Yes i will point out the problems with evolution which are described in the book evolution a theory in crisis, it is not something i can do right now becuase it is a large book and i do not remember every problem listed i only remember some of the main ones. I am going to read over the book tonight and i will get back to this forum and post the conclusions.
Great. I'm looking forward to it.
For now, I'll take a stab at the ID movement as a whole.
The main idea behind ID is thus: [Insert biological system or organism here] is too complex to have evolved from simpler predecessors, therefore it didn't evolve.
Now, as I said earlier, everything that IDers have brought forth thus far and claimed as irreducibly complex has been refuted. This was done in spectacular fashion at
Kitzmiller v. Dover when Michael Behe (one of the fathers of Intelligent Design) admitted that the biological systems he put forward could indeed evolve through natural processes. Behe, during that trial, did more to damage his own assertions than he did to help them.
Below are some quotes from the Judge in the
Kitzmiller case, John E. Jones:
"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."
"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."
"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not, in fact, irreducibly complex."
"With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ... In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."
"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."
"As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."
Sources -
Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The final ruling was that ID "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
Despite this, ID proponents still assert that their position is a scientific one.
Another problem is that Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity, at their core, rest upon a logical fallacy. It's known as "The Argument from Ignorance". The short hand of the argument from ignorance is thus:
"I don't understand how X could be true, therefore Y must true"
As it applies to ID:
"I don't understand how the bacterial flagellum could have evolved, therefore it must have been intelligently designed."
That's it. That, in a nutshell, what ID rests on.
First, every system that the ID proponents have put forward has been refuted and explained. The eye, the wing, the bacterial flagellum, all of them. We can show how these "irreducibly complex" systems evolved without any difficulty.
Secondly, negative evidence for A does not equal positive evidence for B. I've had to explain this to a number of creationists. If creationists (or design proponents) managed to completely disprove evolution, that would not prove creationism (or intelligent design). They would have to do more than that. They would have to find positive evidence that actually supports their own hypothesis and something "looking designed" would not be anywhere near enough. We already know of many things that "look designed" that are not designed. Unless they can actually demonstrate design, their position will always be on the fringe. Disproving evolution will not help them.
Intelligent Design has no theoretical model, offers no explanations for how the designer creates things, has no hard evidence, and has nothing to even indicate that it is a reasonable hypothesis. It is, from all indications, dead in the water.
ID is a failed attempt to get creation back in the classroom. It is not a legitimate science. It is, as Nicholas Matzke once put it, "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo."
