Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory?

God and Science ^ | Sept 2002 | Richard Deem

[VadeRetro]

7. (New designs in nature)

Anti-Supernatural: Complex new designs would be rare and develop slowly whereas simple transitions would be common

Supernatural: No restriction on designs with the possibility that new designs would be created "overnight"

Indeed! The Designer could make mammal-bird, amphibian-mammal, or amphibian-bird composites just as easily as He made Archeopteryx with its wonderful mix of bird and reptile features. But He only seems to make composites that look just like transitionals on that evolutionary tree of life. This item boldly states that such is far from necessary. Creation/ID can freely predict a far wider range of designs than does evolution.

So where are they?

[VadeRetro]

is true we cannot detect Earth sized planets yet, but the giant planets we do find tend to be very close to the star.

That's another bias. Being closer makes the wobble bigger. The inverse r² factor in Newton's Law and all that.

Almost every astrophysicst beleives they formed further out and drifted in. This would have disrupted the orbit of any earth-like planet.

But it's harder to see the cases where that didn't happen.

[Ahban]

On #25 and other you are basically saying "It is impossible NOW, but we will do it".

That is a statement of faith on your part. That is a confirmation of my own hypothesis that naturalism is a faith, just like bibical Christianity (with the exception that it is not true, but both are ultimately matters of faith and not evidence).

[Ahban]

For "it is impossible" substitute, "no one has yet demonstrated how." This guy is a charlatan.

That is a statement of faith on your part. Ultimately, it is a matter of faith which side we choose. You are SURE it can be done, but we just have not figured out how YET. Pure faith, by the facts, it is currently impossible, but by faith it is just a matter of time. Maybe, maybe not.

In the meantime, the fellow has made some testable predictions. Prove them wrong and you have negated his hypothesis. Isn't that fair enough?

[RobbyS]

It is an assumption--a philosophical assumption--that life can be produced by random motion. Nothing can refute this notion, not even the multiplication of instances to infinity.

[VadeRetro]

That is a statement of faith on your part.

This gets a little silly, you know. We're talking about the chemical synthesis of organics.

Can we add another prediction to a very short list?

1) OK, well, there's never going to be another transitional fossil found,
2) OK, well, there's never going to be another organic compound synthesized.

[Aric2000]

Testable according to whom, it is NOT testable unless you can prove that there is a god. When you can PROVE that, then it will be testable, but until then it is faith and NOT at all scientific.

If the main tenet of your theory is that there is a creator, then you HAVE to prove that a creator exists.

Let's see you prove it.

[Ahban]

He should have footnoted the PE stuff, I'll grant you. The annoying thing about PE to a creavo is that IT comes off as the shucking and jiving you accuse Deem of. It is 'How the fossle record can look just like Creationism and still be the result of Naturalistic Evolution". I would be interested to know how PE fossils would look any different from Creationism.

PE is an attempt to explain why the fossil record is 9X% contradictory to classical Darwinism. My biggest knock against it is that if such rapid change occured as frequently as postulated by the idea, we should be observing new FAMILIES in just a few centuries.

If PE is is the explanation, why isn't it happening now? Why is macroevolution always happening somewhere else? Creationsim has an explanation, naturalism does not, at least not a good one.

[VadeRetro]

If PE is is the explanation, why isn't it happening now?

Have we been all over that? Ring species? Aren't you one of those micro-isn't-macro-dodgers?

Just did it all over today with Dark Knight, who (throwback that he is) doesn't even accept microevolution. First this, then later the following.

Let me summarize the evidence a bit. We can see this micro thing, even if we can't always do the ultimate test.

From Smooth Change in the Fossil Record.

We can see this macro thing, which looks a lot like the micro thing writ large.

From Appendicular Skeletal Evolution, part of The Evolution of the Horse.

It isn't always happening somewhere else. It happens slowly but detectably now. As that slide show pointed out:

Now, you can protest that your version predicts anything we find now or will ever find with its "Hey! He could have done that too!" Designer. The problem is convincing anyone that your version is more scientific.

[PatrickHenry]

On #25 and other you are basically saying "It is impossible NOW, but we will do it". That is a statement of faith on your part. That is a confirmation of my own hypothesis that naturalism is a faith, just like bibical Christianity (with the exception that it is not true, but both are ultimately matters of faith and not evidence).

I believe you are mis-using the word "faith" in this context. As I use the word faith, it means belief in something without evidence or logical proof. Many theological doctrines are believed on faith, as I've described it.

However, I gave a list of scientific accomplishments which were, in the pre-scientific past, believed to be impossible. But science has provided us with the understanding of nature to accomplish things which, in our ignorant past, we were unable to do. So science has a track record. This is evidence of the efficacy of the scientific endevour.

Thus, when I say that some things now claimed to be impossible (the claims are made by creationists, not scientiests) may in the future be accomplished, I am pointing to the scientific track record and, with confidence (not faith), I predict that such matters can be solved by further research.

I admit that such predictions may be too enthusiastic, and some problems may turn out to be unsolvable. But it's confidence, based on observable facts, not faith, based on ... well, on nothing but faith.

[Gumlegs]

Jean-Marie Le Bris ... ????

Moheled again!

[Gumlegs]

That is, unlikely events CAN occur, they just are not likely to. If enough 'unlikely ' events occur, there is a good chance you are missing some causal agent.

The odds of getting a 1 in roulette are 1 in 38 (36 numbered slots, plus 0 and 00). The odds against getting two 1s in a row are 1 in 38². Three 1s in a row will happen once in 38³ times. Very unlikely. But if it happens, I won't be looking for a "causitive agent" ... unless I suspect a barking wheel.

[Gumlegs]

On #25 and other you are basically saying "It is impossible NOW, but we will do it".

That is a statement of faith on your part.

That is an assumption on your part. I would not say "we will," but rather, "we may." Or (granted), we may not. But no matter how you slice it, what the author has is an argument from incredulity. That's a logical fallacy no matter how you slice it.

[VadeRetro]

6. (Origin of Life)

Anti-Supernatural: Life emerged late, during ideal environmental conditions. Life began as simple systems (pre-bacteria)

"Anti-Supernatural?" What's wrong with just "Natural?"

Supernatural: Life emerged early under adverse conditions. Life has always been complex

This "bold prediction" is too mushy. Evolutionist J. William Schopf has tried to peg cellular life at 3.8 billion years ago, when the earth had barely cooled. Those are not exactly late or ideal conditions. (Questions have emerged about Schopf's claim. The 3.8 bya "fossils" may be geologic artifacts.) Why does Deem stake out the same position for the supernatural? How early is "early" and how complex is "complex?"

[donh]

Is is tough when any test you can give is dismissed out of hand. To me those tests are as reasonable as the ones for the evo side. They are no easier or harder to refute than the ones that postulate evolution alone is responsible for all biotic change.

Actually, you did force me to muse about this for a while because of a previous thread. What I had wanted to point out was that the criteria for a thesis to be scientific isn't limited just to practically realizable refutability.

There is a fundamental problem called under-determination that you might stumble onto if you look into the literature on this subject. Under-determination is 90 cent word for "can't ever really be sure". And it is a kind of complement to the principal of refutability. It holds that, since you can't prove squat, there is no way to be sure that the cause you have demonstrated for an effect is the fundamentally explanatory cause, no matter how useful it seems. I'll give you an excruciatingly relevant example: if I somehow manage to determine beyond reasonable doubt what the exact naturalistic pathway is from long-lasting sulpherated paint-pot bubbles to cellular life, I will still not have demonstrated that it didn't require intervention by God to get the whole shebang rolling. Just because I can provide a detailed naturalistic explanation for babies resulting from combining sperm and eggs from bisexual species, does not refute the notion that the sperm and eggs are being directed to each other by God's Master Plan. God may simply be working through naturalistic tools to accomplish His Plan.

It is because of the problems mounted by underdetermination that we obey other restrictions on what we allow into the science club. We don't, for instance, let in explanations whose broadness of scope is such that any number of similar alternative explanations would work equally well on the available evidence. When we propose alternative scientific explanations, it is generally to, in terms of potential proposed tests, narrow down, not expand, the field of discourse.

Hence, an answer like "God did it." To be science, needs to explain, in some verifiable manner, why Zeus, Jupiter, the elephant on the back of the turtle, or Allah aren't just as good candidates.

Science, after taking many knocks in the noggin about this, has learned to restrict its inquiry to naturalistic events. That is, events which leave some trail of positive material evidence behind to chew on. You cannot easily imagine how to refute theories that do not rely on positive evidence. By contrast, theories that rely on positive evidence, can be refuted by finding tangible counter-examples.

Hence, I can refute Newton's theory of gravity by finding counterexamples that do not obey Newton's law--which is exactly what happened with the perihelion of Mercury experiment. We are presently in the throws of figuring out whether outer orbits of galaxies refute the current law of gravity.

By contrast, suggest to me where to look for counter-examples of the thesis: "God created the heavens and the earth". As a thesis, its scope is too broad and vague for me to mount a scientific search for refuting counter-examples.

[LogicWings]

Intelligent Design begs the question that the Design is, in fact, intelligent. As remarkable and miraculous (tongue planted firmly in cheek) as the human body is, it isn’t very intelligently designed. Unless you think things like impacted wisdom teeth, diabetes, cancers, burst appendix, and multiple sclerosis are all intelligent design. All these are design (genetic) flaws. There are dozens such flaws that argue against an ‘intelligent’ design.

The idea that a perfect God would not create a universe less than "perfect" is logically flawed.

The idea that a perfect God could create a less than perfect universe is logically flawed. (I love it when these guys lecture on what’s logically flawed. It’s a sure sign that what follows is utterly irrational.) If all that existed was God then all God knew was perfection. Since He is perfect and complete, He couldn’t learn, so how did He know about imperfection, unless He already had the knowledge, meaning He must have been imperfect in some aspect. In other words, how could He know that there was the possibility of something other that goodness, for there to be a freewill choice concerning, if He didn’t already know about evil, unless He Himself created it?

Why didn't God create this perfect universe in the first place? Forcing creatures to be prefect (sic) would abrogate their free will and prevent them expressing true love, since they would have no choice.

There are a number of problems here. First, the above says that God could not create a perfect universe where freewill was possible, therefore He is not Omnipotent and by definition not God. Second, that being created perfect would abrogate freewill, which means either there is no freewill in perfection or if one has freewill one cannot be perfect, so does God lack freewill or perfection? Following from this it, if one is created perfect one cannot express ‘true love.’ But if one were perfect one could only express true love, or it would violate the definition of perfection. The contradictions here abound.

When I first read this I thought there was more here to criticize but the rest is such an irrational mish mash it takes all the fun out of it. It is just a pile of assertions without proof that aren’t even connected logically enough to point out the contradictions. For example, the very first sentence.

In essence, ID is a statistical study in which the product is unlikely to occur by naturalistic process alone.

This is nonsense. There isn’t anything that exists that doesn’t occur by ‘naturalistic process alone’ unless you beg the question that there is something other than the naturalistic (what a word! you can always see obfuscation coming when you see words like this) process. In other words, this very sentence already assumes the existence of the ‘supernatural.’ It is utter assertion without proof that is the premise for all that follows. If you take the word ’unlikely’ it gets more ridiculous. It has the logical form of saying, ’it is statistically unlikely that what has occurred naturally could have occurred naturally.’

The whole document is filled with this kind of thing. Enough said.

[Looking for Diogenes]

The agency IS described. The God of the Bible is the causal agent.

That is not what I was asking about.

The intelligent Designer is identified as the Creator God of the Bible.

God may have been the Designer, but who was the builder and how was it built? What was the physical agent that created human, animals, plants, etc. I have yet to see a description of how the act of creation could have occured.

All the Creationist arguments I see are mostly anti-evolution arguments. I'd like to see some affirmative discussions of what the theory of Intelligent Design is and how it works, minus attacks on competing theories.

[VadeRetro]

My biggest knock against it is that if such rapid change occured as frequently as postulated by the idea, we should be observing new FAMILIES in just a few centuries.

I know I've tried to explain to you before about how families don't pop out of nowhere. It's a tree. Big branching limbs were once little limbs. Little limbs were once tiny buds.

Moving further up the taxonomic hierarchy, the condylarths and primitive carnivores (creodonts, miacids) are very similar to each other in morphology (Fig. 9, 10), and some taxa have had their assignments to these orders changed. The Miacids in turn are very similar to the earliest representatives of the Families Canidae (dogs) and Mustelidae (weasels), both of Superfamily Arctoidea, and the Family Viverridae (civets) of the Superfamily Aeluroidea. As Romer (1966) states in Vertebrate Paleontology (p. 232), "Were we living at the beginning of the Oligocene, we should probably consider all these small carnivores as members of a single family." This statement also illustrates the point that the erection of a higher taxon is done in retrospect, after sufficient divergence has occurred to give particular traits significance.

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record, which in its entirety could have been written directly to you.

[AndrewC]

It is utter assertion without proof that is the premise for all that follows.

Isn't that basically what a proof involves?

ax·i·om   Pronunciation Key  (ks-m)
n.

1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: “It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services” (Albert Jay Nock).
2. An established rule, principle, or law.
3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

Proof.

A finite, non-empty sequence of wffs in which the last member is the wff proved and each of the others is either an axiom or the result of applying a rule of inference to wffs preceding it in the sequence. In short, a derivation in which all premises are theorems. See constructive proof; derivation; existence proof.

[f.Christian]

The stickers, placed in new science books this month after requests from parents opposed to evolution on religious grounds, say evolution is a theory, not fact, and should be critically considered.