Intelligent Design vs the Methodological Naturalism standard for science

[BilliardsBall]

This thread is devoted to the claims and science of 'Intelligent Design' and the standard Methodological Naturalism. The Discovery Institute is the major up front proponent for the science of Intelligent Design and Creationism.

My argument will be that 'Intelligent Design' nor any version of Creationism cannot be objectively verified nor falsified by the standard objective methodology of science.

I hold the science of cosmology, evolution and abiogenesis to the same strict standards as ALL the sciences are held to.

From: Methodological Naturalism

"Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be gainsaid. On the other hand, a scientist who, when stumped, invokes a supernatural cause for a phenomenon he or she is investigating is guaranteed that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue."

Some Creationists equate Methodological Naturalism with Philosophical (Ontological) Naturalism, which by definition is not correct. Methodological Naturalism makes no assumptions concerning worlds beyond our physical world nor the supernatural. Philosophical Naturalism needs to make philosophical assumption, not supported by science, that no worlds exist beyond our physical world, nor do supernatural events happen.

Some have expressed the opinion that ''some scientists do not nor need not hold to a strict definition and methods of Methodological Naturalism to justify 'Intelligent Design' or Creationism. I will argue against this and argue that the purpose is to argue for a theist agenda, and not science.

Important proviso for this thread; I do not claim that Intelligent Design, the various beliefs of Creationism are true nor false. I am only arguing that they are not supported by the accepted standards of science.

You are prepared, therefore, to take on hundreds of verse on the subject and thousands of white papers and academic papers commonly available supporting ID?

Or will you resort to your stock-in-trade and cite supposed generalities to discredit ID scientists as not even scientists?

 

[shunyadragon]

You are prepared, therefore, to take on hundreds of verse on the subject . . .

There is no mention of 'Intelligent Design' in the Bible. Verses of the Bible cannot be used to falsify the scientific hypothesis of 'Intelligent Design.

. . . and thousands of white papers and academic papers commonly available supporting ID?

I have read the papers from the Discovery Institute and other sources over the years, and none propose a falsifiable hypothesis to support 'Intelligent Design,'

Any one can go to the department store and buy a ream of white paper. The thousands of academic papers do not exist that actually present an academic scientific hypothesis for Intelligent Design that may be falsified.

All you have to do is cite the one academic paper that proposes a ID hypothesis that may be falsified.

Or will you resort to your stock-in-trade and cite supposed generalities to discredit ID scientists as not even scientists?

I did not say they were not scientists. I did say that they have not developed a hypothesis for Intelligent Design that may falsified by scientific methods.

The Dover trial was the opportunity for them to present this and they failed. Some of the major proponents of ID did not even testify.

 

[Polymath257]

just google it, the first one I got 25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

There is a difference between believing in a deity and being an ID proponent. ID is a very specific collection of ideas.

 

[Polymath257]

This is very very misleading concerning what science 'knows,' because science does not claim to 'know' anything. Where did you get this 5%? Problem is that science is continually making observations of more and more of the actual objects in the universe all that has been achieved is that they are consistent with previous observations.

Rudolf Steiner is not a scientist. He is a philosopher and educator, and never proposed anything concerning the falsification of ID.

He probably gets the 5% from the fact that about 5% (actually, slightly less) of the total energy density of the universe is in ordinary matter.

 

[Polymath257]

I hope you remember that you speaking about science and I - about metaphysics. No self respected scientist would claim "there is no God". ID is science only partially as metaphysics.

Once again, there has been no *testable* hypothesis concerning ID yet proposed.

We agree that many scientists are and have been theists. But that is a *very* different thing than being a proponent of ID. Personal beliefs are not the same as scientifically validated beliefs, even when those beliefs are held by a scientist.

 

[shunyadragon]

He probably gets the 5% from the fact that about 5% (actually, slightly less) of the total energy density of the universe is in ordinary matter.

Oh my! Arguing from ignorance of what science knows or currently sees is a terribly way to approach the question of whether there is a hypothesis for falsifying 'Intelligent Design.'

 

[sealchan]

This thread is devoted to the claims and science of 'Intelligent Design' and the standard Methodological Naturalism. The Discovery Institute is the major up front proponent for the science of Intelligent Design and Creationism.

My argument will be that 'Intelligent Design' nor any version of Creationism cannot be objectively verified nor falsified by the standard objective methodology of science.

I hold the science of cosmology, evolution and abiogenesis to the same strict standards as ALL the sciences are held to.

From: Methodological Naturalism

"Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be gainsaid. On the other hand, a scientist who, when stumped, invokes a supernatural cause for a phenomenon he or she is investigating is guaranteed that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue."

Some Creationists equate Methodological Naturalism with Philosophical (Ontological) Naturalism, which by definition is not correct. Methodological Naturalism makes no assumptions concerning worlds beyond our physical world nor the supernatural. Philosophical Naturalism needs to make philosophical assumption, not supported by science, that no worlds exist beyond our physical world, nor do supernatural events happen.

Some have expressed the opinion that ''some scientists do not nor need not hold to a strict definition and methods of Methodological Naturalism to justify 'Intelligent Design' or Creationism. I will argue against this and argue that the purpose is to argue for a theist agenda, and not science.

Important proviso for this thread; I do not claim that Intelligent Design, the various beliefs of Creationism are true nor false. I am only arguing that they are not supported by the accepted standards of science.

I had read some of the articles that proponents of ID supplied as being substantive research...not one of the articles was. They were merely opinion pieces. When they referenced research they quoted comments out of context that seemed to me to purposefully misrepresent the spirit and meaning of what was quoted. I was saddened by the obvious dishonesty.

ID will have meaning only when its researchers do field work and publish their results in peer reviewed scientific journals.

 

[sealchan]

Science is the study of intelligent design.

One of the critical problems with the whole hypothesis of intelligent design is that it tends to point to everything as designed. This makes the claim meaningless in any scientific sense.

In order for someone to claim that something is designed they must define what they mean by this. Saying that it is more complex than a human can engineer is not sufficient for there are many aspects of our Universe that are complex in an un-engineerable way but are not likely to be unanimously seen as "directly" designed.

 

[shunyadragon]

I had read some of the articles that proponents of ID supplied as being substantive research...not one of the articles was. They were merely opinion pieces. When they referenced research they quoted comments out of context that seemed to me to purposefully misrepresent the spirit and meaning of what was quoted. I was saddened by the obvious dishonesty.

ID will have meaning only when its researchers do field work and publish their results in peer reviewed scientific journals.

Actually I read the papers over the years from the Discovery Institute and came to the same conclusions.

 

[sealchan]

Actually I read the papers over the years from the Discovery Institute and came to the same conclusions.

I appreciate your open-mindedness and respect your opinion accordingly.

And if anyone representing ID cares to share an article I will be glad to read it. My requirements are that the article reference original field work and conclusions drawn upon that fieldwork. Not opinion pieces based on the real work of others. These requirements so far have served me to avoid too much distraction.

However, if an ID proponent cares to share an article and wants to know why I think it is not scientific, I would be glad to provide a kind and honest reply after carefully reading it. That is, if I am not surprised with something that does seem legitimate.

 

[Skwim]

it depends, if it satisfies what you looking for.

OMG! Confirmation bias writ large.

Check Gerald Schroeder. He is a trained scientist and have answers that make sense.

Okay

"Gerald Lawrence Schroeder is an Orthodox Jewish physicist, author, lecturer and teacher at College of Jewish Studies Aish HaTorah's Discovery Seminar, Essentials and Fellowships programs and Executive Learning Center, who focuses on what he perceives to be an inherent relationship between science and spirituality."
Source: Wikipedia​

Now what?

.
.

 

[Jose Fly]

Until ID creationists 1) identify something in the biological realm that has been "designed", 2) explain the methodology they employed to make that determination, and 3) provide a mechanism for its existence, there really isn't anything to discuss.

ID creationism is dead. It only "lives" on the internet in religious-themed message boards and blogs.

 

[Ponder This]

Important proviso for this thread; I do not claim that Intelligent Design, the various beliefs of Creationism are true nor false. I am only arguing that they are not supported by the accepted standards of science.

I agree that some things are simply beyond the ken of today's science.
For example, the giraffe's long neck was long explained away by Lamarck and Darwin according to the speculative notions of evolutionary theory as they understood it. Today, we are able to look back and realize that Lamarck and Darwin were engaged in speculation when they offered their explanations for the long necks of giraffes - an explanation that was accepted as simply being "obvious".

I'm not saying evolutionists got it wrong any more than I am suggesting intelligent design proponents got it wrong. They simply both have to learn to accept the difference between speculation and science and realize that certain limitations to science are in play.

The logical question becomes: Is there is a test for intelligent design that we just haven't thought of yet? If I understand you correctly, you are not merely saying that we do not have such a test, but that such a test cannot exist (under the accepted standards of science, of course) because intelligent design requires the supernatural (which by definition precludes a natural explanation). I have to disagree with you (not because your conclusion isn't correct), but because things long thought to be supernatural have on occasion been found to have completely natural explanations (such as the "invisible" or "magical" electromagnetic forces). In other words, although we may accept that intelligent design is a supernatural explanation and therefore speculation (not science), there is no way to know that the so-called "supernatural" aspects of intelligent design theory won't one day have natural explanations and thereby fall into the realm of science some day.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

[

This is an embarrassing article for you or anyone else to take seriously. Yes, there are fossils inside and on the limestone quarried for building the pyramids. There are fossils inside and on the limestone in the quarry. Fossils found on the surface are the same fossils weathered out and exposed when the stone was carved for building blocks. The fossils were in the limestone before they built the pyramids.

It is only evidence that Limestone forms in shallow warm seas like around Bermuda, and the Great Barrier Reef and not in a flood environment.

You should read the entire article before commenting.

Excerpt:
"Some researchers believe that the echinoid found on the limestone was actually exposed by erosion and the fossilized creature was part of the original limestone that had formed 30 million years ago. But Morsi responded to these claims in a interesting way, and suggested that the creature was cemented, or petrified, in a relatively recent time, citing evidence that the creature was found placed gravitationally on the floor, that the fossil was in almost perfect condition and was located within the intertidal range of the lagoon, which is a big contrast to the small fish typically found in limestone blocks. We can clearly see the pristine condition and the details of the perforations of the exoskeleton, this means that the sea creature must have been petrified in recent times.” -Sherif El Morsi

Fossil Suggests The Pyramids And The Sphinx Were Once Submerged Under Water

Imagine that, a fossil found in perfect condition, surrounded by weathered limestone. Caused by the Noachian Flood, perhaps?
Of course, not even Mr. Marsi would be willing to suggest that! He'd lose his job, interpreting the evidence in favor of explaining a supernatural event!

 

[Skwim]

I agree that some things are simply beyond the ken of today's science.
For example, the giraffe's long neck was long explained away by Lamarck and Darwin according to the speculative notions of evolutionary theory as they understood it. Today, we are able to look back and realize that Lamarck and Darwin were engaged in speculation when they offered their explanations for the long necks of giraffes - an explanation that was accepted as simply being "obvious".

I'm not saying evolutionists got it wrong any more than I am suggesting intelligent design proponents got it wrong. They simply both have to learn to accept the difference between speculation and science and realize that certain limitations to science are in play.

And if you were a scientists or were aware of the philosophy of science you'd know that scientists are always aware of their limits; that they could be wrong.

The logical question becomes: Is there is a test for intelligent design that we just haven't thought of yet? If I understand you correctly, you are not merely saying that we do not have such a test, but that such a test cannot exist (under the accepted standards of science, of course) because intelligent design requires the supernatural (which by definition precludes a natural explanation). I have to disagree with you (not because your conclusion isn't correct), but because things long thought to be supernatural have on occasion been found to have completely natural explanations (such as the "invisible" or "magical" electromagnetic forces). In other words, although we may accept that intelligent design is a supernatural explanation and therefore speculation (not science), there is no way to know that the so-called "supernatural" aspects of intelligent design theory won't one day have natural explanations and thereby fall into the realm of science some day.

As for your example of "some things are simply beyond the ken of today's science."

From the publisher's description of the book the above is taken from.

The Giraffe’s Long Neck: From Evolutionary Fable to Whole Organism, by Craig Holdrege (Nature Institute Perspectives #4, 104 pages, $12 plus tax, shipping, and handling). Order from our Bookstore

This book provides a comprehensive picture of the giraffe's biology and ecology and also discusses the complex and controversial issue of its evolution. [note that it accepts the fact that giraffes evolved] Since Craig Holdrege's intention is to break through the strictures of narrowly confined conceptions of the giraffe and of evolution, neither card-carrying Darwinists nor Creationists will be happy with this book.

The debate concerning evolution, intelligent design, and creationism is framed largely by dogmatic points of view and highly polarized. The goethean-phenomenological approach applied in this book provides a fresh, open-ended perspective by acknowledging the facts that speak for evolution and evolutionary patterns, while avoiding pitfalls of the all-too-simple explanations of contemporary Darwinism.

Holdrege's goal is not to explain the giraffe's characteristics or to speculate about how they might have evolved, but rather to show how the giraffe's features are interconnected and integrated within the context of the whole animal. A remarkable picture of the giraffe emerges.

This timely book will be of interest to the general public and especially valuable to scientists and educators looking for fresh perspectives.
source

​

So I fail to see why an explanation for the giraffe's neck is simply beyond the ken of today's science. Lack of a good explanation doesn't mean there isn't any, which what science struggles with every day: finding that good, but always tentative, explanation. And speculation is part and parcel of "doing science."

.​

 

[shunyadragon]

[


You should read the entire article before commenting.

Excerpt:
"Some researchers believe that the echinoid found on the limestone was actually exposed by erosion and the fossilized creature was part of the original limestone that had formed 30 million years ago. But Morsi responded to these claims in a interesting way, and suggested that the creature was cemented, or petrified, in a relatively recent time, citing evidence that the creature was found placed gravitationally on the floor, that the fossil was in almost perfect condition and was located within the intertidal range of the lagoon, which is a big contrast to the small fish typically found in limestone blocks. We can clearly see the pristine condition and the details of the perforations of the exoskeleton, this means that the sea creature must have been petrified in recent times.” -Sherif El Morsi

Fossil Suggests The Pyramids And The Sphinx Were Once Submerged Under Water

Imagine that, a fossil found in perfect condition, surrounded by weathered limestone. Caused by the Noachian Flood, perhaps?
Of course, not even Mr. Marsi would be willing to suggest that! He'd lose his job, interpreting the evidence in favor of explaining a supernatural event!

I have read the whole article, and it is terribly bogus regardless of who wrote it. Yes, the fossils occur all through the limestone, and all through the limestone from the quarry, which makes it impossible that it was deposited by a recent world or regional flood. Sherif El Morsi is not a geologist nor an academic in a related field he has a degree in Business Administration, and studied translation of Egyptian writing. Not a qualified academic to make the judgments he is making.

Again, the limestone the fossils are in and weathered out of was deposited in shallow warm seas and not in any kind of flood environment. The shallow seas covered the region millions of years ago and deposited the limestone,

I am a geologist with fifty years experience, and by the way I have been to the pyramids and there are fossils all over the place weathering out of the limestone. Many fossils are in perfect condition, so what?!?!? This common world wide in limestone deposits. The key remains weathered OUT OF LIMESTONE. which forms i shallow warm seas.

 

[robocop (actually)]

We see intelligent beings (humans) creating biological information and higher order of taxonomic categories all the time - evidence on the ID side that that could have happened then.
Google built an AI that could create AI to write a picture recognizing program better than humans could create ID to do it.
There is even some evidence that this happened - The Drake equation gives it a 1% chance but the variables are highly inaccurate.

 

[Darkstorn]

We see intelligent beings (humans) creating biological information and higher order of taxonomic categories all the time - evidence on the ID side that that could have happened then.

"Could have happened" sounds like a strong theory, am i rite?

No seriously, of course it could have. But that's not very good science. And ID is trying to subvert science into its agenda. It's trying to act as if it's a theory. And right now it's as strong as the theory about magical pixies.

 

[siti]

...it was absolutely methodological naturalism that sent scientists barking up the wrong tree, and rejecting what turned out to be the truth.

No it wasn't Guy. It was not the methodology that was wrong at all, it was the philosophical conclusion. It was wrong for atheists to jump to anti-creation conclusions and it was wrong of creationists to jump at the pro-creation conclusions because methodological naturalism says nothing about either - at least for now - and will never be able to say anything about either if theistic ID is true. Like I said earlier, the only way that methodological naturalism could ever uncover genuine evidence of a creator is if (and only if) the creator turns out to be part of the natural world. Its fine to engage in speculative metaphysics - I have my own speculative metaphysical ideas - and I think that to remain relevant and avoid obvious absurdity, speculative metaphysics must keep in lock-step with advancing scientific knowledge - but it will never BE science. ID is a speculative metaphysical idea and it is not and never will be science - and inasmuch as it denies scientifically established facts - like evolution for example - it runs the risk of descending into philosophical absurdity and irrelevance.

 

[robocop (actually)]

"Could have" sounds like a strong theory, am i rite?

No seriously, of course it could have. But that's not very good science. And ID is trying to subvert science into its agenda. It's trying to act as if it's a theory. And right now it's as strong as the theory about magical pixies.

Right. Exactly. That's why we compare the two competing hypotheses. On the one hand if you really put together all the information required, you have to use multiverses to justify a >50% chance. The chance is very low.

On the other hand, when I say "Could have," I mean we can look at it for ourselves. Drake equation - Wikipedia . This shows that there are scientific factors we can measure to determine the likelihood. Right now we can't measure them very accurately. However it's something like 1%. As time goes by, we can compare the two with these two measurements. There is also the hypothesis that we were created and then left alone.