Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Monk Of Reason]

I did not invent the term "micro-evolution" nor did I invent "macro-evolution". There is more than one form of evolution according to science.

False. This is a commonly propagated misunderstanding and misuse of the terms. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same and there are no differences between them. The only difference to be found is that macroevolution is accumulated microevolution. Just as feet and miles exist they are both legitimate forms of measurement. The term was originally coined by a Russian evolutionary biologist in the earlier part of the 20th century to denote the differences in how organisms speciate. The macro-evolution was just the term of how we look and see that there has been speciation that has occurred and micro-evolution was just adjusting the lens to zoom in on smaller changes as to how it has happened.

I do not believe that creatures like whales were once land animals who evolved into marine creatures. There is no proof that it ever happened, except in the over active imagination of the scientists.

Have you ever actually examined the evidence? The post above this one has one of the most glaring pieces of evidence. What do you make of it?

I believe that the creatures the Genesis account calls "kinds" were created separately and individually but with the ability to adapt to changing environments. They are and always have been, separate "kinds".

Other than religion what is the basis of this belief?

In their experiments scientists did not find one kind turning into another kind of creature. They found them adapting in small ways to suit a changing environment.

...in the exact same way they expected and predicted by evolution. You may move the goal posts but it doesn't help your argument.

The findings of science are no more than hypothesis, supposition and educated guessing. They have huge gaps that they fill, not with evidence, but with imagination. Science can no more prove that all life evolved from a single organism than we can prove that an intelligent Creator brought all things into existence according to his design.

No. It is based off of evidence and observation. Creationism is a convoluted assumption based off of misinterpreted ancient religions made by near cave men.

Claiming that something is a fact when it is unprovable is dishonest.

And claiming something that is fully established as scientific fact is folly is dishonest. As is the continual misrepresentation of said science even after you have been corrected multiple times by multiple members who seems to have a vastly better understanding of the topic than yourself. However this indicates to me that you are not an idiot. Your lack of understanding when it comes to the sciences isn't actually caused by any sort of mental lacking but rather an axiom of belief that you will not allow yourself to go past. Try allowing yourself to think out side of the box for a few minutes and I wonder what kind of conclusions you will come to.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You gotta fix that title!
(We lowly posters now have the ability to edit our titles.)
Evolution does make predictions which are falsifiable though, eg, evolutionary algorithms (which use the same process). This doesn't prove evolution to be "true", but falsifiability does put evolution in the realm of science. ID is different because it makes no predictions which are testable, thereby making it inaccessible to the scientific method....ie, not science (even if it is "true").

Hey there Revoltingest..

Evolution certainly did make predictions, like the prediction that life evolved in gradual steady increments over a long period of time, rather than those silly abrupt leaps in the Bible...
Just like global warming used to predict less snow..

when predictions are falsified, they can be changed.

'Those are my principles and if you don't like them, I have others..'

Intelligent design makes some fundamentally falsifiable predictions, that the universe was designed, created- simply show that it was static/eternal as many long tried to do, and this prediction is falsified.

Most proponents of intelligent design also predict that humanity is the pinnacle of that design, simply find superior alien intelligence, as many have long tried to do, and this is also falsified.

 

[FearGod]

The point is that it requires more mental hoola-hooping to reject the idea of common descent, when simple observation renders us effectively indistinguishable from other mammals until quite late in our gestation processes.

The variations, once they occur, are not incredibly staggering or differentiating. The difference between the largest mammal and the smallest are not that far apart. The handful of adaptations between the Shrew and the blue whale are well understood. The process for these variances and deviations among the species are knowns. They are mapped. They can even be manipulated based on those knowns.

With what we know about biology, and chemistry, and genetics, and anatomy and zoology, and Botany and geology, and oceanography, and any other ology that you can think of, with everything that we have studied and dissected and probed and investigated, nothing has come into direct conflict with the evolutionary model. Hundreds of thousands of studies, spread over every branch of science, and nothing had shown the predictions or assumptions made by the evolutionary model to be undeniably incorrect.

Yet there is push back from the pious because their god of choice isn't part of the conversation of human origins...

The point is that the adherence to the argument for Intelligent Design has so far only offered a philosophical view point, and nothing else. It is entirely founded on a hopeful metaphysical bias that has no basis in observable objective reality. It is little more than a talking point, yet it is adhered to as if it had some vast amount of scientific study backing it. It's somehow being allowed into the conversation of science, with absolutely no other substantiation except for someone saying "I like this idea better," or other such arguments from logic.

Put up or shut up. If there is a designer, or a creator, then present the evidence. Try to offer something other than "Evolution doesn't make any sense because I read some non-science books."

If you can't tell the difference between a dolphin embryo and a human embryo, then you shouldn't you make any claims about the biological process at all.

DOLPHIN
RABBIT
GORILLA
HUMAN

Those genotypes are kind of different, aren't they? But you'd never know it by looking at the phenotype.

Lets forget for awhile the evolution of life, but the question is how life itself existed, how the first cell were born other than being created first as to reproduce, how it happened that earth was suitable for life and the solar system work in harmony?

I don't know what this means.

I know it's hard to differentiate between them but by investigating the images i found them to be for humans, if you understood the verse it says the same thing that all creatures are basically at one stage are looking the same and then each will develop to a different creature.

Is that what the Koran meant with that sentence? It says that god is the best of all the creators... Well, we can make better and more sensible stuff that what god supposedly designed. Does the fact that we can make more efficient machines render that statement from the Koran moot? Or was it saying something else entirely?

It says that no one can create better than his creation, for example look for the difference between brain and the computer.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Evolution certainly did make predictions, like the prediction that life evolved in gradual steady increments over a long period of time, rather than those silly abrupt leaps in the Bible...

Are you suggesting that the predictions of long-term environmental adaptation have somehow been falsified?

Just like global warming used to predict less snow..

Climate and weather are two very different things. G
Global warming will produce pockets of increased cold, just like global cooling would produce pockets of increased heat.

Intelligent design makes some fundamentally falsifiable predictions, that the universe was designed, created- simply show that it was static/eternal as many long tried to do, and this prediction is falsified

This is not how any logical debate works. You don't get to make a claim against the norm and then place the burden of proof on the norm...

Most proponents of intelligent design also predict that humanity is the pinnacle of that design, simply find superior alien intelligence, as many have long tried to do, and this is also falsified.

First, that's not a prediction. That's just a random claim and a bias.
But, that being said, evolutionary theory has posited that life should exist elsewhere in the Universe. If/When we find life away from Earth, even in it's simplest forms, wouldn't the data support the evolutionary prediction and only further demonstrate the validity of the evolutionary model? It would show that life isn't confined to this planet, and the implications of that would be Universal in their scope.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Lets forget for awhile the evolution of life, but the question is how life itself existed, how the first cell were born other than being created first as to reproduce, how it happened that earth was suitable for life and the solar system work in harmony?

You're essentially asking to place the focus on abiogenesis because it's an unknown. And because there is an unknown, by your logic, then there must be a god.
It's an argument of a god of the gaps and it's tired.

The question of how planets, and indeed the majority of the Universe itself, form is quite well understood.

Nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only thing needed for existence to be possible, essentially, is Hydrogen, Helium, and gravity.

I know it's hard to differentiate between them but by investigating the images i found them to be for humans, if you understood the verse it says the same thing that all creatures are basically at one stage are looking the same and then each will develop to a different creature.

They weren't all human embryos.

DOLPHIN
RABBIT
GORILLA
HUMAN
*That was the order of the photos.

It's actually not hard for the trained eye. For the untrained eye, it should go to show you similar all life forms are, within their "kind" - which spans every single species of mammal, just as one example. Even if I were to include some bird species and reptilian embryos in the photo log, you'd never be able to tell them apart.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Here's another one...

Tell me which of these fingerprints are human:

 

[FearGod]

You're essentially asking to place the focus on abiogenesis because it's an unknown. And because there is an unknown, by your logic, then there must be a god.
It's an argument of a god of the gaps and it's tired.

The question of how planets, and indeed the majority of the Universe itself, form is quite well understood.

Nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only thing needed for existence to be possible, essentially, is Hydrogen, Helium, and gravity.

Giving names and terms such as the god of the gaps won't help other than it is indeed the truth that we don't know and we won't know how things started before
about 13.5 billion years ago, then saying all what is needed is hydrogen, Helium and gravity then life will come up is really a silly excuse if i may say, it is like saying all is needed for a cup of tea is to have sugar, tea, water and fire, then the drink of tea will be ready hot and delicious, so you didn't explain anything, as someone have to bring the tea, the sugar, the water and do the work so we can have the delicious hot tea ready for drink, and a cup is needed too.

They weren't all human embryos.

DOLPHIN
RABBIT
GORILLA
HUMAN
*That was the order of the photos.

It's actually not hard for the trained eye. For the untrained eye, it should go to show you similar all life forms are, within their "kind" - which spans every single species of mammal, just as one example. Even if I were to include some bird species and reptilian embryos in the photo log, you'd never be able to tell them apart.

Actually i don't have a lot of time to investigate all the images but for example the 3rd is for human and not for gorilla, so you were wrong

In this five-week old human embryo, somites are segments along the length of the body.

Image: Somites

 

[Skwim]

Isn't that only the case if there are 2 possibilities?

Actually, there's no logic 101 involved at all. If Jared Jammer was trying to establish a syllogistic argument there would have to be a major AND minor premise, but there aren't. All he's done is make two unrelated and false statements.

If Intelligent Design is Untesatble Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable.​

AND

If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

​

They're no more supported by logic 101 than . . .

If dogs can't be made to eat fish, then birds can't be made to eat fish.​

AND

If dogs are unable to fly, then birds are reptiles.​

It's all meaningless blather.

 

[leibowde84]

. . . Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Why? Logic 101.

They're opposing answers to the same question, thus, any test for one will inherently test the other.
Any evidence for one will be evidence against the other.
Any proof of one will be proof against the other. proving one will falsify the other (and vice versa).

When Darwinists say we can't falsify the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't prove biology is the product of blind nature.

When Darwinists say we can't prove the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't falsify the claim that biology is the product of blind nature.

The only reasonable conclusion is that either both are science, or neither is science.

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.

Doesn't this assume that there are only two possibilities; either Darwinian Evolution or Intelligent Design is accurate and the other is not? I would have to assume that the number of possibilities when speaking to this subject has to be more than 2.

 

[jonathan180iq]

then saying all what is needed is hydrogen, Helium and gravity then life will come up is really a silly excuse if i may say

Again, Nucleosynthesis.

And I did say "essentially"

Actually i don't have a lot of time to investigate all the images but for example the 3rd is for human and not for gorilla, so you were wrong

http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/2/pdf/l_042_03.pdf

If the image source was credited incorrectly or not, the premise doesn't change.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hey there Revoltingest..
Evolution certainly did make predictions, like the prediction that life evolved in gradual steady increments over a long period of time, rather than those silly abrupt leaps in the Bible...

True dat.

Just like global warming used to predict less snow..

I don't trust long term climate models....tis a newer & extremely complex science, one with immature models.
Remember predictions of more hurricanes? Bad model! Bad, bad!

when predictions are falsified, they can be changed.

No, it doesn't work that way. A falsified prediction means that the model is wrong.

Those are my principles and if you don't like them, I have others..'

There is bad science out there, eg, cold fusion experiments of Pons & Fleischmann. Scientists are often very flawed practitioners of the method. But they often yield useful results, eg, relativity, quantum mechanics. And even those theories stand ready to be replaced by something better.

Intelligent design makes some fundamentally falsifiable predictions, that the universe was designed, created- simply show that it was static/eternal as many long tried to do, and this prediction is falsified.

Some flavors (in specific religions) of ID might be falsifiable, but in general, it can't be disproven.

Most proponents of intelligent design also predict that humanity is the pinnacle of that design, simply find superior alien intelligence, as many have long tried to do, and this is also falsified.

I've never heard of the TOE predicting that we're the pinnacle.
That would be utterly bonkers!
(Notice that many fans of the TOE lack a good science education.)

 

[FearGod]

Again, Nucleosynthesis.

And I did say "essentially"

But it explains nothing about how things started and in which we agree for calling it the gaps.

If the image source was credited incorrectly or not, the premise doesn't change.

Yes i know it and the verse is saying the same.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

True dat.

I don't trust long term climate models....tis a newer & extremely complex science, one with immature models.
Remember predictions of more hurricanes? Bad model! Bad, bad!

No, it doesn't work that way. A falsified prediction means that the model is wrong.

it should work that way, I think the old global warming had a grain of truth to it, but in climastrology now, literally every possible observation is a prediction of the theory.

There is bad science out there, eg, cold fusion experiments of Pons & Fleischmann. Scientists are often very flawed practitioners of the method. But they often yield useful results, eg, relativity, quantum mechanics. And even those theories stand ready to be replaced by something better.

[/quote]

I spoke to a nuclear physics guy recently who considered cold fusion still feasible, not my area so I'm on the fence there, my spiritual side tells me its not possible, we don't get to have it that easy!

 

[leibowde84]

But it explains nothing about how things started and in which we agree for calling it the gaps.




Yes i know it and the verse is saying the same.

Don't you find it more reasonable to admit that we don't know yet in the realization that the mere lack of explanation for initiation in the theory of evolution in no way detracts from its plausibility. We just haven't figured that part out YET. An argument that explains the most without relying on tangible, objective physical evidence is substantially more flawed than one that rests on only the conclusions that can be tested and observed.

 

[leibowde84]

The excuses are even more flimsy than I expected. So many bald assertions. So many non-sequiturs. So many assaults on logic.

If you'll excuse me, I think I'll go throw up now.

We all thank you for your contribution.

 

[leibowde84]

What your thoughts about the fetus ?

The fetus developed and created in the womb, do you think the fetus becomes a new creation or a new evolver (of course this word doesn't exit yet) ?

Fetal development has nothing to do with evolution, as evolution does not claim that a single entity has ever evolved into a different species. that would actually be a ridiculous notion.

 

[Revoltingest]

it should work that way, I think the old global warming had a grain of truth to it, but in climastrology now, literally every possible observation is a prediction of the theory.

Be on guard against judging the models by predictions/confirmations by non-scientists, eg, Al Gore, various posters here.

I spoke to a nuclear physics guy recently who considered cold fusion still feasible, not my area so I'm on the fence there, my spiritual side tells me its not possible, we don't get to have it that easy!

I've heard of its possibility too, but the Pons & Fleischman were guilty of certainty in the face of dubious results & the inability of others to replicate their resilts.

 

[JayJayDee]

Evolution has been observed and well documented.

Evolution is based on interpretation of the evidence. What has been observed is not macro-ecolution...it is adaptation within specific species. The documentation is also based on human interpretation of the "evidence" they find.

Humans have come to conclusions about a lot of things over the centuries and time and further research has forced them to change what was once accepted as fact. This is the human track record. The Bible, on the other hand has not changed its story ever.

I have no faith in man to evaluate anything that must of necessity rob them of their claim to know better than the Creator.

There are mountains of evidence. ID, depending on which theory you support, is either un-falsifiable or totally wrong.

In whose opinion? Those who think they can't be wrong?....until the next discovery forces them to change their mind again?
Not an exact science, is it? Hardly honest to call a theory, a fact. Adding the word "scientific" does not automatically make something right.

If you support the concept that we were created as we are then it is simply demonstrably wrong......they fail to find any supporting evidence beyond what has already been evidenced under evolution.

The Bible tells a rather condensed story about the Creator and his creation. It gives simple explanations for very complex events and the reasons why humans lost what God originally gave them. And then it tells us how the Creator will rectify the problems without forcing humans to give up the gift of free will.

The simplicity is deceptive. But the Bible has not changed its message since it was written.

It is what the Bible doesn't tell us where evolution wants to jump in and fill the gaps with things that are merely their opinion about what happened before the Bible's narrative begins in the garden of Eden.

Evolution is science. Id is not. There is no logical requirement to accept that rocks are edible if bread is edible.

There is no reason for me to believe that scientists are more knowledgable than the Creator. What science is coming to terms with at present, is that the more they find out....the more they realize how much more there is to know. They have barely scratched the surface.....and yet look at the grandiose claims? Many here claim that evolution is a FACT....we all know that it is not. It is the opinion of those who are making educated guesses about what they unearth, nothing more.

The "evidence" they have is wide open to their own interpretation of what they "think" happened.

Man is claiming to place his limited knowledge on the same level as the one who created all things.....the very one who created the science that they are only just beginning to understand. To accept what they say over what God says, to me is ridiculous. It always will be.

 

[David M]

I did not invent the term "micro-evolution" nor did I invent "macro-evolution". There is more than one form of evolution according to science. I believe that science has definite evidence for adaptation, which some call micro-evolution, but I do not subscribe to the belief that adaptation can explain one creature evolving into another, no matter how much time elapsed...or that literally thousands of creatures did the same thing through what science attributes to mutations. Beneficial mutations are rare, so the odds are against evolution ever happening the way they claim.

And yet one creature evolving into another (speciation) is an observed fact.
The evolution of new physical structures is an observed fact.

But your argument is basically that because one cannot travel a mile in a single step then you cannot travel a mile by making many small steps.

 

[David M]

Then We made the seed a clot, then We made the clot a lump of flesh, then We made (in) the lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We caused it to grow into another creation, so blessed be Allah, the best of the creators.(23:14)

Which is nothing more than knowledge easily ascertained from miscarriages and stillbirths (unfortunately common at the time) and was generally known by many civilisations prior to the period when Islam started.