Is Intelligent Design Science?
Much has been written on the question of whether intelligent design is good science, or even whether it qualifies as science at all. In fact, many ID critics argue that some or another definition of the word “science” disqualifies the discussion on intelligent design before it ever gets started. They claim that science must adhere to a principle so-called “methodological naturalism.” According to this tidy dictum, scientists can believe whatever they want in their personal lives, but they must appeal only to purposeless causes when explaining nature. That means that anyone who dares speak of purpose or design within science or when discussing scientific evidence ceases to be a scientist. The background assumption of this claim is usually the belief that intelligent agency is “supernatural” and so unscientific (that does not follow, but I won’t pursue the point here.)
I must confess that I find this argument not only unpersuasive, but also a diversionary cul-de-sac. After all, the universe is under no obligation to conform to anyone’s definition of science. What everyone wants to know is if there is evidence of design in nature, which is presumably the object of scientific study. Natural science is committed to finding out what nature is like. Why would anyone think we can do that with a semantic debate about the meaning of a word?
But that response might seem to concede natural science to the materialists, so I’ll say a little more. A great deal of time and ink has been spilled in recent decades over the definition of science. And still more time, ink, and rancor has been spilled trying to show that intelligent design either is or is not properly within the jurisdiction of science. It’s the sort of debate that philosophers relish, but that most educated people are too busy to follow.
Attempts to Define Intelligent Design out of Science Fail
The results of these debates, fortunately, are easy to summarize. First, overly strict definitions of science fail to capture actual scientific practice and are sometimes self-contradictory to boot. Second, any non-arbitrary definition of science broad enough to encompass not only diverse scientific disciplines, but also the history of science itself, is broad enough to accommodate the possibility of intelligent design. And third, any non-arbitrary definition of science narrow enough to prohibit questions of design manages to rule out a lot of other, uncontroversial scientific practices as well. Methodological naturalism, for instance, would exclude most of the founders of modern science, including Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton. That should strike you as fishy.
Scientists Should Follow the Evidence
But maybe you think I’m a partisan who can’t be trusted to summarize the debate fairly. OK. But the basic, common sense point is still the same: If we’re interested in what nature is really like, and we think science should be the careful, systematic study of nature and its properties, then a natural scientist should be open to observational evidence, wherever it leads. Either the universe provides evidence of design or it doesn’t. Many scientists, like Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg, argue that it doesn’t. But if the universe can provide evidence against design, then, at least in principle, it can provide evidence for design. The intellectually honest way to resolve the dispute, then, is to go out and look for the evidence. As long as a theory can be put in empirical harm’s way (as philosopher Del Ratzsch puts it), then it ought not to be ruled out of the bounds of “science” on the basis of an ad hoc definition, or even on the basis of a really sophisticated definition, derived from a multi-year, cross-disciplinary study funded by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science.
What if there is evidence of design but scientists are not allowed to consider it? If a definition of science conflicts with the scientific evidence, should we go with the definition or the evidence? (hat tip to Phil Johnson for originally framing this question)
To ask the question is to answer it. Scientia means knowledge. Natural science should be the search for knowledge of the natural world. If we are properly scientific, then, we will seek to be open to the natural world, not decide beforehand what it’s allowed to reveal.
One Requirement: You Have to Be Open-Minded
OK. But some have argued that you have to presuppose a theistic worldview in order to consider evidence of design. So it depends on a parochial religious outlook that is inimical to science. Or, at the very least, the evidence is too theory-laden to persuade anyone but the true believers. This is incorrect. To consider evidence of intelligent design, you must simply be willing to have a properly scientific attitude, that is, you must be willing to focus on the evidence and to allow that evidence for intelligent design is possible. You have to be willing to consider whether something in nature might best be explained in terms of intelligent agency.
We’re talking about the publicly available evidence of nature, not private revelations. To look for evidence of intelligent design, you don’t need to assume much of anything about the nature of God, virgin births, flying carpets, the meaning of the creation days in Genesis 1, or anything like that. You don’t have to assume that any particular argument or piece of evidence favors intelligent design. Honest but open agnosticism is all you need to get started. You just have to be open-minded enough to consider this question: Is there evidence in nature for intelligent design? If you’re willing to consider that possibility, read on.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Jay,
Do you have any scientific fact to justify your claim that "What everyone wants to know is if there is evidence of design in nature"? The only people that I can imagine wanting to search for evidence of design in nature already believe in the Designer. As a Christian, I believe that evidence of design in nature is obvious for every theist and that no design argument would satisfy or interest more than a few atheists .
Intelligent Design is defined as "the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity." Such a theory is not a scientific theory for one exceptional reason. In science , a scientific theory refers to a body of well-developed scientific knowledge such as probability theory, group theory, or the theory of relativity. Intelligent Design has no results or valid arguments. But don't be disheartened. Your critics that claim that science must adhere to “methodological naturalism” are scientifically naive and incorrect.
All mainstream quantum physicists believe that no deterministic theory could possibly exist that might account for the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. In effect, it isn't our ignorance of nature that forces us to settle for probabilistic laws of physics. Rather, it is the nature of nature to act unpredictably. Supposedly, everything happens for no reason whatsoever and the only certainties are averages that may be computed from fixed but ultimately probabilistic laws. My argument then is that the fundamental laws of nature fit a supernatural paradigm that is dramatically opposite to what methodological naturalism asserts.
I believe that quantum theory has a straightforward Biblical interpretation. I'm not able to demystify the entire subject but I can summarize all the laws of physics with a simple illustration:
In the interest of maintaining a consistent reality, imagine that God had decided that all the laws of physics were to be entirely probabilistic and had agreed to never disobey His fixed set of rules. These are the equations of His quantum mechanics and the law of large numbers. In other words, God is continually exercising control over all the particles of light and matter and does whatever He wants with them (Colossians 1:17, Acts 17:28) but we can never catch Him cheating at the game of physics or at any other game, such as dice. He is always statistically consistent with the mathematically determined outcome of the laws of nature and the odds are always in His favor. As I said, this interpretation is entirely Biblical. Scripture says, "We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how they fall." (New Living Translation of Proverbs 16:33).
http://www.everythingimportant.org/naturalism
There is science . Science has been extrapolated in to the past. But there is a point at which Science can not go past...the origin of the universe. There were no eyewitnesses, no interns taking notes, nobody was there to sample the 'primordial soup' that Science tells us we came from. And when a new subatomic particle is found , lots of things change , because Science has to explain the new particle, where it may have come from, why it is around now, what changes (if any) to the total mass in the universe must be made, and if this impacts anything.
Now, scientists dont like that. They like to be able to explain everything. But even when it comes to subatomic physics, we have found that there are certain things that we will not be able to know for certain. String theory will probably remain just that...a theory. Similarly, so will Evolution. It cannot be absolutely proven. Possible, maybe. Probable, well...that becomes difficult.
So another group has put forth a competing theory, Intelligent Design. There is nothing wrong with competing theories. That is how Science has worked in the past, through competing theories. It is rather odd, though, when people from one theory belittle people holding the other theory because the other theory is 'unscientific'. As if either side were in the place to absolutely determine what Science is...and what it is not. Still, Intelligent Design has to face the same hurdles; there are many things that need explaining. At a point, though, Intelligent Design relies on an unknown intelligence in the design of life, hence the name of the theory.
But those in the other camp cannot stomach it because they still want to explain everything and they see the reliance on an unknown intelligence as a cop-out or worse: religion . Science cannot prove the existence or non existence of any deity; all they can do is prove whether or not the beings that they dream up may have existed or may now exist. The best they can do is dream; they cannot reach in to the supernatural and grab the hand of God. Nor could any of us, for that matter. 'Scientists' cannot explain it, so they discount it as nonscientific. I suppose the atom would be unscientific, too, because scientists cannot fully explain that, either.
At its best, ID is a good mental exercise , as is Evolution. The two should be taught together. As there is no particular deity preferred, then there is no particular religion preferred. Some would disagree. Science? Both Evolution and ID are science. Neither is absolutely provable. Some may prefer one or the other, but that is a preference, and when we talk about that, it becomes a matter of faith. 'Scientists' dont like that, either.
"Now, scientists dont like that. They like to be able to explain everything."
Actually that is rather incorrect... Scientists love it when new things are discovered, because it generates another avenue for research. That is also how reputations are made (the scientists who for centuries confirmed Newtons theories are nowhere near as famous as the one who overturned Newtons theories).
"So another group has put forth a competing theory, Intelligent Design. There is nothing wrong with competing theories. That is how Science has worked in the past, through competing theories."
ID does not rise to the level of a theory because it is not falsifiable... it also makes no usable predictions because it states that species change on the whim of some entity whose motives and methods we cannot determine.
"I suppose the atom would be unscientific, too, because scientists cannot fully explain that, either."
The behavior and existence of atoms has been well verified through experimentation... unlike the claims made by ID.
"At its best, ID is a good mental exercise , as is Evolution."
Except that Evolution is used to make testable predictions. It is used in biology, pathology, and even in oncology.
Being a scientist myself (Entomology, Microbiology, Computer Science), I have seen the quibble over ID from a somewhat different perspective.
Science is far from fully explaining the atom. Certainly its existance has been shown. First it was not able to be split. Then, many years later, it was split, and there were all sorts of particles running around inside. Scientists put them in nice, concentric circles...until it was shown that that cannot be. Then came quantuum physics. The atom as well as its particles and forces are not FULLY explained. The best Science can ever do at the subatomic particle level is theorize. Some things simply cannot be seen.
These days there is 'dark matter' and 'dark energy ', matter and energy that cannot be directly observed. This would seem unscientific on the face of it. The dark side of the 'force'?
As far as testable predictions go, consider climate. Current theories and models allow for testable predictions, and such predictions are indeed made. Still, the weather is not 100% predictable. Nor is cancer , nor are many biological functions.
Put simply, Science can only go so far. ID is another approach, presuming the existence of an intelligence behind what is seen. That, to many scientists, renders ID unscientific. So other scientists hold by evolution , which cannot by its very nature be absolutely proven, as fact. They do not allow for any other possibilities. That is unscientific.
“Certainly its existance has been shown.”
Which puts it light years ahead of ID as far as Scientific theories go.--
“First it was not able to be split.”
Actually it is not ‘cannot be split’ it is ‘we presume it cannot be split because we have no evidence to the contrary’.
Similarly we say that there is no designer because there is no evidence for a designer… much as we say that the Earth is not being pulled around the sun by a team of invisible unicorns, because we have no evidence to support that assumption.
If at some point in the future evidence can be shown that the designer(s) exist then the theory would gain some credibility.
“Then, many years later, it was split, and there were all sorts of particles running around inside. Scientists put them in nice, concentric circles...until it was shown that that cannot be. Then came quantuum physics.”
Exactly, the theories were modified as new evidence was discovered. But not before that evidence was discovered… not before testable predictions were made.
“The atom as well as its particles and forces are not FULLY explained. The best Science can ever do at the subatomic particle level is theorize.”
You claim to be a scientist… so let me ask you this: When has Science ever done anything better then theorized? That is what Science does, that is all it can ever do is produce theories.
“These days there is 'dark matter' and 'dark energy ', matter and energy that cannot be directly observed. This would seem unscientific on the face of it. The dark side of the 'force'?”
It is hardly unscientific, there is strong evidence supporting the existence of both. No theories have shows conclusive evidence of the existence of DM/DE, but it is an area where a great deal of investigation is taking place.
“As far as testable predictions go, consider climate. Current theories and models allow for testable predictions, and such predictions are indeed made. Still, the weather is not 100% predictable. Nor is cancer , nor are many biological functions.”
Are you sure that you understand what a theory is? Systems like the weather and biological systems are far to complicated for us to model at our present technological level. We can speak in probabilities (there is an X chance that it will rain, being exposed to Y substance increases the chance of manifesting cancer by Z).
Just because something is not predictable to 100% (nothing is predictable to that degree of certainty).
“Put simply, Science can only go so far.”
What tool has been as consistent at producing results as Science?
“ID is another approach, presuming the existence of an intelligence behind what is seen. That, to many scientists, renders ID unscientific.”
It is held to be unscientific because it produces no testable predictions, nor does it offer any evidence for the existence of the designer(s).
“So other scientists hold by evolution , which cannot by its very nature be absolutely proven, as fact.”
Evolution has a mountain of evidence to support it. From DNA to the fossil record… I have yet to see any similar offerings from ID.
“ They do not allow for any other possibilities. That is unscientific.”
If there is no evidence to indicate that the proposed theory is true, and the proposed theory does not make any testable predictions, and it does not fill in any gaps in the present theory then why should it be given serious consideration?
Should we give similar credence to theories about perpetual motion machines and psychic powers?
"When has Science ever done anything better then theorized? That is what Science does, that is all it can ever do is produce theories."
So why is it, then, that Evolution is declared as a fact?
True, ID has many holes in it. If one is willing to look, Evolution has its holes, too. There are things in ID that cannot, by their nature, be directly
The general question is 'Does Intelligent Design Have Merit', not 'Does Intelligent Design Have Scientific Merit'. The answer to the first is yes, though that is currently under some debate. The answer to the second is still being worked on. Regardless, I believe that ID should at least be considered as an alternative to evolution .
"So why is it, then, that Evolution is declared as a fact?"
Where is it declared as fact? It is called the Theory of Evolution for a reason (or more specifically the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution).
"Evolution has its holes, too"
Such as?
"There are things in ID that cannot, by their nature, be directly "
Observed? Tested?
What in ID can be directly observed / tested that Evolution does not also describe?
"The general question is 'Does Intelligent Design Have Merit', not 'Does Intelligent Design Have Scientific Merit'. The answer to the first is yes, though that is currently under some debate. The answer to the second is still being worked on."
If it does not have Scientific merit then what merit does it have? It posits that life on earth was designed by some intelligent agency... an objectively verifiable claim.
"Regardless, I believe that ID should at least be considered as an alternative to evolution ."
What does ID offer as an alternative? What testable predictions has it made? What does it explain that is not covered by Evolution (and by explain I mean explain Scientifically, not claim to explain).
The first point stressed in my college biology class was in fact that we as scientists cannot ascribe purpose to chemical and biological functions. One can only observe and describe the complex functions that occur in biology.
I have heard theologists describe the human as a perfect being that could only be the result of an intelligent designer. The human body is far from perfect especially with regard to his physiology. The human lung is relatively inefficient and the lungs of birds are far superior in associating Oxygen with blood cells.
When ID attempts to account for observable biological complexity it falls back on a designer, but if beings are the result of intelligent design what created the designer? Evolution attempts to explain the origin of life and the process through which current species came to manifest themselves. ID excludes the designer from the explanation for life on earth. This implies that the designer be other worldly or supernatural/martian. ID doesn't offer new evidence it merely relies on the gaps in current evolutionary knowledge. Even worse is the fact that ID and so called "Creation Science" have their roots in the idiotic notion that evolution contradicts the second law of Thermodynamics.
Richard Dawkins and Victor Stenger argue that the existence of a creative super-intelligence or God are scientific questions.
"the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." - The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, p. 58-59.
"The process I will follow is the scientific method of hypothesis testing. The existence of God will be taken as a scientific hypothesis and the consequences of that hypothesis searched for in objective observations of the world around us. Various models will be assumed in which God has specific attributes that can be tested empirically. That is, if a God with such attributes exists, certain phenomena should be observable." - God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger, p. 17-18.
Do these scientists not understand the difference between science and non-science?
Anybody that thinks there is currently a "healthy scientific debate" over "Intelligent Design" has missed the history of the last 150 years. It has been known scientifically and popularly since Charles Darwin's day that evolution truly happened, as surely as gravity.
Only the fools remain to discuss their contrived alternatives. Richards is a PhD? In what, I wonder. He would be an utter failure as a biologist.
"Anybody that thinks there is currently a "healthy scientific debate" over "Intelligent Design" has missed the history of the last 150 years. It has been known scientifically and popularly since Charles Darwin's day that evolution truly happened, as surely as gravity."
So why aren't physicists saying gravity is as well established as the theory of evolution?
"Only the fools remain to discuss their contrived alternatives. Richards is a PhD? In what, I wonder. He would be an utter failure as a biologist."
Judging by the article he submitted you say he would be a failure as a biologist? How so?
F2XL wrote: "So why aren't physicists saying gravity is as well established as the theory of evolution ?"
It is obvious, isn't it? I hope not to be too snarky, but the Pope finally got around to admitting that Galileo was correct in teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun (get the gravity connection). With the Pope on board, whose going to argue against gravity now?
As simple as gravity appears, it holds deep fascination for today's scientists. Despite the accuracy with which we calculate orbits and such, systematic variations are observed that tell us that we don't know everything about it! The LIGO facility in Richland, WA is carrying out some of the most exquisite measurements ever made by man, hoping to learn more. We know not what will come out form the new data.
How would a PhD in Theology be a failure in biology? Such a silly question. Of what use is it to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Or how hard it would be for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? There's not much work going on there. Better to know about proteins, enzymes, and how humans are related to bonobos (there is evolution in that).
Science is not a debate society where persuasion and apologetics matter. Truth always wins. Religion simply is not concerned with the truth of anything. "Gays should not marry because it says so in the Bible." Right. And we should have multiple wives (simultaneously, and not serially, as now practiced), and they would be men's property. That's the Bible for you, pretty messed up, don't you think?
"It is obvious, isn't it? I hope not to be too snarky, but the Pope finally got around to admitting that Galileo was correct in teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun (get the gravity connection). With the Pope on board, whose going to argue against gravity now?"
1. Can you explain what the Copernican principle (Earth around sun) has to do with gravity?
2. You haven't answered my question, if Evolution (as Darwin and today's proponents describe it) is as solid a theory as gravity then why don't people who believe in gravity (that should be every sane individual) say that gravitational theory is as established as today's Neo-Darwinian synthesis?
3. If you admit that consensus has been wrong in the past are you open to the possibility that such a scenario may be possible today?
"As simple as gravity appears, it holds deep fascination for today's scientists."
Regarding this sentence and the paragraph that followed, let me say that I agree it's still a source of research, investigation, and we will never know everything as is any pillar of scientific enterprise, but I'm still wondering why Neo-Darwinian theory is compared in terms of factual confirmation to gravity but not vice versa.
"How would a PhD in Theology be a failure in biology? Such a silly question. Of what use is it to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Or how hard it would be for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? There's not much work going on there. Better to know about proteins, enzymes, and how humans are related to bonobos (there is evolution in that)."
Ivar, you've missed my point. Prior to the comment I'm replying to now, you said in the comment "Intelligent Design is a Fraud" the following:
"Richards is a PhD? In what, I wonder. He would be an utter failure as a biologist."
Perhaps I'm wrong, but the context I see in this line tells me you know Richards holds a doctorate degree, but you question what it may be because you insist he would be a failure in the biological sciences. My question in the comment that followed was what exactly in the following article it was that led you to conclude he would fail in the life sciences:
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/is-intelligent-design-science
Despite your insistence that he would fail as a biologist in your comment on ID being a "fraud," I see little in the article Richards submitted that precludes solely and directly to biology. Care to explain?
"Science is not a debate society where persuasion and apologetics matter. Truth always wins."
I agree with the latter of that description of the scientific process, but if you're saying that debate is excluded from it's methodology then I would have to disagree. Dissent and debate are what allow science to progress in the first place, if everyone approached a field of research with the same perspective then we wouldn't be anywhere near as far as we are today. Darwin's theory would've never even gained acceptance for all that matters; people would've used the fact that it was a "fringe" view and dismissed on those grounds alone.
"Religion simply is not concerned with the truth of anything."
What does religion have to do with this discussion? Or to the points I originally brought up here:
http://www.opposingviews.com/comments/that-comment-was-a-fraud
For most part, I'm not sure what to say about religion or your description of it's reasoning, but if religion is to be defined solely as anything that goes against the truth, then could one argue that views in science that are later falsified (but still held by many) are essentially religion by definition?
"Gays should not marry because it says so in the Bible."
I'm still not sure what relevance this has to discussion over ID, but now that you brought it up I would like to say that I don't agree with such a conclusion no matter how many fundamentalists hold it to be truth.
"Right. And we should have multiple wives (simultaneously, and not serially, as now practiced), and they would be men's property. That's the Bible for you, pretty messed up, don't you think?"
Still don't see the relevance, but I'm assuming you're referring to a recent Newsweek article in which someone insisted the Bible holds nothing against gay marriage? I was led to my (political) views as a consequentialist, but today I have nothing against gay marriage for both utilitarian and natural rights reasons. Despite my agreement with the Newsweek article's premise, I did not agree with the reasoning behind it. I'm not sure what to say about the historical accuracy of the Bible, and I'm even less certain as to whether or not it is genuinely the word of any all-knowing supernatural being, but it definitely does not condone polygamy in any form I'm aware of:
http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR324.htm
Theology, it says in his profile.
"Theology, it says in his profile."
So ID isn't religious but Richard's degree is?
"the universe is under no obligation to conform to anyone’s definition of science."
Well, this forum is being conducted in English and I have a dictionary. So if you think the dictionary definition of "science" is not appropriate for this universe, I think you must be living is some other universe. Obviously supernatural miracles occur in your universe all the time and that's why you don't think "science" should be restricted to mere “methodological naturalism.” Well you just go and take your "intelligent design" and figure out the meaning and purpose behind all those miracles and come back with a good review paper next year. I'm waiting.....
"But if the universe can provide evidence against design,..."
If the designer is supernatural and science is restricted to the natural, then there could never be any scientific evidence against the supernatural designer. Therefore your premise is false. But in the absence of scientific evidence for a designer, the presumption is that no such designer is necessary.
"As long as a theory can be put in empirical harm’s way"
But for "intelligent design" "theory" (whatever that is), this premise is false. So there is no such theory.
"What if there is evidence of design"
Sorry, your personal opinion seems to be irrelevant in this discussion.
"We’re talking about the publicly available evidence of nature,"
Nope. You are talking about your opinion of what you see in nature. Same old same old, "I know design when I see it and I see design in nature." But that's just not good enough.
Seems to me like Dawkins and Weinberg were claiming that there is no evidence FOR design (at least according to Richards). It, therefore, seems illogical to claim that there exists evidence AGAINST it. I would be interested to know what the evidence against design could be.
Could evidence against design perhaps be evidence against the case brought in favor of it?
I agree! One of the main purposes of science is to discover truth or should be anyway. To decide what that truth is or limit it as to what it can or cannot be before even beginning the search, defeats the purpose. That is strange. Why would anyone who is really interested in the truth want to do this? This point is as clear as day to most people and I believe this is why so many people favor open debate on the issue. Only Darwinists want to censor the debate.
If there can be evidence against design, then, certainly, like you said, there can be evidence for design.
We need to be open to follow the evidence where ever it leads and not predetermine where it can and cannot lead us. That is not true science. This kind of solid logic will resonate with a lot of people and help them see through the rhetoric of the evolutionists.
Good points!
tj
AC Grayling responds to Steve Fuller’s defence of his book Dissent over Descent. Steve Fuller was for some strange reasons, an expert witness for the defense, but most of his testimony served the plaintiffs quite well. In his response to Grayling's review of his book, Fuller, foolishly, argued that ID is an argument to the best explanation.
Grayling wastes not time putting to rest that myth. Enjoy
--.
I am, says Fuller, ignorant (sheerly so; this is the glaring deficiency in my case) of "ID's argument structure", which is - argument to the best explanation! Oh pul-eese! I ignored this bit in my review out of a kind of residual collegiality, for even among the toxicities that flow when members of the professoriate fall out, embarrassment on others" behalf is a restraint. But he asks for it. Argument to the best explanation! Look: there is a great deal we do not know about this world of ours, but what is beautiful about science is that its practitioners do not panic and say "cripes! we don't understand this, so we must grab something quick - attribute it to the intelligent designing activity of Fred (or Zeus or the Tooth Fairy or any arbitrary supernatural agency given ad hoc powers suitable to the task) because we can't at present think of a better explanation." They do not make a hasty grab for a lousy "best explanation" because they have serious thoughts about the kind of thing that can count as such. Instead of quick ad hoc fixes, they live with the open-ended nature of scientific enquiry, hypothesising and testing, trying to work things out rationally and conservatively on the basis of what is so far well-attested and secure. What looks like having a chance of being both an "explanation" and the "best" in a specific case turns on there being a well-disciplined idea of "best" for that specific case. But an hypothesis has no hope of becoming the best explanation (until a better comes along) unless it survives testing, is specific, and is consistent and conservative with respect to much else that is secure. This is a far cry from the gestural "best explanation" move that ID theorists attempt, which - and note this carefully - does not restrict itself to individual puzzles only, but applies to Life, the Universe and Everything. It has to, at risk of incoherence; and yet by doing so, it collapses into incoherence.
--
Read the rest at http://newhumanist.org.uk/1881
--Jay--
That means that anyone who dares speak of purpose or design within science or when discussing scientific evidence ceases to be a scientist.
---
And yet ID also claims that historical sciences deal succesfully in detecting design, so in fact purpose or design can, as ID argues, be established using methodological naturalism. So why is ID different? Because they want to replace or extend MN by something 'supernatural', however since the supernatural lacks as an explanation, they have to confuse the issue by making flawed claims about science rejecting design and purpose at all cost.
Jay's argument fails even worse when discussing Newton or Keppler stating
--Methodological naturalism, for instance, would exclude most of the founders of modern science, including Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton. That should strike you as fishy.--
And yet, these people were following methodological naturalism, except in the case when Newton believed that his inability to understand the stability of orbits of planets was best explained by an Intelligent Designer interfering regularly to correct their orbits. It took half a decade or so for LaPlace to correct this flawed 'design inference'.
Openmindedness does not mean that one should accept any argument that's more closer to a concept better know as gullibility. Is there evidence for ID in nature. Surely ID does not really tell, all they do is call our ignorance 'design' and then conflate the terminology with how people more commonly interpret this terminology. Bait and switch. Lacking any foundation that constrains their hypothesis, ID is doomed to scientific irrelevance, and anyone openminded would have to admit this. In fact, several ID proponents have admitted to the lack of a foundation for ID.
So it is clear that Jay is wrong to argue that science rejects design a-priori, After all, the Discovery Institute argues that ID must be science because other sciences also infer design. So, for science to reject ID, it must be because it fails to contribute. Not because it is wrong, it is not even that, it's just vacuous.
Is intelligent design science? Does it matter? ID lacks any non trivial scientific contribution, other than perhaps making the flawed claim that science and methodological naturalism somehow deny purpose and design or that MN would reject Newton and Keppler. Anyone familiar with these people would realize that they did not let their faith distort their science, although in the case of Newton he did show why a design inference based on ignorance is unreliable.
We can only thank Newton for his contributions to science while also showing us why ID is doomed to remain scientifically vacuous.
Months later and I think we can agree Pandas did not advocate religion.
"And yet ID also claims that historical sciences deal succesfully in detecting design, so in fact purpose or design can, as ID argues, be established using methodological naturalism."
Pretty sure naturalism refers to the whole matter and energy/chance and necessity way of explaining everything. And yes, I agree that design has been successful in the historical sciences. ;)
"So why is ID different?"
It's not, at least WE AS ID'ERS don't think so. Do you beg to differ though?
"Because they want to replace or extend MN by something 'supernatural', however since the supernatural lacks as an explanation, they have to confuse the issue by making flawed claims about science rejecting design and purpose at all cost."
How is this the case? Didn't seem like they were trying to extrapolate the supernatural in those early drafts you people keep complaining about.
"And yet, these people were following methodological naturalism,"
PvM, if you want to spam several hundred comments onto this discussion then at least take the time to know what you're talking about. Richards was referring to Newton's view that if fine tuning exists, there's probably a fine-tuner.
"It took half a decade or so for LaPlace to correct this flawed 'design inference'."
I've studied the design inference for almost a year now whether through Dembski's works or other ID paraphernalia. How was Newton's flawed view a design inference?
"Openmindedness does not mean that one should accept any argument that's more closer to a concept better know as gullibility."
Breathe easy PvM, no one is advocating holocaust denial here. (just make sure Eugenie Scott is aware...)
"Is there evidence for ID in nature."
May I suggest you ask that question on an article that actually deals with nature and not the whole issue of whether or not it qualifies as science?
"Surely ID does not really tell, all they do is call our ignorance 'design' and then conflate the terminology with how people more commonly interpret this terminology."
Suggesting that design and information does not originate via blind, purposeless material processes sounds less like an argument from ignorance and more like an argument from experience to me. :/
"Bait and switch."
What's ID's bait and what does it switch to?
"Lacking any foundation that constrains their hypothesis, ID is doomed to scientific irrelevance, and anyone openminded would have to admit this."
Surely any open-minded individual would agree that ID has more then enough hypothetical constraints, otherwise you wouldn't be able to argue the evidence for it was wrong in the first place.
"In fact, several ID proponents have admitted to the lack of a foundation for ID."
Gonna quote-mine Paul Nelson on this one? I'm sure Barbara Forrest will sleep easy at night with that one.
"So it is clear that Jay is wrong to argue that science rejects design a-priori, After all, the Discovery Institute argues that ID must be science because other sciences also infer design."
You're joking, do you want me to find you ID critics who say design is not a part of science (or more specifically biology, physics, etc)?
"So, for science to reject ID, it must be because it fails to contribute."
What do you define as contributing?
"Not because it is wrong, it is not even that, it's just vacuous."
Should we move beyond the rhetorical sand in the face arguments of "It's not science, it's religious" and onto the actual evidence that has been presented in it's favor?
"Is intelligent design science?"
Most definitely yes, otherwise no one could argue it was wrong in the first place.
"Does it matter?"
If it didn't then you wouldn't be wasting your time injecting as much commentary on the topic as you already have.
"ID lacks any non trivial scientific contribution,"
Even the prediction that a function would exist for a pseudo gene? Any comment on the stuff on Research ID?
http://www.researchid.org/wiki/Main_Page
"...other than perhaps making the flawed claim that science and methodological naturalism somehow deny purpose and design or that MN would reject Newton and Keppler."
See the previous points.
"Anyone familiar with these people would realize that they did not let their faith distort their science,"
Agreed, instead they used it as their motivation.
"although in the case of Newton he did show why a design inference based on ignorance is unreliable."
How what you described of him would even be considered a design inference is beyond me, but I agree that such inferences cannot be formed on the basis of what we don't know.
"We can only thank Newton for his contributions to science while also showing us why ID is doomed to remain scientifically vacuous."
Never mind, I'll just let the explicit irony of that statement speak for itself.
["Is intelligent design science?"]
"Most definitely yes, otherwise no one could argue it was wrong in the first place."
But we are not arguing that it is wrong.
We are arguing that it is not right or wrong, it's "not even wrong".
There is no definition of "intelligent design" that would allow a scientist to determine if it's right or wrong.
There is only the "I know it when I see it" interpretation of the "evidence" of the "natural world". But if "interpretations" are personal and cannot be agreed upon, then it's not science.
"If it didn't [matter] then you wouldn't be wasting your time injecting as much commentary on the topic as you already have."
Non sequitur. The creationists of the Texas State Board of Education wish to claim that there are "weaknesses" in evolution. "Intelligent design" attempts to provide support for such opinions. Therefore "intelligent design" should be properly smacked down as non-science nonsense. That's why it "matters".
"Non sequitur. The creationists of the Texas State Board of Education wish to claim that there are "weaknesses" in evolution ."
I don't think anyone who feels limitations should be brought to light about a theory is a "creationist."
""Intelligent design" attempts to provide support for such opinions. Therefore "intelligent design" should be properly smacked down as non-science nonsense. That's why it "matters"."
Just for further clarification, your reasoning is as follows.....
"1. Texas school board consists of creationists
2. They support critical analysis of evolution
3. ID supports the second goal
4. Thus ID is not science"
...correct?
"I don't think anyone who feels limitations should be brought to light about a theory is a " creationist ."
The actual "limitations" that creationists try to "bring to light" are nonsense. So your sentence is backwards of course.
"1. Texas State Board of Education consists of creationists"
They are 7 out of 15 minority. But they trick some of the others into voting for what seems like a "reasonable compromise". But "strengths and weaknesses" was defeated by an 8 to 7 vote. Then other nonsense was introduced.
"2. They support critical analysis of evolution "
No. They support putting the phrase "strengths and weaknesses" and other weasel words into the ninth grade biology science standards. But they know that "weaknesses" is a cover for introducing ridiculous creationist claims. But fundamentally, there is no valid "critical analysis" of evolution that could possibly be understood by ninth graders.
"3. ID supports the second goal"
Irrelevant. Creationist birds of a feather. So what?
"4. Thus ID is not science"
Completely illogical of course you idiot.
"The actual "limitations" that creationists try to "bring to light" are nonsense. So your sentence is backwards of course."
Like what?
"They are 7 out of 15 minority."
Okay, then just how would this make teach the controversy a religious idea at all?
"But they trick some of the others into voting for what seems like a "reasonable compromise". But "strengths and weaknesses" was defeated by an 8 to 7 vote. Then other nonsense was introduced.""
So what would you call a "reasonable compromise?"
"No. They support putting the phrase "strengths and weaknesses" and other weasel words into the ninth grade biology science standards."
...Which is pretty much the exact same thing as critical analysis of evolution. BFD.
"But they know that "weaknesses" is a cover for introducing ridiculous creationist claims."
Such as?
"But fundamentally, there is no valid "critical analysis" of evolution that could possibly be understood by ninth graders."
This seems like it could be....
http://www.discovery.org/a/4096
"Irrelevant. Creationist birds of a feather. So what?"
You've lost me, please rephrase.
"Completely illogical of course you idiot."
I hope you're aware, this cite does have a civility 101 set of rules, and if you plan on having the privilege of continuing this discussion then I suggest you follow them. ;D
From a review of "Explore Evolution":
"Counterclaims follow that seek to undermine the earlier conclusions, including the circular reasoning of the molecular clock, the potential fabrications of Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," how differing family trees are created via anatomical and molecular patterns of relationships and the meaning of gaps in fossil evidence."
Hilarious nonsense from the "institute" that will never "discover" anything.
Of course this has nothing to do with " intelligent design " or " creationism " - it just a stupid attempt to try to discredit evolution.
"So what would you call a "reasonable compromise?""
There can never be a "reasonable compromise" with creationist idiots.
"Hilarious nonsense from the "institute" that will never "discover" anything."
So can you explain to me where the nonsense is based on that description you cited?
"Of course this has nothing to do with " intelligent design " or " creationism " - it just a stupid attempt to try to discredit evolution."
What we would call "teach the controversy."
"There can never be a "reasonable compromise" with creationist idiots."
What "creationist idiots?"
"But we are not arguing that it is wrong."
Okay then, so what the heck was PvM talking about his entire visit on here anyways?
"We are arguing that it is not right or wrong, it's "not even wrong"."
How exactly is that possible? Oh, are you beating that non-existant horse of "It's not science" again?
"There is no definition of " intelligent design " that would allow a scientist to determine if it's right or wrong."
So what's wrong with this one:
"The theory of intelligent design holds 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."
Sounds clear enough to me.
"There is only the "I know it when I see it" interpretation of the "evidence" of the "natural world". But if "interpretations" are personal and cannot be agreed upon, then it's not science."
Hey onein6billion, William Paley is dead. Try the modern theory of ID. ;)
brb my good man.
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause"
Fine. And that's why this "theory" is not science. Your "intelligent cause" is completely undefined. Its powers, limitations, method, time frame, etc. are completely undefined. Are you going to make "predictions" (as to where Tiktaalik will be found)? And, of course, the "features" you claim you are trying to explain can be easily explained by completely natural causes. You are trying to prove a negative. You wish to prove that evolution cannot explain this. Fail.
So, who is going to decide on the "best explanation"? A scientist? Or a theologian? What criteria will be used? I know it when I see it? Some nonsense about "irreducible complexity" or "specified information"? LOL.
"Fine. And that's why this "theory" is not science . Your "intelligent cause" is completely undefined."
Very well than. By the same logic the following theories have some explaining to do and thus are not qualified as science by your definition:
1. Theories involving dark matter/ energy (since they cannot explain what they each consist of)
2. The Big-Bang theory (since they cannot explain what caused that first bang in the first place)
3. Much of archeology (because they cannot always "define" who produced the artifact in question)
4. SETI (because according to you, we would have to "see" the aliens in question to confirm that it actually was from an intelligent source)
5. Any theory which involves explaining matter/energy interactions (since they cannot explain the very origin of that matter)
...and the list goes on.
"Its powers, limitations, method, time frame, etc. are completely undefined."
They don't need to be.
"Are you going to make "predictions" (as to where Tiktaalik will be found)?"
Perhaps, but we can most definitely predict limitations to what malaria can become resistant to and possibly wipe it out altogether by creating antibiotics which are beyond the reach of chance when it comes to mutant resistance. That by itself is a lot more benefit to medicine in a single project then what 150 years of Darwin's theory has given us.
"And, of course, the "features" you claim you are trying to explain can be easily explained by completely natural causes."
In that case I'm really interested as to how you believe abiogenesis was accomplished (without intelligent intervention).
"You are trying to prove a negative. You wish to prove that evolution cannot explain this. Fail."
Sure seems like the cell is designed to me....
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technique/tprojects/6850.html
"So, who is going to decide on the "best explanation"? A scientist? Or a theologian?"
Generally it will be mostly scientists with a handful of philosophers here and there (just like with any other theory).
"What criteria will be used? I know it when I see it?"
Probably this one:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1203
"Some nonsense about "irreducible complexity" or "specified information"? LOL."
Those do play a role, but it really depends on the feature in question.
"Your "intelligent cause" is completely undefined."
There is a little difference between COMPLETELY undefined and those other theories you are trying to disparage.
"We detect design by looking for the tell-tale signs that an intelligent agent acted."
Hilarious nonsense. As usual - "intelligent agent" is a completely undefined term. So "tell-tale" signs means "I know it when I see it and I see it" as usual.
"Sure seems like the cell is designed to me...."
Yes. For you, "I know it when I see it" works fine because you are an idiot.
"Those do play a role"
No. Such nonsense has been refuted. Fail.
I'm curious as to when I said the following:
"Your "intelligent cause" is completely undefined."
"There is a little difference between COMPLETELY undefined and those other theories you are trying to disparage."
Like what?
"Hilarious nonsense. As usual - "intelligent agent" is a completely undefined term. So "tell-tale" signs means "I know it when I see it and I see it" as usual."
Intelligent agents are forces or entities that form a plan or design prior to their implementation. This would include people like you (sort of) and I.
"Yes. For you, "I know it when I see it" works fine because you are an idiot."
Let's keep the name calling to a minimum. I can see that you do have a passion for this topic but it would be better if we keep discussions clean on this thread.
"No. Such nonsense has been refuted. Fail."
Examples?