Intelligent Design is (1) not science

[Autodidact]

Whether ID is a science or not shouldn't depend on whether its presuppositions come from the bible, devotion to the FSM, or anything else. What matters is whether the people proposing it make testable assumptions and use other tried and true scientific methodologies. To the extent that ID fails muster on THOSE grounds, it still has to prove itself as a science.

Which it doesn't.

That said, evolution is, as far as I know, unfalsifiable.

You don't know far enough. Among many, many things that would falsify ToE, if fossils of later and more complex species were found that were older than fossils of earlier, less complex species, ToE would be disproved. If it were not the case that all life on earth was based on DNA. Even a flying invertebrate with 4 limbs would falsify ToE.

The persistent lack of transitional forms in the fossil record (an apparent falsification) is usually got round by pointing to putative transitional forms that are routinely debunked later.

You couldn't be more wrong. Every fossil that has ever been found is transititional, literally, millions of them. Just today I heard about a fossil of a primitive turtle with only half a shell, just discovered. This sort of thing happens all the time.

This has been especially true in studies of human evolution.

False again. There is, if anything, an embarssment of riches of pre-human proto-hominid fossils.

So the hope is always held out that the next dig will turn up the "smoking gun" transitional form.

It would be ignorant to look for a single transitional form, when all fossils are transitional. The last 50 years has turned up many new pre-hominid fossils.

And the continuing difficulty of defining a transitional form without vicious circularity is another serious obstacle to discussing the question.

This is gibberish.

So if falsifiability is the sine qua non of scientific theories, evolution has a serious challenge of its own.

No, it doesn't. Are you aware of the many predictions that ToE makes, everyone of which has been borne out? Just for starters, ToE predicted that the earth would be very old, more than 100 million years old. Sixty years later, this turned out to be correct. ToE predicted that there would be a mechanism that caused replication with modification, and a hundred years later it was discovered (DNA.) I could go on and on, and would be happy to, if you like.

That's not to say that ID and evolution are equally adequate. I don't know enough about either theory to comment on that. Evolution, even if not falsifiable, is to be preferred over rivals because it more adequately explains the data. And if so, it deserves the nod.

ID is either unfalsifiable or falsified. In some respects, it makes no predictions (because, of course, the intent of an unknowable but all-powerful designer could never be known.) It does make some predictions about evolution itself, which have been disproved. For example, Behe predicted that ToE could never explain the evolution of disease resistance. Since then, the evolutionary pathway has been found.

 

[Troublemane]

ID should really be put in the category of a philosophy, rather than science, since its claims are not about science but about faith. Science (when its good science) is about facts, data, evidence which can be verified independently by anyone. Faith is not a thing, can't be examined (thank god), so its not open to being verified objectively.

Further, good science doesnt have a conclusion set up at the beginning. ID has its conclusion forgone before any tests or experiment has been done: ID says the Bible is right and then begins to look for the evidence to prove it's right. If there is any evidence to the contrary it is ignored, denied and even assaulted.

That being said, I think it has a place in the marketplace of ideas, its just not science and should not be treated like one. :angel2:

 

[Autodidact]

What Troublemane said.

 

[Dunemeister]

Which it doesn't.

So you say, and I'm willing to concede the point.

You don't know far enough. Among many, many things that would falsify ToE, if fossils of later and more complex species were found that were older than fossils of earlier, less complex species, ToE would be disproved. If it were not the case that all life on earth was based on DNA. Even a flying invertebrate with 4 limbs would falsify ToE.

Again, so you say, and I'm willing to concede the point. I'll only say that I've heard arguments in which fossils that defied evolutionary explanation for their placement have been found, only to be met with epicycular explanations of why they could be so. It gave me the impression that the books had been cooked in advance. That's part of the reason I simply gave up on the study of evolution. It looked more and more like fundamentalist religion than anything else, and I got fed up. These days, I'm agnostic about the truth of evolution, but I'm happy to let the guys in the white lab coats put bread on their table by whatever means.

You couldn't be more wrong. Every fossil that has ever been found is transititional, literally, millions of them.

If they're all transitional, then the word "transitional" has no meaning.

ID is either unfalsifiable or falsified. In some respects, it makes no predictions (because, of course, the intent of an unknowable but all-powerful designer could never be known.) It does make some predictions about evolution itself, which have been disproved. For example, Behe predicted that ToE could never explain the evolution of disease resistance. Since then, the evolutionary pathway has been found.

Again, so you say. There was a time when I was intensely interested in the details of these arguments, but I've become thoroughly disgusted by the whole thing. I empathize with the early Enlightenment thinkers who, disgusted with the wars of religion turned their back on religion. I think I'm doing that (to a less dramatic degree) with science -- at least, evolutionary science.

 

[fantome profane]

Strictly speaking, none of them have been "derived" from physicalism. Newton, Planck, Einstein, and countless others operated with a much different metaphysic and still managed to contribute to science. Newton and Einstein were theists. So I'm not sure whence the hullaballoo over people who wish to take seriously BOTH their theistic commitments and their scientific commitments.

They may have been theists, but when the did science they were operating under the same scientific theory of methodological naturalism (what you call “physicalist metaphysic”) that scientists operate under today. And there are many good scientists today who are theists but when conducting science they still operate under the same method.

When Newton described his laws of motion he made no reference to “God” or any other supernatural agency. When he describe how the moon and earth travel in their orbits he did so without considering the effect that angels or ghosts or souls would have on them. He did all this using the “physicalist metaphysic”. And the fact that he was a devote Christian who wrote much on the topic of theology doesn’t change this at all.

However when Newton realized that he was unable to account for the stability of the solar system as a whole, then and only then did he start operating under a different metaphysic. And when he started operating under a different metaphysic he ceased to be doing science. And so failed to come up with a scientific explanation. That has to wait for almost a hundred years latter when another scientist took up the challenge and used “physicalist metaphysic” to provide us with a scientific explanation (the same scientific explanation that we have today).

No one is claiming that people who have deeply held theistic beliefs should not be taken seriously scientifically. I have a great deal of respect for many theists who have made and continue to make great contributions to science. I think if I were to mention Ken Miller one more time people might start thinking I have a crush on the guy (I do but that is the subject for another thread ).

That said, evolution is, as far as I know, unfalsifiable. The persistent lack of transitional forms in the fossil record (an apparent falsification) is usually got round by pointing to putative transitional forms that are routinely debunked later.

In fact there are thousands of transitional fossils. But that is an old argument. If you refuse to see that there are transitional fossils, nothing I can say can change that. But as for falsifiability how about the proverbial Precambrian rabbit. That should do it don’t you think? Pull one of those out of a hat and the theory of evolution will be thoroughly falsified.


Actually I can think of dozens of ways that evolution could conceivably be falsified.

 

[Dunemeister]

They may have been theists, but when the did science they were operating under the same scientific theory of methodological naturalism (what you call “physicalist metaphysic”) that scientists operate under today. And there are many good scientists today who are theists but when conducting science they still operate under the same method.

They used some of the same methods, but the methods they used were actually profoundly influenced by theism. Read what these scientists said about their work.

When Newton described his laws of motion he made no reference to “God” or any other supernatural agency. When he describe how the moon and earth travel in their orbits he did so without considering the effect that angels or ghosts or souls would have on them. He did all this using the “physicalist metaphysic”. And the fact that he was a devote Christian who wrote much on the topic of theology doesn’t change this at all.

It changes everything. His Christian commitment in part determined how he was looking at the problems he faced. He wouldn't have thought the world to be rational and predictable if he didn't have his Christian convictions. Although he didn't use the word "God" in his works on mechanics, he nevertheless saw his scientific work as a process of knowing God. It therefore shouldn't be a bar against scientific work that it takes as its operating assumption and conclusion that there exists a purposeful, intelligent God.

However when Newton realized that he was unable to account for the stability of the solar system as a whole, then and only then did he start operating under a different metaphysic. And when he started operating under a different metaphysic he ceased to be doing science. And so failed to come up with a scientific explanation. That has to wait for almost a hundred years latter when another scientist took up the challenge and used “physicalist metaphysic” to provide us with a scientific explanation (the same scientific explanation that we have today).

A physicalist metaphysic doesn't provide us with any explanation at all why the solar system is stable. If you give a so-called physicalist explanation, I can continue to ask "why" until there's no possible physicalist answer. Try me.

No one is claiming that people who have deeply held theistic beliefs should not be taken seriously scientifically. I have a great deal of respect for many theists who have made and continue to make great contributions to science. I think if I were to mention Ken Miller one more time people might start thinking I have a crush on the guy (I do but that is the subject for another thread ).

That's certainly good to know. The extra step I'd ask (as a theist) is that you'd respect those theists who make their theism a presupposition for their scientific work and not say they must shunt it aside in order to be said to be doing science.

 

[fantome profane]

They used some of the same methods, but the methods they used were actually profoundly influenced by theism. Read what these scientists said about their work.



It changes everything. His Christian commitment in part determined how he was looking at the problems he faced. He wouldn't have thought the world to be rational and predictable if he didn't have his Christian convictions. Although he didn't use the word "God" in his works on mechanics, he nevertheless saw his scientific work as a process of knowing God. It therefore shouldn't be a bar against scientific work that it takes as its operating assumption and conclusion that there exists a purposeful, intelligent God.

I have no issues with whatever inspires people to do scientific work. And Newton (and many others) were undoubtedly inspired by their theistic beliefs. But theism is not part of the laws of motion. Theism is not a necessary assumption nor a conclusion that he made when describing how the moon moved around the earth.

A physicalist metaphysic doesn't provide us with any explanation at all why the solar system is stable. If you give a so-called physicalist explanation, I can continue to ask "why" until there's no possible physicalist answer. Try me.

Why is not a scientific question. It is about what, and how. Teleology does not enter into it.

That's certainly good to know. The extra step I'd ask (as a theist) is that you'd respect those theists who make their theism a presupposition for their scientific work and not say they must shunt it aside in order to be said to be doing science.

I don’t respect anyone who makes anything a presumption for scientific work. That is contrary to science.

 

[Autodidact]

Again, so you say, and I'm willing to concede the point. I'll only say that I've heard arguments in which fossils that defied evolutionary explanation for their placement have been found, only to be met with epicycular explanations of why they could be so. It gave me the impression that the books had been cooked in advance. That's part of the reason I simply gave up on the study of evolution. It looked more and more like fundamentalist religion than anything else, and I got fed up. These days, I'm agnostic about the truth of evolution, but I'm happy to let the guys in the white lab coats put bread on their table by whatever means.

Name one.

If they're all transitional, then the word "transitional" has no meaning.

Correct. That's why it's a bogus argument.

Again, so you say. There was a time when I was intensely interested in the details of these arguments, but I've become thoroughly disgusted by the whole thing. I empathize with the early Enlightenment thinkers who, disgusted with the wars of religion turned their back on religion. I think I'm doing that (to a less dramatic degree) with science -- at least, evolutionary science.

There is no controversy within Biology about whether ToE is correct. There is no war going on. The only controversies are about specifics within that theory, as in all areas of science. Other than that, there is a manufactured, non-existent, political "controversy" by religious opponents of science.

 

[darkendless]

ID should really be put in the category of a philosophy, rather than science, since its claims are not about science but about faith. Science (when its good science) is about facts, data, evidence which can be verified independently by anyone. Faith is not a thing, can't be examined (thank god), so its not open to being verified objectively.

Further, good science doesnt have a conclusion set up at the beginning. ID has its conclusion forgone before any tests or experiment has been done: ID says the Bible is right and then begins to look for the evidence to prove it's right. If there is any evidence to the contrary it is ignored, denied and even assaulted.

That being said, I think it has a place in the marketplace of ideas, its just not science and should not be treated like one. :angel2:

I didn't know ID was actually claiming to be science. I thought it was kind of a sister set of standards loosely based around scientific principles.

I think ID is flawed in as much as you're deliberately looking for a result that probably shouldn't be there. If you take chemistry experiments for example, i will say 9 times out of 10 we got desired results when we didn't know what to expect and failed miserably when trying to "create" results we were meant to get. One example was trying to make aromatic compounds. We only got 3 out of 6 correct because half way we were told that we needed to make a rasberry smelling compound. The beauty of science, we don't know what to expect and the result is all the fun

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

Saying that ToE is unfalsifiable is simply absurd. Intelligent design rests on the falsifiability of ToE. That is what "irreducible complexity" is.

ID is not a theory, it is nothing more than the (failed) refutation of the theory of evolution.

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

Newton and Einstein were theists.

Newton, absolutly... But Einstein: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. " March 24, 1954

The persistent lack of transitional forms in the fossil record (an apparent falsification) is usually got round by pointing to putative transitional forms that are routinely debunked later.

First of all, as pointed earlier, every species are transitional forms between it's ancestors and it's future evolutionary form.
Second, the reason why we have a hard time to find fossils in the first place is because of the very specific condition a living organism needs to fossilize. Look at the tremendous efforts the Egyptian took for mummifying there kings so that there bodies could stand the test of time. Now picture this happening, in nature, by perfect accident and the "mummy" would not have to resist 4 000 years but 1 000 000 years and more. Rare phenomenon indeed. No wonder there are lots of "missing links".

 

[painted wolf]

Dunemeister-
Can you please give me an example of what you think is a fossil form that can not be placed in the Evolutionary tree?

Have you met Tiktaalik?
Tiktaalik roseae: Home

wa:do

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Well, I used be a big proponent of ID. Recently I became a "full-fledged creationist" though. But I'll take the bait and try to help you understand the mindset.

Intelligent Design is not pure science, thus, why it does not meet your requirements for science. It is a mixture of science and faith. I used to think of it as "an intelligent Christian's view of the beginning." It's for those Christians that have a strong faith, but also see value in science. I would write more here but I'm sure you've heard all these arguments before.

I take that bait.
If you would do me a favour....
Since you claim it to be at least in part science (something that for me is already an impossibility but lets leave that aside) i would like to hear from you the explanation of how it happened.
I mean the "sciencepart" obviously has to have an explanation, an idea for falsification and factors that count as empiric evidence.

Something that i find very bad in all that evolution versus creationism debate is that most creationists focus on the supposed flaws of evolution.
But when it comes to the question how their explanation looks like there is not much.

So please do me that favour and explain your theory.

 

[Dunemeister]

Newton, absolutly... But Einstein: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. " March 24, 1954

I didn't say he was a monotheist, I said he was a theist.

First of all, as pointed earlier, every species are transitional forms between it's ancestors and it's future evolutionary form.

Okay, I'm happy to put "transitional form" among the category of nonsense words.

 

[Autodidact]

I didn't say he was a monotheist, I said he was a theist.

Well surely you're not suggesting that he was a polytheist?

Okay, I'm happy to put "transitional form" among the category of nonsense words.

And nonsense arguments.

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

Okay, I'm happy to put "transitional form" among the category of nonsense words.

And feel free to put the words "micro and macro evolution" among the same category if it ever occurs that you would like to use them.

 

[Dunemeister]

And feel free to put the words "micro and macro evolution" among the same category if it ever occurs that you would like to use them.

I agree that the distinction between micro and macro evolution is false. What would macro evolution even be other than the cumulative effect of bazillions of micro evolutions (if I can butcher English a tad).

 

[Dunemeister]

Well surely you're not suggesting that he was a polytheist?

No, but in his writings (in fact, on the same page where his quote was put earlier on this thread) he affirmed his theism. He himself wasn't exactly sure how to categorize himself. He believed in God, but he was caught between monotheism (his Jewish heritage) and pantheism (his intellectual musings). I've got the precise quotes at home, and when I get back from the office, I'll post them.

 

[Dunemeister]

Dunemeister-
Can you please give me an example of what you think is a fossil form that can not be placed in the Evolutionary tree?

No, I can't.

 

[painted wolf]

I'll only say that I've heard arguments in which fossils that defied evolutionary explanation for their placement have been found, only to be met with epicycular explanations of why they could be so. It gave me the impression that the books had been cooked in advance. That's part of the reason I simply gave up on the study of evolution.

I think then the arguments you heard were a bit.... mistaken then.

Perhaps you should look into studying again. I think you may find Tiktaalik very interesting.

wa:do