ID also concedes that creationism is testable.
A second common criticism of ID is that it is untestable. To develop this point, scientists often turn to the philosopher Karl Popper's idea of falsifiability. According to Popper, a scientific statement must allow the possibility of an observation that would disprove it. For example, the statement "all swans are white" is falsifiable, since observing even one swan that isn't white would disprove it. Sober points out that this criterion entails that many ID statements are falsifiable; for example, the statement that an intelligent designer created the vertebrate eye entails that vertebrates have eyes, which is an observation.
This leads Sober to jettison the concept of falsifiability and to provide a different account of testability. "If ID is to be tested," he says, "it must be tested against one or more competing hypotheses." If the ID claim about the vertebrate eye is to be tested against the hypothesis that the vertebrate eye evolved by Darwinian processes, the question is whether there is an observation that can discriminate between the two. The observation that vertebrates have eyes cannot do this.
Sober also points out that criticism of a competing theory, such as evolution, is not in-and-of-itself a test of ID. Proponents of ID must construct a theory that makes its own predictions in order for the theory to be testable. To contend that evolutionary processes cannot produce "irreducibly complex" adaptations merely changes the subject, Sober argues.
"When scientific theories compete with each other, the usual pattern is that independently attested auxiliary propositions allow the theories to make predictions that disagree with each other," Sober writes. "No such auxiliary propositions allow … ID to do this." In developing this idea, Sober makes use of ideas that the French philosopher Pierre Duhem developed in connection with physical theories – theories usually do not, all by themselves, make testable predictions. Rather, they do so only when supplemented with auxiliary information. For example, the laws of optics do not, by themselves, predict when eclipses will occur; they do so when independently justified claims about the positions of the earth, moon, and sun are taken into account.
Similarly, ID claims make predictions when they are supplemented by auxiliary claims. The problem is that these auxiliary assumptions about the putative designer's goals and abilities are not independently justified. Surprisingly, this is a point that several ID proponents concede.
Sober, Elliott. "What is Wrong with Intelligent Design," The Quarterly Review of Biology: March 2007.
Since 1926, The Quarterly Review of Biology has been dedicated to providing insightful historical, philosophical, and technical treatments of important biological topics.
Take it, it's yours.
I think I'm beginning to understand the problem here. Not only are you incapable of using syntax, grammar, spelling or punctuation correctly, you apparently don't understand sentences that do.
I didn't call the names in your posts "window dressing." Here's what I posted:
Given the duplicitous nature of most of them, it's more like cross-dressing.Before your attempt your next response, please have someone tell you what the words mean.
Evolution is, has, and does possess all the scientific merit and scholarship of that other "religion" curently masquerading as "science": human-caused global warming. Look at the parallels...
Human-caused global warming is not a religion, nor are either science or the study of evolution. The current hysteria over human-caused global warming is beginning, after only a few years, to yield to the evidence to the contrary. The theory of evolution is doing just find.
The adherents of both use ad hominems and various other hystrionics to shout down their opposition.
Ad hominems? Histrionics? Your post is full of both. Calling evolution a religion, for example, and calling Darwin a racist for another. Then we have "frauds, questionable research, controversial evidence, logical fallacies, contradictions, and specious arguments." Wassamatter you? You can't debate the merits of the theory so you have to resort to name calling?
When the adherents of both are not using outright frauds to prop up their respective world views, they resort to questionable research, controversial evidence, logical fallacies and contradictions and specious arguments to confuse the issues and change the subject.
Lets have a little quiz. Name five "outright frauds" perpetrated by evolutionists.
Darwin was a racist. Gould was a Marxist. Al Gore is a Socialist. The "science" was and is used to perpetuate their respective world views of man and his relationships to other men and the world around them. Neither Darwin nor Gore were qualified to write scientifically on their respective subjects.
Darwin not qualified to write scientifically on evolution? Then I suppose the fellow who invented fire was not qualified to do so either. Your ideas concerning these scientists are nonsense. (Gore is on his own; I'm not defending him.)
And while Gould was a scientist, even he questioned the mechanics of natural selection and the fossil record as "proofs" of Darwinian evolution.
Science debates matters using the scientific method, which relies on scientific evidence and well-reasoned theories. Scientists often have differences of opinions on some of the fine points of any theory. The fact that Gould saw some differences, as opposed to some other scientists, in how evolution occurred does not 1) discredit either science or the theory of evolution or 2) support creation.
Further, there are no "proofs" for evolution, nor are there proofs for any other scientific theory. It is dishonest for creationists to require "proof" of a theory before trusting in its accuracy, when they know, or should know, that science does not deal in proof. Try whiskey or mathematics.
(As an aside, creationists require the most stringent of "proof" for evolutionary theory, while accepting creation "science" -- which generally consists of numerous scientific terms strung together using the flimsiest of evidence and reasoning, along with copious quantities of apologetics, all masquerading as real science in hopes of fooling the unwary. Creation "science" makes junk science look accomplished!)
(In other words, there is hardly a consensus - even among evolutionists - just how all this evolution occured, only that - like all "true believers" - they assert it's true).
BS. How much study of the technical journals in the broad fields of evolutionary theory have you done? Any? Or did you dial up a creationist website and stay at a Holiday Inn Express?
Are you familiar with any of these? (They are only a small fraction of the literature)
American Journal of Human Biology
American Journal of Human Genetics
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
The Anatomical Record Part A
Annals of Human Biology
Annals of Human Genetics
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Biology and Philosophy
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Economics and Human Biology
Ethnic and Racial Studies
European Journal of Human Genetics
Evolution and Human Behavior
Forensic Science International
Human Molecular Genetics
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Journal of Archaeological Science
Journal of Biosocial Science
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Journal of Human Evolution
Journal of Human Genetics
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Nature Reviews Genetics
Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Russian Journal of Genetics
Trends in Genetics
Both evolution and man-caused global warming exist to ensure one thing: that research grants keep flowing into university coffers. Both are big business.
The only difference between the two is that evolution as a world view has been around a lot longer. That, however, does not make it any more true than the incessant screaming lefties make about their beloved dogma, human-caused global warming.
Sorry, that happens not to be the case. The hysteria over "human-caused global warming" is already coming apart because of significant evidence to the contrary.
The theory of evolution has been getting stronger for 150 years, and shows no signs of fading even in the face of increasing attacks from creationists and their latest Trojan Horse, ID.
coyoteman you are posting stuff that we are aware of from evolutionists but the problem is evolutionists dont tell the whole story, they dont show all the evidence and there procedures of science are biased, for instance in carbon dating if a date comes back that doesnt fit an evolutionists preconceived idea of how old something should supposedly be i.e. not found in the supposed date of the no evidence geologic column then what do they do? theythrow it out as a bad date. Thats junk science!
some may have been duplicates but not most, but I can still give you more names if you like?
Thats not the only problems to carbon dating!
Natural selection has nothing to do with the farse of macro evolution, which does not exist anywhere.
Variety is nothing more than natural selection, it has nothing to do with a supposed macro evolution process, genetics in is genetics out variety is just a reshuffling of already existing genetics. Peace!
And dont forget THE EARTH HAS A FEVOR! maybe we should fill the oceans with dayquil! Global temperture changes are solar every ten to twenty years we have cooling and then we have warming, that what the evidence shows, but Al Gore is a propagandist hollywood phony just like James Cameron, their all the same pretenders! What I dont get is how someone/evolutionists and evironmentalists can look in the mirror everyday and know they are living a lie! What a waste! even the main founder of green peace turned from the nonsense and admitted the political lies they were propagandising.
your right about the global warming stuff coyoteman but the evidence for evolution is not getting stronger as a matter of absolute fact it is getting much weaker, if it was even strong at all, only in biased universities has evolution been touted as strong.
Your ignorance is astounding!
First, radiocarbon dating is not used for the vast majority of evolutionary studies. You must be mistaking radiocarbon dating for radiometric dating (yes, there is a difference!).
Second, most studies using radiocarbon dating employ a lot of samples, not just one! DUH!
What would you do if you sent off 30 samples and 29 came back in a nice consistent pattern, but one was an outlier?
Knowing your anti-science approach, you would probably believe the outlier discredited all of the rest of the samples and proved creationism or something.
Given the lack of knowledge you exhibit in your posts, you have no business lecturing anybody on what science is or how it should work.
As I posted earlier,
Your record on these threads is so pathetic that I am wondering if you are an evolutionist deliberately trying to make creationists look bad, or if you are actually a group of college students sitting around drinking and trying to see how ridiculous a poster can get before somebody gets wise.
Oh, Bravo,Coyoteman...well said...
Did anyone hear about the student wanting a recomendation and a certain Dr. Micheal Dini of texas tech university only gives recomendations if the student gets good grades and is known personaly by him and what wlse? You have to swear that humans came from apelike creatures. What a laugh!!1 to the nth degree!!!! this is what Im talking about the absolute biased garbage from universities. LET ALL READ AND GET WISE! Evoluion in the news Feb, 2003 www.ridgecrest.ca.us another good site for all to read www.harrypottermagic.org/evolution it tells about the life of Charles Darwin and some other good tidbits! very funny also! Peace!
Not really. Evolutionary theory is thoroughly, and crucially, entwined and woven together with numerous "auxiliary" principles, as Sober calls them, which render it rich in testable implications. See, for instance, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.
ID by contrast is almost completely vacuous. Indeed it is intentionally vacuous. "ID proponents" systematically refuse to entertain or propose, even speculatively, any claims whatsoever about how, when, where, by what agency or in what specific forms "intelligent design" events are actually instantiated.
This intentional lack of empirical content is, I believe, due to the fact that ID is not and never was intended to function as a scientific theory. (Or a scientific program, rather. Even many IDers admit it's not sufficiently developed to qualify as a "theory".)
Instead ID's role is to serve as an inoffensive "umbrella" ideology for antievolutionists and creationists who traditionally have bitterly disagreed about numerous issues such as: the age of the earth, progressive versus sudden/fiat creationism, the "canopy" theory, the global nature (or not) of Noah's flood, the flood's geological significance, and etc, etc, etc.
In a real science, of course, such substantive disagreements would be considered fruitful. But of course creationism is concerned with putting a scientific gloss on "correct" dogma, so such disagreements are intolerable and have led to multiple schisms and/or the dissolution of antievolution orgs affected by them. (See Henry Morris' A History of Modern Creationism for many examples.)
"Intelligent Design" is, then, a "lowest common denominator" that nearly all antievolutionary creationists can support, precisely because it says almost nothing about anything.
aconsistant pattern according to what cause I can show you a consistan pattern of errors, cause thats the only real pattern, what is your pattern contrived of, preconceived procedures of bias preconceived dating ideology. Cause thats not honest! that is pure bias!
Given the ridiculous nature of your posts I can no longer believe you are for real.
Did anyone hear about Micah Spradling that picked Dr. Micheal Dini out of 36 other Biology professors at Texas Tech only to drop out of class after the first week? Micah Spradling then transfered to that medical powerhouse Lubbock Christian University to complete his biology course and get his recommendation for medical school; Naturally, he stopped by the the Liberty Legal Institute to let the lawyers now he was being "oppressed".
If you want a recommendation from Dr. Dini you need an 'A' in at least one of his classes, a leadership role or special project so that he gets to know you; and answer, in person, the question: "How do you think the human species originated?"
On his site, Dini cautions students: "If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences."
In his complaint, Micah Spradling states, "I'll never be able to affirm that I believe human evolution is true. My faith prohibits that."
So, his religious beliefs require him to reject science? Maybe a change in majors would have been the better choice. Like Theology or Criminal Psychology? Something that doesn't require the heavy lifting of science.
Or maybe he could try one of the other 35 Biology professors on the TT staff.
Micah, I'm sure one of them will let a whining slacker such as yourself slide by, hell you might even get a letter of recommendation ... Shmuck.
(and you're talking to yourself, Wakeup Sleeper)
I made a specific point, as you asked for in post #551. Can you address my critique or will you stick to make this a kind of whack-a-mole? To repeat:
That's what the main point of
They know, that carbon dating won't give meaningful results for samples which are older than ~50,000 years. They do it non the less. And they do it again. And they claim that they have proved either that the world is less than 50,000 years old or that carbon dating doesn't work.
To get back to our little analogy: this is like claiming that their is either less than one litre of liquid or that it is impossible to measure the amount of one gallon...
I didn't call the names in your posts "window dressing." Here's what I posted:
Given the duplicitous nature of most of them, it's more like cross-dressing.
Before your attempt your next response, please have someone tell you what the words mean.
You then responded,
some may have been duplicates but not most, but I can still give you more names if you like?
I see you didn't take my advice.
gumlegs: Given the duplicitous nature of most of them, it's more like cross-dressing.[...] Before your attempt your next response, please have someone tell you what the words mean.
sleeper: some may have been duplicates but not most, but I can still give you more names if you like?
gumlegs: I see you didn't take my advice.
It may be a little bit too late, but, as it is said:
Be not ignorant of any thing in a great matter or a small. (Sir.5,15)
The current incarnation has exactly the same grammar, sentence structure, egregious errors, and argumentation technique as the one who got the boot. If they aren't the same person, or the members of the same family, they surely went through the same school system.
FWIW, the disregard of the rules of syntax, grammar and spelling reminds me of the liberal dictum that "rules don't apply to ME"....
There was no deception. look at the science! and can keep giving names of scientists if you want who are favorable to evolution? If I must continualy keep writing bunches of names down over and over.
those cheesy comments arent going to cut it!
Entwined and woven? Thats some real science there!
You have to show that the ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 14 is a constant. Dr. willard Libby the founder of the carbon 14 dating method assumed this ratio to be a constant. In order for the ratio to be in consistance, you must have the amount in the atmosphere at the same rate of decay (equilibrium) even in Dr. Libbys work he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be at equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he wanted to believe the world was billions of years old and enough time had past to acheive equilibeium he found it would only take 30,000 years at best to reach equilibrium. But guess what Dr. Libby deliberatly ignored the evidence that he didnt want to believe and tried to blame it on experimental error. It is fact that the ratio of c12 to c14 is NOT a constant. Read about Dr. Libbys dishonesty!
Do you have any real science or are you an eNgLiSh teacher!
I mean scientists who arent favorable! hahahaha Peace!
Lets get into the missing "missing links" shall we? does it take along time for something to fossil?
Are there dinosaur bones with soft tissue in them today?
How can there be fossils i.e. polystrate, fossils if the strata is layered and sealed for millions and billions and millions of years?
Answer There cant
can proteins form on their own and just happen to form the proper squence by chance just make one protein that still wouldnt make life?
Are there a great many studies out there now starting to show remarkable probability that once thought of constants may actualy not be constants?
Can the earth be billions of yearsold and the mountains not have eroded away?
Is there enough sediment at the moutths of rivers and sediment on the ocean floor for it to be billions of years old?
Answer NO (and to add not even close to near enough)
Are there fossils at the tops of mountains and sediments even on everest which gives possible evidence to a global flood?
Answer YES shall I keep going? There is absolute no science to refute what ive just expressed here! There isnt a scientist who would even dare to argue it, evolutionist or not!
Hessel de Vries, a Dutch physicist at the University of Groningen, furthered the detection methods and applications of radiocarbon dating to a variety of sciences. He has been called "the unsung hero of radiocarbon dating" by Willis.
In 1958, de Vries showed that there were systematic anomalies in the carbon-14 dates of tree rings. His explanation was that the concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere had varied over time by up to 1%. He hypothesized that the variation might be explained by (a) something connected with climate, (b) that it was not created in the atmosphere at a uniform rate due to variations in the Earth's magnetic field, or (c) a cause lay in the Sun itself. Source
Atmospheric variation of up to 1%? Wow! That shoots the radiocarbon method down for sure doesn't it?
(Oh, wait. Scientists figured out a way to correct for atmospheric variation. Never mind.)
Can Wakeup Sleeper truly be that ignorant of the principles and findings of science?
1% is what he claims but not fact. And if you arent sure what the effect of the carbon scources are or at what intensity at different time periods how can you make a claim that its only 1%. For example some say that we could have 500 times the amount of carbon 14 today fromjust a few thousand years ago.etc..etc...etc... Peace!
Go ahead and show me that what ive just posted has an error in it, of those things I just lited show me and express yourself here in front of all and refute just one! because they are absolute facts.
There are fossils in the tops of maountains,
there arent enough sediments in the river ocean floors,
proteins dont come together by chance and form the EXACT sequences etc...etc...etc... just refute one as not being a known fact!
And dont give me the adhock no evidence, theres subduction goin ons down yonder under them their contanants!
Here is an example of the "science" you are citing:
In the Creation model, all the layers of the geologic column were laid down 4350 years ago in the global flood. Also, taking into account the dilution effect of the antediluvian world, the Carbon ratio at the time of burial was maybe 1:300 of today's C-14/C-12 equilibrium of the Biosphere. So, The creationists predict that fossil carbon should have residual C-14 of maybe 1:500 of today's C-14/C-12 equilibrium of the Biosphere. A ratio of 1:500 would give fossil carbon an apparent age of approximately 50,000 years. Source
Clearly science is not your best subject.
(I still think my post #617 is the best explanation.)
It wouldn't matter; you're illiterate in both.
Amusingly, I don't have to. You asked in your post #551:
give me one specific not websites you yourself tell me where at one point tell me where its wrong! I did so in my post #577 in a way, you should be able to understand.
Deal with it...
Yes. Exactly. A real scientific theory must be rich in testable implications, and to do that it must be readily interwoven/integrated with any and all other relevant scientific theories and principles.
This is also exactly why ID isn't scientific. It seeks to remain alone and apart, making a full stop at drawing, as they call it, the "design inference." IDers refuse to posit any specific claims that would tie the theory into a scenario of earth history, claims about the fossil record, issues related to comparative anatomy, patterns of the geographical distributions of organisms, modes of genetic change, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Perhaps the home-schooled scion...
Home schooled chidren out perform public school children!
Give me your testable model for abiogenesis! I didnt think so!
There is no entity called science all the word science means is to know or knowledge. If I was walking down the beach and I saw a sand castle, and saw no one for miles around would you conclude that the wind and the waves made it? Where did mass and energy come from? And who made the laws of physics and why? Why is there an atmosphere around the earth? How come there is air inwhich we just happen to need? and water? and food? who set the moon and the sun in their perfect places? How come storms as terrible as they can be they dont destroy us? who steadys the levels of the ocean that they dont rise so high to destroy us? How come we have two symetric arms and legs and yet they are opposites? and how come they are facing forward as are eyes are also, if think evolution is the case then what told your eyes to be in front and your hands? which came first from your point of view? your hands or your eyes? where did your eyes come from? a freckle? How ridiculous!!!!! where are your testable models? But you say it was intertwined and woven! Genetic change? you say? where? it is fact that genetics in is all you get out! Its funny how your claims have been made and propagandised but now that we can see what we have already known that evolution is completely bad science and the cameras are rolling, that evolutionists want to change their tune. Evolution is nothing more than a modern day thinking of the earth being flat, the difference is when they thought the earth was flat some realy believed it. The bible said that man sits on the circle of the earth before they could prove it.
respectfuly disagree, but you gave not a fact with evidence but a hypothetical with no evidnce for certainty.
gummybearlegs you are just bitter that evolution has no real science behind it
"Not really. Evolutionary theory is thoroughly, and crucially, entwined and woven together with numerous "auxiliary" principles, as Sober calls them, which render it rich in testable implications. See, for instance, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution."
Thanks, Stultis. That's an intriguing discussion. It will take me a while to digest it. Once I've done that, perhaps there will be some useful further discussion to follow. Meanwhile, thanks for sharing the reference. Here's a paper that I've been attempting to decipher recently. The discussion at your link seems likely to provide a helpful supplement to the explanations in this article:
SIREV Volume 49 Issue 1
Pages 3-31, ©2007 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
The Mathematics of Phylogenomics
Lior Pachter and Bernd Sturmfels
(Received May 29, 2005; accepted September 30, 2005; published January 30, 2007)
The grand challenges in biology today are being shaped by powerful high-throughput technologies that have revealed the genomes of many organisms, global expression patterns of genes, and detailed information about variation within populations. We are therefore able to ask, for the first time, fundamental questions about the evolution of genomes, the structure of genes and their regulation, and the connections between genotypes and phenotypes of individuals. The answers to these questions are all predicated on progress in a variety of computational, statistical, and mathematical fields. The rapid growth in the characterization of genomes has led to the advancement of a new discipline called phylogenomics. This discipline results from the combination of two major fields in the life sciences: genomics, i.e., the study of the function and structure of genes and genomes; and molecular phylogenetics, i.e., the study of the hierarchical evolutionary relationships among organisms and their genomes. The objective of this article is to offer mathematicians a first introduction to this emerging field, and to discuss specific mathematical problems and developments arising from phylogenomics.
Let's see ... you've demonstrated beyond any rational doubt that you don't know anything about the English language. You've demonstrated beyond any rational doubt that you don't know anything about science.
Your unsupported assertion demonstrates what I've just posted. Go ahead -- claim victory. Your ignorance is not only invincible, it is well nigh all-encompassing.
As always, there are exceptions to the rule...
May I conclude that you failed to understand the analogy?
Youve yet to show one specific valid point
As if you'd recognize one.