The failure of Intelligent Design

[Bunyip]

Although it has existed for quote some time the Intelligent Design movement appears to remain stuck at the starting gate. The Discovery Institute for all it's millions of dollars and all other proponants of ID have yet to elevate it to the status of a testable hypothesis, let alone a theory.
At this point there is no testable hypothesis, no established example of irreducible complexity and no other way to detect the influence of an intelligent agency.

Hence my questions:

1. Why is Intelligent Design presented as an alternative theory to the Theory of Evolution, when it is not only not a theory, but not yet even at the level of a testable hypothesis? Surely presenting ID as if it were an alternative theory is essentially fraud?

2. The basic assumption of ID seems to invalidate god as the creator. If complexity requires intelligence, then god must be the creation of a superior intelligence - which would mean that god is not the supreme being, but a product of a higher being. And that supreme being must he the product of an even more superior being and so on ad infinitum. Abiogenesis and evolution avoid this infinite regress by proposing a trend from the simple to the complex - how do ID proponants deal with, or in any way explain an infinite regress of decreasing complexity as is implicit in the basic premis of ID?

3. Lastly, do any proponants of ID have any ideas about how to get ID to the starting point - a testable hypothesis? How could the influence of an intelligent designer be detected, what mechanism or test for such a designer do you propose?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

The basic assumption of ID seems to invalidate god as the creator. If complexity requires intelligence, then god must be the creation of a superior intelligence - which would mean that god is not the supreme being, but a product of a higher being. And that supreme being must he the product of an even more superior being and so on ad infinitum. Abiogenesis and evolution avoid this infinite regress by proposing a trend from the simple to the complex - how do ID proponants deal with, or in any way explain an infinite regress of decreasing complexity as is implicit in the basic premis of ID?

Some don't. But I do. I believe in multiple gods and universes creating multiple gods and universes and in the theory of Malevolent Intelligent Design.

 

[Bunyip]

Some don't. But I do. I believe in multiple gods and universes creating multiple gods and universes and in the theory of Malevolent Intelligent Design.

Multiple malevolent creators would make more sense. Hard to imagine a benevolent intelligence designing the human throat for example - with breathing and eating through the same hole. Or the pharnygeal nerve in giraffes.


Thanks for the response.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Multiple malevolent creators would make more sense. Hard to imagine a benevolent intelligence designing the human throat for example - with breathing and eating through the same hole. Or the pharnygeal nerve in giraffes.


Thanks for the response.

I once created a thread on the very subject.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/161104-alternate-id-theory-multiple-designers-theory.html

 

[Bunyip]

I once created a thread on the very subject.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...nate-id-theory-multiple-designers-theory.html

The issue in that case would be very much the same. It could not rise to the status of a scientific theory before you have a testable hypothesis. So the question would be - how do you propose to test for the influence of the malevolent designers?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

The issue in that case would be very much the same. It could not rise to the status of a scientific theory before you have a testable hypothesis. So the question would be - how do you propose to test for the influence of the malevolent designers?

I wouldn't know how to test it. But I often wonder why such epoch making events like the Cambrian Explosion happened. Why should an already perfect ecosystem evolve into a more complex and chaotic ecosystem? There are a lot of explanations for it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Some don't. But I do. I believe in multiple gods and universes creating multiple gods and universes and in the theory of Malevolent Intelligent Design.

...Why..?

Do you have any 'evidence', or see it on a t.v. show or what..

 

[IHaveTheGift]

"If complexity requires intelligence, then god must be the creation of a superior intelligence - which would mean that god is not the supreme being, but a product of a higher being."

Begging the question.
Exactly what testable hypothesis have you used to determine that anyway?
Nearly all doctrines view God as brute fact and eternal outside of time and was not created, so that is your idea.
Kind of makes your whole OP a form of hypocrisy?

Also, I fail to see why pointing fingers at religious people because God is un-testable is even an argument or even a point when 100% of the world already knows this.
I can very well use Dawkins and Krauss's answer to the "how did life start" question to answer your OP...
"We are working on it"

The Discovery Institute for all it's millions of dollars and all other proponants of ID have yet to elevate it to the status of a testable hypothesis.

How much money has been spent on science trying to jumpstart life and still have no clue? :sarcastic
Plus, we all know it is impossible to actually prove how life jumpstarted in the first place.
Even if someday we can turn dirt into complex life, it wouldn't prove that is how it DID happened, correct?

The first life forms that came into existence, isn't a testable hypothesis either, now is it?

Last point and this one really boggles my brain.
(not sure if you are suggesting it, but it seems you are)
My apologizes if you are not.

Science tries to figure out how stuff happens, leading towards the most simple theory is not a part of their vocabulary.
No matter how complex it is, if its the right answer, its the right answer.

example:
If it turns out that something leads them to believe our universe expands (bigbang) then eventually contracts back shut(blackhole) and been doing that for ever and ever and will keep doing that, its allowed as a theory.
Infinite regress would make no difference.
So far all models that try to prove it is true fail, and its very complex, but its not dismisses due to its complexity is it?

Here is Dawkins discussing what I am talking about in him claiming science wants an easy explanation, which is not true, they want the right explanation.
Its around 3 mins in...

[youtube]lbLRE_SIMMU[/youtube]

 

[johnhanks]

Or the pharnygeal nerve in giraffes.

[PEDANTMODE]Laryngeal nerve, I think. The pharyngeal nerve is fairly unremarkable.[/PEDANTMODE]

 

[Breathe]

<<snip>>

To be honest, I tend to struggle with what is termed 'intelligent design'.
It seems to be some broad label for anything from creationists to theists who accept evolution to some really cocky form of the latter where they can prove God exists, or something.

Is this [link] about right?

 

[Bunyip]

I wouldn't know how to test it. But I often wonder why such epoch making events like the Cambrian Explosion happened. Why should an already perfect ecosystem evolve into a more complex and chaotic ecosystem? There are a lot of explanations for it.

I don't know what a 'perfect ecosystem' is, but Darwin devotes a chapter of the 'On the Origin of Species' to the Cambrian explosion, you may care to read it. I don't see anything particularly extraordinary about the Cambrian, after all it took place over almost 100 million years and shows that animals diversified quite rapidly. What is it you find so extraordinary about it?

 

[Bunyip]

Begging the question.
Exactly what testable hypothesis have you used to determine that anyway?
Nearly all doctrines view God as brute fact and eternal outside of time and was not created, so that is your idea.

Yesterday you blocked me after taking great exception to comments that you attributed to me - but bore no relation to any comment I had actually made.

There is no part of my OP that is begging the question, perhaps you misunderstand what that term means. The theory of evolution, like all scientific theories grew from testable hypothesis. I'm sorry, but I can not see how your claim that god is seen as a brute fact by any given doctrine is at all relevant.

Kind of makes your whole OP a form of hypocrisy?Also, to see why pointing fingers at religious people because God is un-testable is even an argument or even a point when 100% of the world already knows this.
I can very well use Dawkins and Krauss's answer to the "how did life start" question to answer your OP...
"We are working on it"

The difference is the topic of the OP. Neither Krauss nor Dawkins would give an idea the stauts of theory when it has not yet reached the status of a testable hypothesis - whilst the ID movement does make that claim.

How much money has been spent on science trying to jumpstart life and still have no clue? :sarcastic

Again, I can not see the relevance of your objection but - very, very little money. You are mistaken however about the 'not a clue'. Science has discovered a great deal about how life emerged and have reproduced 3 out of the 4 principle componants, hardly 'not a clue'.

Plus, we all know it is impossible to actually prove how life jumpstarted in the first place.
Even if someday we can turn dirt into complex life, it wouldn't prove that is how it DID happened, correct?

I do not believe it to be at all impossible to establish how life emerged, and plants turn dirt into life every day.

The first life forms that came into existence, isn't a testable hypothesis either, now is it?

Clearly you are confusing the Theory of Evolution for abiogenesis, the topic here is evolution and intelligent design, not the origins of life.

However, there are many testable hypothesis for the origins of life - how life may have emerged naturally is definitely a testable hypothesis and great steps have been made into that field. At present there is no explanatory theory for abiogenesis.

Last point and this one really boggles my brain.
(not sure if you are suggesting it, but it seems you are)
My apologizes if you are not.

Science tries to figure out how stuff happens, leading towards the most simple theory is not a part of their vocabulary.
No matter how complex it is, if its the right answer, its the right answer.

example:
If it turns out that something leads them to believe our universe expands (bigbang) then eventually contracts back shut(blackhole) and been doing that for ever and ever and will keep doing that, its allowed as a theory.
Infinite regress would make no difference.
So far all models that try to prove it is true fail, and its very complex, but its not dismisses due to its complexity is it?

Here is Dawkins discussing what I am talking about in him claiming science wants an easy explanation, which is not true, they want the right explanation.
Its around 3 mins in...

[youtube]lbLRE_SIMMU[/youtube]

I'm sorry, but that does not relate in any way to the questions I am asking.

 

[Bunyip]

[PEDANTMODE]Laryngeal nerve, I think. The pharyngeal nerve is fairly unremarkable.[/PEDANTMODE]

Thanks John.

 

[Bunyip]

To be honest, I tend to struggle with what is termed 'intelligent design'.
It seems to be some broad label for anything from creationists to theists who accept evolution to some really cocky form of the latter where they can prove God exists, or something.

Is this [link] about right?

I agree. Initially ID was simply a re-naming of YEC. There is no formal theory, no specific claim.

Thanks for your response

 

[Desert Snake]

Although it has existed for quote some time the Intelligent Design movement appears to remain stuck at the starting gate. The Discovery Institute for all it's millions of dollars and all other proponants of ID have yet to elevate it to the status of a testable hypothesis, let alone a theory.
At this point there is no testable hypothesis, no established example of irreducible complexity and no other way to detect the influence of an intelligent agency.

Hence my questions:

1. Why is Intelligent Design presented as an alternative theory to the Theory of Evolution, when it is not only not a theory, but not yet even at the level of a testable hypothesis? Surely presenting ID as if it were an alternative theory is essentially fraud?

2. The basic assumption of ID seems to invalidate god as the creator. If complexity requires intelligence, then god must be the creation of a superior intelligence - which would mean that god is not the supreme being, but a product of a higher being. And that supreme being must he the product of an even more superior being and so on ad infinitum. Abiogenesis and evolution avoid this infinite regress by proposing a trend from the simple to the complex - how do ID proponants deal with, or in any way explain an infinite regress of decreasing complexity as is implicit in the basic premis of ID?

3. Lastly, do any proponants of ID have any ideas about how to get ID to the starting point - a testable hypothesis? How could the influence of an intelligent designer be detected, what mechanism or test for such a designer do you propose?

Do you believe in ID? If not, why push for some ID recognition in those scientific groups, what's the point.
No one failed at trying to push ID through to the scientific community, if they didn't try to do that in the first place.
Just, don't understand the premise of your thread.

 

[Bunyip]

Do you believe in ID? If not, why push for some ID recognition in those scientific groups, what's the point.
No one failed at trying to push ID through to the scientific community, if they didn't try to do that in the first place.
Just, don't understand the premise of your thread.

The premis is that the ID movement tried to bypass the scientific process and have ID taught as an alternative theory to the ToE when there is no theory of ID to teach.

In order to become a testable hypothesis, which is how a theory begins - a test for design must be established. Given that many members advocate for an intelligent designer, I want to explore how the notion of ID can be developed past the stage of an idea and to the first step towards becoming a theory - which is a testable hypothesis.
I am also interested in asking why the ID movement, given it's popularity has yet to propose the sort of hypothesis necessary to give it scientific weight.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

There is no part of my OP that is begging the question,

This is begging the question....

If complexity requires intelligence, then god must be the creation of a superior intelligence - which would mean that god is not the supreme being, but a product of a higher being."

Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof"

What testable hypothesis are you using to make that claim of God?
Almost all religious doctrines recognizes God as not a product of any other higher being and uncreated,
So you are making that claim as part of your OP.

Answer the question please...
What testable hypothesis are you using to make that claim of God?

If you continue to dance around it as you did in the other thread on subjects with me and a different guy, I will just reblock you and never engage you again.

I am a very decent guy, and willing to give you another chance to have a legitimate debate but I will not go round and round and round with you.
:yes:
Up to you how you wish to precede.

 

[Thana]

The premis is that the ID movement tried to bypass the scientific process and have ID taught as an alternative theory to the ToE when there is no theory of ID to teach.

In order to become a testable hypothesis, which is how a theory begins - a test for design must be established. Given that many members advocate for an intelligent designer, I want to explore how the notion of ID can be developed past the stage of an idea and to the first step towards becoming a theory - which is a testable hypothesis.
I am also interested in asking why the ID movement, given it's popularity has yet to propose the sort of hypothesis necessary to give it scientific weight.

A quick google search and here's your answer - Intelligent Design

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

 

[fantome profane]

A quick google search and here's your answer - Intelligent Design

There is no limit to the amount of nonsense and false information you can find with a quick google search.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Has there been anything that has been found to be irreducibly complex?