Experts and users discuss intelligent design, evolution, religion in society, religion and science: ID Uses Scien. Method; Infers Design by Testing Positive Predictions
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
ID Uses Scien. Method; Infers Design by Testing Positive Predictions
- From Discovery Institute
By Discovery Institute - A Positive Vision of the Future
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bait and switch
In order to better understand Intelligent Design, it is important to appreciate how it abuses and conflates terminologies. For instance, ID claims that science is unable to explain 'design' and yet it appeals to science being able to explain design as evidence that ID has content.
Let's look at the argument in more detail:
---
“In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role [in] the origin of the system.”
---
Now remember that complexity refers to our absence to understand how to explain something, and that the statement basically states that "when we do not understand something" and it is 'irreducible' then it must be designed. However, we do know that natural pathways to irreducibly complex systems exist, of course, since these pathways are natural, the complexity disappears. However, the same applies when we provide a design explanation.
In order for the design inference to be reliable, ID has to be able to show that there are no false positives. And yet we know that historically, people have erroneously assigned design and designers to thunder and lightning, disease, natural disasters, solar eclipses and so on, so the claim that design inferences are reliable is flawed. Now, the mere fact that design inferences are not reliable, does not mean that science cannot use design inferences reliably. But for that science assigns a plausible positive hypothesis which can compete with other explanations. For instance in criminology we look at means, motives and opportunities, combined with eye-witnesses, alibis and physical evidence to generate a plausible hypothesis which can establish "beyond reasonable doubt" the guilt or innocence.
These forms of design as known as regular design as opposed to rarefied design. In an excellent paper Wilkins et al explain the differences (1)
--
he second way that the inconsistency can be resolved is as we have already indicated, by recognizing a distinction between ordinary design and rarefied design. For those events where our background information includes information about how agents or processes produce events of high probability, we would assign those to the HP category and explain them with reference to regularity. This would preserve a place for a class of rarefied design in the Explanatory Filter, but Dembski's earlier arguments about design indicating agent causation because his Explanatory Filter captures our usual means of recognizing design would only apply to the class of ordinary design, not the desired rarefied design. It is only by the attempt to inconsistently treat agent causation as a privileged hypothesis that Dembski can (erroneously) claim that ordinary design and rarefied design share a node on the Explanatory Filter.
--
In other words, instances of rarefied design, since they cannot really compete with the "we don't know" explanation, cannot be assigned the category of 'design'.
Notice how ID manages by bait and switch to claim both that ID provides an alternative explanation to scientific explanations as well as that ID uses the same scientific approaches as science to make its case. Needless to say, it is trivial to point out the inherent contradiction and show that because of this conflation, ID attempts to claim that it uses similar approaches to science to infer design. However, even a cursory scrutiny of their claims quickly reveals that ID relies not on a scientific approach of providing positive explanations and hypothesis, but rather on elimination and since they refuse to present any way to constrain their designer and thus the design, they are unable to compete with our ignorance.
Needless to say, science has found that such simple mechanisms as regularity and chance can in fact increase information and complexity and create what is called in ID parlance "specified complexity" in the same manner as ID claims that 'designers' can create such complexity.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that ID refuses to admit that there exists a theory which outcompetes their preferred 'single designer' thesis, and shows that a hypothesis of "multiple designers" explains the data much better. The unwillingness and inability to address even the simple alternative, shows that ID is more concerned about its religious position than about science.
Ask yourself: What has ID done in a non trivial manner, that increases our scientific understanding in a positive manner? Nothing, in fact, it has attempted to downplay scientific knowledge, misrepresent scientific findings, to further its case. More on the latter part in a future contribution.
(1) Wilkins, John S, and Wesley R Elsberry. 2001. The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance. Biology and Philosophy 16 (November):711-724.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 9:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ask yourself this question
How does science explain information in life versus Intelligent Design proponents? And why do ID proponents misrepresent science when describing for instance neo-Darwinism?
--
Casey Luskin writes:
Proponents of neo-Darwinism contend that the information in life arose via purposeless, blind, and unguided processes. ID proponents contend that the information in life arose via purposeful, intelligently guided processes. Both claims are scientifically testable using scientific methods employed by standard historical sciences.
--
While I agree with Casey that science provides testable mechanisms to explain information in life, I disagree strongly with Casey's representation of neo-Darwinism where he conflates theological concepts such as purpose and where he equivocates on 'guided' and 'blind'. Anyone familiar with evolutionary theory would quickly come to realize that evolutionary processes are not 'blind' or even 'unguided', in fact, the only aspect of evolutionary theory which comes close to this description is the concept of 'random' as used when describing mutations. And all random really means is 'random with respect to the effect in a particular environment', in other words, mutations do no arise in response to environmental pressures immediately beneficial to said environment.
Casey's suggestion that evolutionary processes are blind and unguided, ignore, as is quite common amongst Creationists, that evolutionary processes include "natural selection" where the environment both guides and where the outcome of the process is not 'blind' but rather leads to function.
In fact, it is trivial to realize that natural selection is very similar to 'intelligent selection' where in the former case, information is transferred from the environment into the genome (as science has clearly shown to be the case), where the latter one involves the guidance of an intelligence responsible for said increase.
So, now we have a situation where we know that both natural and intelligent processes can cause information to increase and we are left to establish which of the various explanations are the best. Since ID refuses to contribute any scientific explanation which positively identifies the processes, mechanisms etc, it remains unable to compete not just with evolutionary science but also with our ignorance "we don't know hypothesis".
ID claims that information is best explained by intelligence and yet it provides no explanations.
Weird eh?
- PvM
September 9, 2008 10:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
who describes evolution?
I must say that PvM has a way with words. A few of those words were when he claims that Casey Luskin misrepresents neo-Darwinism because, claiming that “Anyone familiar with evolutionary theory would quickly come to realize that evolutionary processes are not 'blind' or even 'unguided', in fact, the only aspect of evolutionary theory which comes close to this description is the concept of 'random' as used when describing mutations.”
But if you read Casey’s posts, it seems like he is familiar with evolutionary theory because he documents where textbooks and leading evolutionary biologists have described evolution in this fashion. For example, Luskin writes:
“Even the widely-touted theistic evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller has claimed in five editions of his highly popular high school biology textbooks that the implication of evolution is that it works “without either plan or purpose” and is “random and undirected.”(22)”
Luskin also documents:
“A very popular college evolutionary biology textbook (which I used for one of my upper division evolutionary biology courses during my undergraduate studies) declares that "[b]y coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."(12)”
Additionally, Luskin observes that Francisco Ayala wrote in a top scientific journal:
“Similarly, in the prestigious scientific journal, Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences, leading evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala celebrates that "Darwin’s greatest accomplishment” was to show that the origin of life’s complexity “can be explained as the result of a natural process--natural selection--without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent."(13) Just to make sure that his readers don’t try to invoke some kind of “God-guided” evolution, Ayala writes that "[i]n evolution, there is no entity or person who is selecting adaptive combinations.”(14)”
It seems to me that Luskin is just describing evolution how it has been described in leading biology textbooks and how leading evolutionary biologists have described it. You might not like how leading evolutionary biologists have described evolution, but this is how they have described it. Don’t fault Luskin for quoting these authorities. If you don’t like how they describe evolution, take it up with these authorities.
- taxibound2 September 10, 2008 11:12AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More confusion
--Taxibound2--
I must say that PvM has a way with words. A few of those words were when he claims that Casey Luskin misrepresents neo-Darwinism because, claiming that “Anyone familiar with evolutionary theory would quickly come to realize that evolutionary processes are not 'blind' or even 'unguided', in fact, the only aspect of evolutionary theory which comes close to this description is the concept of 'random' as used when describing mutations.”
--
But if you read Casey’s posts, it seems like he is familiar with evolutionary theory because he documents where textbooks and leading evolutionary biologists have described evolution in this fashion. For example, Luskin writes:
“Even the widely-touted theistic evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller has claimed in five editions of his highly popular high school biology textbooks that the implication of evolution is that it works “without either plan or purpose” and is “random and undirected.”(22)”
--
So in other words, Casey's ignorance is justifiable because he can find a textbook which fails to explain the concept correctly? Is that the full extent of your argument? In fact, are you aware that the author of the textbook accepted responsibility for the flawed definition and had it removed?
As to Ayala, I fail to see your point since Ayala correctly describes the historical past
--“Similarly, in the prestigious scientific journal, Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences, leading evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala celebrates that "Darwin’s greatest accomplishment” was to show that the origin of life’s complexity “can be explained as the result of a natural process--natural selection--without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent."(13)--
Without the need to resort to a Creator is what good science is all about. We all know how simplistically easy it is to assign our fears and ignorance to 'God's will', imagine our ancestors who saw God's hand in such issues as thunder and lightning or the stability of orbits of planets (Isaac Newton).
You may of course use Luskin's arguments but I suggest that there is a risk involved, namely that his own writings expose a further level of unfamiliarity with evolutionary science.
I am here to help you understand the 'rest of the story'
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID Merely Concludes its Assumption
From Mr. Luskin's argument:
"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.... When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, they *conclude* that such structures were designed." (*emphasis* added)
So ID first hypothesizes that CSI implies design, and then concludes that the CSI in biology implies design. But this is nothing but a restatement of the hypothesis! What ID forgets to do is to confirm their hypothesis, and somehow empirically support the claim that CSI necessarily implies conscious planning. ID never even tries to do this.
Instead, ID attempts to make an induction from a single data point, arguing that since human beings can build complex machines and humans are conscious, then everything which can build complex machines must be conscious. But one data point is not sufficient to induce the characteristics of all possible "intelligent agents", and so there is no justification for suggesting the cause of biological complexity (whatever it might have been) was a conscious entity.
One could, by the exact same reasoning, argue that everything which can build complex machines must have large, complex, biological brains. But this would mean ID can't account for the *origin* of biological complexity after all.
So ID does not use the scientific method to infer anything at all. It merely assumes that all CSI must come from conscious minds because we humans can create it too, which is a perfectly unscientific argument.
- aiguy
September 12, 2008 10:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (6)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Want anyone to take ID seriously? Predict something.
I have yet to read a single sentence from any ID proponent that provides "testable predictions about the type of informational properties we expect to find in nature if an intelligent agent were at work in designing a natural object." Over and over this or similar verbiage is used to defend ID, but ID never produces any predictions. This isn't a theory, this is an untested hypothesis.
"Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI."
Explicitly and accurately defining CSI in such a manner that a specific prediction can be made would be a good first step. For instance, no where do I find in any ID writing anything that I can use to identify CSI. Is CSI DNA? Is CSI morphology? Is CSI hair color or eye color? Is CSI behavior? How would I know CSI when I see it? Since I can't pin down exactly what CSI is, I can't make any predictions about it, or with it.
"Scientists employing ID compare observations of how intelligent agents act when they design things to observations of phenomena whose origin is unknown. Human intelligence provides a large empirical dataset for studying the products of the action of intelligent agents."
In the experience of human beings, other human beings are the only creatures we have ever demonstrably seen design anything. (Meaning we can prove that the designed thing was designed) ID STARTS from a biased position. How often has the design hypothesis, caused by this human bias to detect agents, failed when used to explain natural phenomena? Ask any child in Sunday school what thunder is, and you will hear a failed design hypothesis: "the angels are bowling."
"Mathematician and philosopher William Dembski observes that "the principal characteristic of intelligent agency is directed contingency, or what we call choice."(5) When "an intelligent agent acts, it chooses from a range of competing possibilities" to create some complex and specified event. Dembski calls ID "a theory of information" where "information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation." ID thus seeks to find in nature the types of information which are known to be produced by intelligent agents, and reliably indicate the prior action of intelligence."
What information is 'known to be produced by intelligent agents, and reliably indicate the prior action of intelligence?' Again, define explicitly what CSI is.
"Irreducible complexity is a form of specified complexity, which exists in systems composed of "several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." Because natural selection only preserves structures that confer a functional advantage to an organism, it is argued that such systems would be unlikely to evolve through a Darwinian process because there exists no evolutionary pathway wherein they could remain functional during each small evolutionary step."
Every time I have read an example of irreducible complexity put forth by ID proponents, it has taken literally seconds for me to do enough research to discover that someone has already either
a) performed the scientific research to explain, using evolutionary science, the rise of said example from primitive and simple beginnings to the 'irreducibly complex' structure found in nature, or
b) is currently DOING the scientific research, and the initial results look like they will show an evolutionary pathway for said example.
"ID is a historical science, meaning it employs the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that the present is the key to the past. ID investigations thus begin with observations about how intelligent agents operate and then proceed to convert those observations into positive predictions of what scientists should find in nature if intelligent design was involved in the origin of a given natural object."
Ok, fair enough. What are the 'positive predictions' made by ID?
"Specifically, the theory predicts that we will find large amounts of specified complexity in natural objects."
Oh, there they are. ID predicts that complex things are complex. Does ID offer anything MORE specific?
"Intelligent design has scientific merit because it is an empirically based argument that uses well-accepted scientific methods of historical sciences in order to detect in nature the types of complexity which we understand, from present-day observations, are derived from intelligent causes."
And it does so without explicit definitions of terms used in it's arguments, specific predictions, experiments that have validated it's predictions, or any other kind of evidence that is useful or relevant when evaluating it's truth claims.
When held to the standards of proof required for all other scientific theories, ID fails.
- PStryder September 15, 2008 10:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Minor quibble
--When held to the standards of proof required for all other scientific theories, ID fails.--
Science does not deal in proof but rather the ability to withstand attempts to disprove. As such evolutionary theory has done quite well.
- PvM
September 15, 2008 9:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Statement of humility
I grant your point sir.
- PStryder September 16, 2008 10:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sir is my father :-)
I appreciate your contributions as they provide an independent view into why so many have come to accept the scientific vacuity of ID
- PvM
September 16, 2008 11:05AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
CSI Questions
Casey Luskin writes:
"Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI"
How high is "high" ? Just what exactly are you measuring here? What are the units? At what value does something go from not-designed to designed? Why? What objects have you measured and what was their CSI ? What's the CSI of the following objects:
A dog?
A biscuit ?
An ecosystem?
A virus?
A clock?
A sculpture?
- phoenix September 17, 2008 1:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Misconceptions and problems
Quote:
| Intelligent design (ID) has scientific merit because it uses the scientific methods
| commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of
| the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not
| an undirected process such as natural selection.
There are two problem with this claim:
1) The other historical sciences look for known patterns. They use known data to cross-reference their finds. Thus, the comparison fails.
2) Natural selection is not undirected. This is a pretty fundamental part of Evolution. I am surprised that someone as strongly opposed to Evolution has failed to grasp even one of its most fundamental concepts.
| Proponents of neo-Darwinism contend that the information in life
| arose via purposeless, blind, and unguided processes.
Here, the false claim that Evolution (Natural Selection) is "blind" is repeated. The previous claim to this effect was not a mere mistake, but rather reveals a pretty huge hole in the author's understanding of Evolution.
| Scientists employing ID compare observations of how intelligent
| agents act when they design things to observations of phenomena
| whose origin is unknown. Human intelligence provides a large
| empirical dataset for studying the products of the action of intelligent
| agents.
An interesting claim. Let's break it down:
1) How do you know that the alleged designer was human, or had the capabilities of a human? What research is there to support your assertion?
2) Humans have so far failed to create artificial intelligence, much less life that acts intelligently and can come up with its own design. The designs we have come up with so far are far from similar to our own brain. Computers are extremely good at calculations, but extremely poor at things our brain is good at.
3) By claiming that you are using a specific data set to look for design, are you not admitting that you must know the identity or ability of the intelligent agent which allegedly designed life? This seems contrary to the claim from Intelligent Design advocates that we need not know the abilities of the designer to detect design.
You now seem to be in a situation where you are contradicting yourself, which means that you have to clarify:
Either you must admit that your "design detection" is nothing like the historical sciences since you don't know what to look for, or you must admit that you are either making unscientific assumptions about the designer or you must claim to know the designer's identity/abilities.
| According to ID theorists, irreducible complexity thus is an
| informational pattern which may be taken as a reliable indicator
| of ID because “[i]n all irreducibly complex systems in which
| the cause of the system is known by experience or observation,
| intelligent design or engineering played a role [in] the origin of
| the system.”
In other words, ID is an argument from ignorance: "We don't know, therefore design."
| ID is a historical science, meaning it employs the principle
| of uniformitarianism, which holds that the present is the key
| to the past.
Are you saying that humans designed all life?
- WayOfTheDodo September 18, 2008 1:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
hypothesis or illogical syllogism?
I am curious about one thing - Luskin states:
"ID investigations thus begin with observations about how intelligent agents operate and then proceed to convert those observations into positive predictions of what scientists should find in nature if intelligent design was involved in the origin of a given natural object."
He justifies this assertion with this:
"Specifically, the theory predicts that we will find large amounts of specified complexity in natural objects [after an exposition on an analogy employed by theologian/philosopher Meyer)...
As Meyer explains, “by invoking design to explain the origin of new biological information, contemporary design theorists are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence. Instead, they are positing an entity possessing precisely the attributes and causal powers that the phenomenon in question requires as a condition of its production and explanation.”(18) "
In other words - Meyer is making an argument via analogy - made with lots of buzzwords and unnecessarily verbose prose.
If that is why ID is scientific, and if that is an example of a "prediction" that has been "tested", then I am afraid that ID is utterly worthless, for it consists of:
1. Construct an analogy
DNA is sort of like languiage, it is a code - why, we even call it th egenetic code
2. Make a syllogism employing the sketchy analogy -
Humans are complex.
Humans make language/codes.
DNA is like a language/code.
Therefore, DNA was made by a complex being like a human
3. Manipulate syllogism so as to appear to be an hypothesis -
DNA, being coded information, must have been made by complex intelligent agents, since we know that other complex intelligent agents, us, make codes/languages
4. Conclude what was assumed in step 1 and call it a tested and confirmed prediction -
ID predicted that DNA would be the product of an intelligent agent because it contains coded informaiton.
We know that coded inforaiton comes from intelligent agents.
Therefore, DNA was made by an intelligent agent.
Therefore, DNA was designed.
Brilliant.
- slpage September 19, 2008 8:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Scientific Method is what again?
From Wikipedia, the Scientific Method!
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest
So you're telling me that a procedure that starts with 3, moves to 2, pretends to have done 4, combines 5 and 6, and never ever touches on 6 or 8 or 1 is "scientific?"
- sharky
September 24, 2008 3:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
That "theory" predicts what???
"Specifically, the theory predicts that we will find large amounts of specified complexity in natural objects."
If that "prediction" really meant anything, then the "theory" might actually be a theory. But since "specified complexity" can never be properly defined, the "prediction" is meaningless and there is no theory. And since there is no theory, it's not science and all the other silly claims of the "intelligent design" propagandists are irrelevant.
"Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.(20)"
Then reference 20:
20. For More on CSI Tests:
These kinds of tests were reported by pro-ID molecular biologist Doug Axe in Douglas D. Axe, "Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors," Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol 301:585-595 (2000); Douglas D. Axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds," Journal of Molecular Biology, 1-21 (2004).
One reply to the 2004 paper ("Needless to say, the grand pronouncements being made by the ID camp are not warranted."):
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html
The 2004 Axe paper presents a claim that random mutations of a particular enzyme are likely to produce an enzyme with much reduced activity. In essence, it is a claim that evolution could not possibly work properly. But, of course, the critics say that the study is flawed.
"Intelligent design has scientific merit because it is an empirically based argument that uses well-accepted scientific methods of historical sciences in order to detect in nature the types of complexity which we understand, from present-day observations, are derived from intelligent causes."
Well, it would if it did, but since it doesn't, ...
- onein6billion
October 7, 2008 10:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No help for the nerd
I am an experimental scientist. The notion of intelligent design directly impacts my areas of study. However, unlike scientific theories, ID does not make any predictions that I can attempt to test. There are no working hypotheses that might enrich my thinking on the subject. No specific information that can help me predict the interaction energies of the molecules I study. I can either believe it, or not - either way nothing much changes. Evolution raises questions and makes many predictions, some of them I can test and others are longer term, which I hope to see tested during my life. If ID offered me anything I could actually evaluate experimentally, just hinted at some new interesting avenue of research, I would be immediately interested.
Scientists tend to pragmatic about big ideas - does it help me explore what I am most interested in? ID is useless to me as a scientist, so I don't bother with it in the lab. To be honest, Cosmology isn't much help to me either, but I can see that they are clearly making hypotheses and working to disprove them. They might uncover something more that I can use - I am certainly grateful for quantum mechanics.
ID is an interesting subject for late-night discussions after a party - like philosophy, comparative religion, politics, and sports history. All good stuff! Not science.
- Adam Hammond
December 3, 2008 7:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No help for you
"I am an experimental scientist. The notion of intelligent design directly impacts my areas of study."
Seriously? Details please. Besides....
http://redwing.hutman.net /~mreed/warriorshtm/blowhard.htm
"However, unlike scientific theories, ID does not make any predictions that I can attempt to test. There are no working hypotheses that might enrich my thinking on the subject. No specific information that can help me predict the interaction energies of the molecules I study. I can either believe it, or not - either way nothing much changes."
For a good example of the research and predictions made by ID, I suggest you visit this site...
http://biologicinstitute.org /
"Evolution raises questions and makes many predictions, some of them I can test and others are longer term, which I hope to see tested during my life. If ID offered me anything I could actually evaluate experimentally, just hinted at some new interesting avenue of research, I would be immediately interested."
Evolution affects your study of energies within molecules??? Love to hear how that methodology works.
Speaking of research avenues and ID...
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-02-26T10_59_13-08_00
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-01-31T13_18_26-08_00
"Scientists tend to pragmatic about big ideas - does it help me explore what I am most interested in? ID is useless to me as a scientist, so I don't bother with it in the lab."
That would pretty much apply to anything else outside of molecular physics. Including....
"Cosmology isn't much help to me either, but I can see that they are clearly making hypotheses and working to disprove them. They might uncover something more that I can use - I am certainly grateful for quantum mechanics."
I guess ID fits just fine with cosmology in that case.
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-03-21T16_04_16-07_00
"ID is an interesting subject for late-night discussions after a party - like philosophy, comparative religion, politics, and sports history."
So it can be a good discussion topic. At least we agree on something.
"All good stuff! Not science."
Well, you're half right.
- F2XL
December 11, 2008 5:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Science? hahahahahah.
I only need one sentence to reply to this: Can the existence of a designer be verified by the scientific method? Oh it can't? Oh darn.
- ikenovak
March 26, 2009 10:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Intelligent design does not study the designer
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/id-does-not-address-religious-claims-about-the-supernatural
A. Intelligent design does not study the designer, but rather studies natural objects to determine if they bear the tell-tale signs that they were designed by an intelligent cause.
Many critics of ID mistakenly believe that the theory is focused upon studying the designer, alleging that it specifically invokes supernatural forces or a deity. But ID is not focused on studying the actual intelligent cause responsible for life. Instead, ID studies objects in nature, attempting to determine if natural objects bear an informational signature indicating that an intelligent cause was involved in their origin.
- Screen Name
April 8, 2009 1:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Which requires...
"A. Intelligent design does not study the designer, but rather studies natural objects to determine if they bear the tell-tale signs that they were designed by an intelligent cause."
And outside of action from a designer, how can the existence of an "intelligent cause" actually result in any physical change?
It can't. Whoops, your "argument" is showing cracks.
Uh oh, you now have a bigger problem...
First you claim
"A. Intelligent design does not study the designer, but rather studies natural objects to determine if they bear the tell-tale signs that they were designed by an intelligent cause."
Then you claim
"But ID is not focused on studying the actual intelligent cause responsible for life."
So, you say it's about studying the intelligent cause, then you say it isn't, and we're supposed ot take you seriously?
ID is nonsense, and it's so far from science that claiming it follows scientific method immediately invalidates one's opinion.
- Blappo
May 6, 2009 8:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's about studying natural objects to determine...
"A. Intelligent design does not study the designer, but rather studies natural objects to determine if they bear the tell-tale signs that they were designed by an intelligent cause." does not say "A. Intelligent design does not study the designer, but rather studies an intelligent cause."
- Screen Name
May 25, 2009 7:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A handful of sand. Intelligent?
Casey Luskin knows how to use impressive multi-syllabic words to suggest that he's intelligent. By gosh, he almost sounds like a scientist when he says that "The form of information which reliably indicates design is generally called 'specified complexity' or 'complex and specified information,' " whatever the hell that means. Apparently, all it means is that if a process with many components (therefore "complex") behaves so as to head coherently in a single direction (therefore "specified"), then it must be the result of intelligent design . OK, then try this one.
Get a hundred people to each throw a handfull of sand, perhaps a thousand grains per handfull (that's "complex"), at a wall. Watch to see what happens. If all of the 100,000 grains reverse direction when they hit the wall and then curve downward and end up on the floor (that's "specified"), with absolutely no communication among them, then surely they must have been guided by an intelligent designer.
Ah, but Mr. Luskin would object that the analogy is irrelevant, because while there was some random component to the movement of the various grains of sand, in the final analysis they were all subject to the overriding influence of gravity, and that's why they moved in a similar way and ended up on the floor. That's true. And in the same way, the various organisms and their various organs have shown significant randomness throughout their evolution, but in the final analysis, they were all subject to the overriding influence of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. The least fit died; the most fit survived and contributed their genes to the next generation.
The grains of sand all ended up on the floor without any conscious intention of going there, just because they were all influenced by gravity. In the same way, all those organisms kept on improving their fitness without any intention on anyone's part, just because those who were most fit survived and reproduced while the least fit died, as any reasonable person would expect. What's so mysterious about that? Would you expect anything different? Do you need to hypothesize a grandfatherly old codger in the sky who manipulated every gene in every organism? Get real.
- Fearless Theorist
September 6, 2009 1:00AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Order precedes design not design, order.
ALL human design (and resulting construction) starts with what exists: a designer and things (entities). Human design is impossible without the designer understanding something about the existents he's designing with else he's not designing. At minimum he's juxtoposing entities at a certain time and place, in a certain orientation, which, itself is a form of design requiring human thought, a human able to act, and the ability to separate those entities from others by distinguishing their fixed attributes (order) from those of other existing entities.
ID trys to switch the argument from design with existents---a common human activity, to a non-existing designer that designs and constructs something from nothing. The design argument is false because of this bait-and-switch as noted by other commenter.
ID makes the common mistake of seeing what order and assuming that means it must have been designed. But, as I've shown, design requires order to prexist in the designer and the entities the designer designs with. Yes, new order is the result of the design, but that's how we distinguish what was designed or not. Not whether it has order, but whether it's possible for a human to have created it---designed and construct it.
- Stan101
September 24, 2009 9:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.