- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
It's Bait and Switch
The supposedly nonreligious theory of "intelligent design" is nothing more than a crusade to peddle religion by giving it the veneer of science--to pretend, as one commentator put it, that "faith in God is something that holds up under the microscope."
The insistence of "intelligent design" advocates that they are "agnostic regarding the source of design" is a bait-and-switch. They dangle out the groundless possibility of a "designer" who is susceptible of scientific study--in order to hide their real agenda of promoting faith in the supernatural. Their scientifically accessible "designer" is nothing more than a gateway god--metaphysical marijuana intended to draw students away from natural, scientific explanations and get them hooked on the supernatural.
No matter how fervently its salesmen wish "intelligent design" to be viewed as cutting-edge science, there is no disguising its true character. It is nothing more than a religiously motivated attack on science, and should be rejected
Comments
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design?
Must they be mutually exclusive?
I don't think so.
Wouldn't it be totally plausibe to believe a being, or group of beings (not neccasarily the theistic God) created the universe, then left it to evolve and develope independently?
I just don't see what the controversy is about. ID doesn't have to be based in any particular religion , nor must it completely rule out evolution , or natural selection, or anything of the like.
ID is just as reasonable as any other theory concerning the origin of our universe. I try not to completely rule anything out, because honestly, we'll never know for sure how we got here.
ID is equal to Evolution
"Must they be mutually exclusive?
I don't think so.
Wouldn't it be totally plausibe to believe a being, or group of beings (not neccasarily the theistic God) created the universe, then left it to evolve and develope independently?"
*****************
Yes, it's called "theistic evolution ", and some do subscribe to it.
"ID is just as reasonable as any other theory concerning the origin of our universe. "
******************
No. Evolution is a true scientific theory in that it offers one or more postulates (common descent) and then offers a detailed mechanism (mutations and natural selection) to explain the end result that can be verified and tested. ID offers a postulate (God created everything), but offers no mechanism that can be tested (how did God create everything, what were the exact steps, etc.).
Demarcation where none can be
"No. Evolution is a true scientific theory in that it offers one or more postulates (common descent) and then offers a detailed mechanism (mutations and natural selection) to explain the end result that can be verified and tested."
I would want to argue that this is only half the picture. Suppose someone knocks out the genes to a flagellar motor (something neither Miller or Matzke have done) and then tries to grow that bacteria until it re-evolves it. After tens of thousands of generations, the strain fails to do so. We've "tested" the mechanisms behind evolution , and they've failed to do what they are purported to pull off.
Do advocates of neo-darwinism/modern synthesis/fill in view that opposes ID say that evolution has now been falsified? No, they insist we didn't have the right bacteria, or we didn't wait long enough, or we didn't have a large enough sample... In other words it's unfalsifiable since design critics can always argue that we didn't try hard enough.
"ID offers a postulate (God created everything),"
That's not the postulate at all:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1162
"but offers no mechanism that can be tested (how did God create everything, what were the exact steps, etc.)."
The mechanism of intelligence has been tested for as long as self-consciousness has even been around. Seems to be making headway if you ask me.
pathways
"I would want to argue that this is only half the picture. Suppose someone knocks out the genes to a flagellar motor (something neither Miller or Matzke have done) and then tries to grow that bacteria until it re-evolves it. After tens of thousands of generations, the strain fails to do so. We've "tested" the mechanisms behind evolution , and they've failed to do what they are purported to pull off. "
If you somehow engineered a bacterium with a flagellum to not have that motor, then ran it forward thousands of generations the ToE does not say that the flagellum will re-evolve. Depending on what you do it is still a likely outcome. If you just alter one gene that governs the flagellum then only that gene would need to mutate for the flagellum to become active again, but if you changed multiple genes then they would all need to mutate to reactivate the flagellum (assuming that there is only one pathway to a flagellum).
The E.Coli long-term evolution experiment run by Dr. Richard Lenski. The experiment involved twelve populations of E.Coli bacteria. Each population was kept distinct over a twenty year period. Over the course of the experiment every day was considered distinct point, and samples of the E.Coli were taken and frozen. It was noticed that one of the populations had developed an ability not present in their ancestors, the ability to metabolize citric acid. Having kept the ancestors of that population frozen they were able to thaw out parts of the ancestral record and run the experiment forward from that point (essentially winding back the evolutionary clock and allowing evolution to run its course again). What they found was that they could isolate the generations in which specific mutations occurred leading to the ability to metabolize citrate.
"The mechanism of intelligence has been tested for as long as self-consciousness has even been around. Seems to be making headway if you ask me."
In explaining how a single sentience created the entire universe?
Again shown to be unfalsifiable
I agree with the content of the first paragraph. But with the no-goal factor in mind this shows yet another avenue in which evolution is not falsifiable. When shown that no flagellum or equivalent system evolved over a given number of generations critics will simply argue that there was never any goal of producing that level of complexity in the first place (thus attempting to save their theory from falsification).
As for the E. coli experiment. I doubt developing the ability to digest citrate in a lab setting is anything worth celebrating.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/new_work_by_richard_lenski.html
Losing the ability to repair DNA in the process is not something I would equivocate with progress. I do think more experiments should follow the work of Lenski and Seelke though.
"In explaining how a single sentience created the entire universe?"
Huh???
unfalsifiable?
"When shown that no flagellum or equivalent system evolved over a given number of generations critics will simply argue that there was never any goal of producing that level of complexity in the first place (thus attempting to save their theory from falsification)."
Hardly... since the ToE does not say "a flagellum will emerge within X generations" the fact that the flagellum does not occur does not falsify ToE, it is just a possible outcome. Saying that it does is equivalent to saying that statistics is invalidated because if I flip a coin it does not go heads, tails, heads, tails.
"As for the E. coli experiment. I doubt developing the ability to digest citrate in a lab setting is anything worth celebrating.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/new_work_by_richard_lenski.html "
That is perhaps the poorest writeup on the Lenski experiment that I have yet to read. They say that many mutations are degenerative, but do not say how many...
Further the 'Discovery' Institute fails to point out that if most mutations are degenerative, and it took just twenty years for mutations to occur in some of the strands. This would seem to indicate that most E.Coli would suffer from degenerative mutations, and would degenerate completely over the span of a few centuries.
"Huh???"
Who is/are the designer(s)? What is/are the designer(s)? What mechanism do the designer(s) use to make their changes?
Indeed, it prevents itself from qualifying as such
"Hardly... since the ToE does not say "a flagellum will emerge within X generations" the fact that the flagellum does not occur does not falsify ToE, it is just a possible outcome."
Exactly. Design critics just point to the results and say that the experiment is in some way invalid because of "X," thus evolution is not falsifiable. In this case if you show that the mechanisms behind it cannot produce the results it's supposedly managed to do before, critics of design simply say "Well, that wasn't the only possible outcome." Thus if it is false (which I think it is), then evolution is impossible to falsify experimentally.
"Saying that it does is equivalent to saying that statistics is invalidated because if I flip a coin it does not go heads, tails, heads, tails."
How on earth does this analogy apply to this debate? I'm pretty sure new morphological novelties are nowhere near the same thing as a sequence of coin tosses.
"Who is/are the designer(s)? What is/are the designer(s)? What mechanism do the designer(s) use to make their changes?"
Doesn't matter. ID focuses on the effects of intelligence and not the intelligence itself.
multipath
“Exactly. Design critics just point to the results and say that the experiment is in some way invalid because of "X," thus evolution is not falsifiable. In this case if you show that the mechanisms behind it cannot produce the results it's supposedly managed to do before, critics of design simply say "Well, that wasn't the only possible outcome." Thus if it is false (which I think it is), then evolution is impossible to falsify experimentally. “
The genetic path that leads to the flagellum is known. That a single experiment does not lead back to the flagellum does not disprove evolution, because Evolution from the beginning said that the flagellum was only one of the possible outcomes.
Evolution can be falsified, however that does not mean that any arbitrary test can falsify it.
“How on earth does this analogy apply to this debate? I'm pretty sure new morphological novelties are nowhere near the same thing as a sequence of coin tosses.”
Since our models of evolution and coin tossing are both probabilistic in nature they are similar. In both cases we not make a firm prediction (the coin will come up heads then tails then heads, the flagellum will evolve) we can only assign probabilities.
“Doesn't matter. ID focuses on the effects of intelligence and not the intelligence itself.”
Which is the major failing of ID… if you cannot describe how a change is made, or what process governs the changes, then the theory is incomplete. If you claim that the how / why is a ‘God did it’ then your theory is flawed.
Gravity is a good example of this. We have a decent understanding of gravity, but we do not know the exact mechanism involved, so there is still research the how / why of gravity.
Arbitrary falsification?
"The genetic path that leads to the flagellum is known."
Is it a smooth path? One that does not require multiple changes per step before a selective benefit exists?
"That a single experiment does not lead back to the flagellum does not disprove evolution , because Evolution from the beginning said that the flagellum was only one of the possible outcomes."
So whether it is right or wrong, you agree that we cannot determine this experimentally correct? You agree that there are plenty of excuses used to save the theory from falsification?
"Evolution can be falsified, however that does not mean that any arbitrary test can falsify it."
If it cannot be done by experiment or direct observation of what it can do in the lab or in nature, then how can it be falsified at all? What would you consider to be a "non-arbitrary" test?
"Since our models of evolution and coin tossing are both probabilistic in nature they are similar."
Equivocating the two simply because they each have probabilistic aspects does not make them similar enough to prove the point your trying to make (e.g. that there are plenty of other outcomes for evolutionary processes to make it plausible, and that it is testable).
"In both cases we not make a firm prediction (the coin will come up heads then tails then heads, the flagellum will evolve) we can only assign probabilities."
And in both cases the outcomes are purely ad hoc; they do not attempt to justify an outcome until after it happens. It's ridiculous to insist that ID makes no predictions (with respect to future actions by the intelligence in question) when clearly postulating evolutionary processes to explain a given feature in biology is obviously guilty of the same thing.
"Which is the major failing of ID… if you cannot describe how a change is made, or what process governs the changes, then the theory is incomplete."
In that case ID is incomplete, but ONLY in the sense that the big-bang theory is incomplete because no one knows for sure what caused it. That shortcoming doesn't change the fact that it happened and is currently the best explanation for the origin of the universe.
"If you claim that the how / why is a ‘God did it’ then your theory is flawed."
Then it can easily be said that ID has nothing to fear here.
"Gravity is a good example of this. We have a decent understanding of gravity, but we do not know the exact mechanism involved, so there is still research the how / why of gravity."
I think that's a perfect analogy! In the case of gravity we may not know the exact mechanism behind how it operates (electromagnetism is another example), but that doesn't mean that the force in consideration does not exist. We can study the EFFECTS of gravity, thus we conclude that it exists. Likewise with any directive agency (even ones we find in everyday life), we may not know how, when, or why it arranged material constituents to form a given feature in nature, but that doesn't prevent us from being able to conclude that the existence of one is more likely than not.
concluding pt2
“And in both cases the outcomes are purely ad hoc; they do not attempt to justify an outcome until after it happens. It's ridiculous to insist that ID makes no predictions (with respect to future actions by the intelligence in question) when clearly postulating evolutionary processes to explain a given feature in biology is obviously guilty of the same thing.”
Yes, in both cases there is no way to judge the exact outcome until after it has occurred… and neither require justification because they laid no claim to it originally.
Isn’t ID the same way in that respect? It only judges design in retrospect… and has never claimed that design would happen at some point in the future.
Let us take the flagellum and run your experiment in light of ID… you claim that the flagellum was intelligently designed, so if we removed the flagellum then won’t the designer(s) come back around and implement it again?
“In that case ID is incomplete, but ONLY in the sense that the big-bang theory is incomplete because no one knows for sure what caused it. That shortcoming doesn't change the fact that it happened and is currently the best explanation for the origin of the universe.”
Yet there is active investigation into the ‘why’ behind the big bang. Further the Big Bang theory does not have strong competing theories… whereas ID has to compete with MSToE, which does describe how the changes are made (mutation) and the process governing the changes (natural selection).
“Then it can easily be said that ID has nothing to fear here.”
So then what is the mechanism by which the designer(s) make changes? Where is a direct observation of a life form being modified by the designer(s)?
Evolution has a mechanism for changes… mutation. And that mutation has been observed.
“I think that's a perfect analogy! In the case of gravity we may not know the exact mechanism behind how it operates (electromagnetism is another example), but that doesn't mean that the force in consideration does not exist. We can study the EFFECTS of gravity, thus we conclude that it exists."
You ignore all the effort that is going in to discovering the exact mechanism behind gravity. You are also ignoring that while gravity can be directly observed, design has not been directly observed.
"Likewise with any directive agency (even ones we find in everyday life), we may not know how, when, or why it arranged material constituents to form a given feature in nature, but that doesn't prevent us from being able to conclude that the existence of one is more likely than not.”
Yet there are other ways that the material could have been arranged... ways that have observed mechanisms and can be tested in the laboratory, design has yet to provide either of those.
concluding pt1
“Is it a smooth path? One that does not require multiple changes per step before a selective benefit exists?”
It is not a requirement that every stage provides a distinct advantage, just that every stage is not highly detrimental to future reproduction. Consider the injection mechanism used by Yersinia pestis, which has structures nearly identical to the flagellum but are used to inject toxins rather then as part of movement.
http://saier-144-51.ucsd.edu /~saier/bimm130/reading130/week4/paper4c.pdf
This use shows that the flagellum is ‘reducibly complex’
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726431.900 -uncovering-the- evolution -of-the-bacterial-flagellum.html?page=1
“So whether it is right or wrong, you agree that we cannot determine this experimentally correct? You agree that there are plenty of excuses used to save the theory from falsification?”
To falsify ToE you have to prove it’s predictions as false… a falsification in this case would be if the E.Coli suddenly started became a bird cell that grew into a bird.
“If it cannot be done by experiment or direct observation of what it can do in the lab or in nature, then how can it be falsified at all? What would you consider to be a "non-arbitrary" test?”
It can be falsified by a test in the laboratory (see above) or by observations in nature (such as finding a chimpanzee fossil from the Jurassic period.
Remember that MSToE does not specifically state that a species of bacterium will evolve a flagellum, it just states that a species will change over time due to mutation… and that those mutations that prove beneficial in their given environment will become more prevalent in subsequent generations.
“Equivocating the two simply because they each have probabilistic aspects does not make them similar enough to prove the point your trying to make (e.g. that there are plenty of other outcomes for evolutionary processes to make it plausible, and that it is testable).”
How so? It seems to demonstrate my point rather well. If I flip a coin ten times then it will probably come up around 5 heads and 5 tails. This is similar to what would happened in the Lenski experiment. When stored ancestors of the citrate metabolizing E.Coli were set in motion again. Some of the unfrozen ancestors evolved citrate metabolisms, while others did not.
More people should think that way
"Wouldn't it be totally plausibe to believe a being, or group of beings (not neccasarily the theistic God) created the universe, then left it to evolve and develope independently?"
I think it could be. From what I know the kind of design implementation you're describing is known as front-loading, where design is set up only in the initial formation of something but then unfolds later on. Some have referred to this as "designed to evolve."
It's like things are predestined to occur in many instances but no intervention is necessary.
Who created the creator?
Well, then who created the creator? And who created that creator's creator. Ad infinitum. The problem with postulating a creator who set the design in motion will always be the "first cause" problem presented above. Unless you assume that this creator is a God with magical powers, you can never resolve the paradox. Therefore, Intelligent Design's creator must be a God of some type.
Infinite regress can be applied to anything
"Well, then who created the creator? And who created that creator's creator. Ad infinitum. The problem with postulating a creator who set the design in motion will always be the "first cause" problem presented above."
What is a gold brick made of? Gold molecules.
What's that made of? Gold atoms.
What are gold atoms made of? Electrons, protons, neutrons.
What are those made of? Quarks, glouns, etc.......
The point of this is that you can create an infinite regress out of just about anything. If I ask where I am, I can start with the building, the town, the state, the country.... you get the idea. You can make regresses from anything out there, and if I were to apply the reasoning you've just applied to any directive intelligence, then it would be simply to just assume that you don't exist.
"Unless you assume that this creator is a God with magical powers, you can never resolve the paradox. Therefore, Intelligent Design's creator must be a God of some type."
In that case how could one prove it must be god and not the flying sphagetti monster?
Infinite regress?
What is a gold brick made of? Gold molecules.
What's that made of? Gold atoms.
What are gold atoms made of? Electrons, protons, neutrons.
What are those made of? Quarks, glouns, etc.......
The point of this is that you can create an infinite regress out of just about anything.
**********************
The example you provide is clearly NOT an infinite regress. The division stops at the point when you reach the quarks, which are the smallest known constituent of matter. Quarks can not be divided. So, the "buck stops" at the quarks. Matter is NOT an infinite regress, as it can only be divided so many times. The same holds true for many other physical properties of our universe such as time and space itself (yes, they are quantized as well).
Yes, an infinite regress
"The example you provide is clearly NOT an infinite regress. The division stops at the point when you reach the quarks, which are the smallest KNOWN constituent of matter." [emphasis mine]
If there's more we are not yet familiar with (e.g. what are quarks made of) then yes, it is an infinite regress.
"Quarks can not be divided. So, the "buck stops" at the quarks.
Didn't they say that about atoms back in the day long before Hiroshima?
"Matter is NOT an infinite regress, as it can only be divided so many times. The same holds true for many other physical properties of our universe such as time and space itself (yes, they are quantized as well)."
Your missing my point here. The example I gave was intended to show that you can take anything and keep asking questions until you reach an unknown. This is purported to be the case with any given form of directive intelligence. If you claim we end up with a regress of questions which eventually become unanswered by invoking design then by all means one must keep in mind that the same would apply to just about everything else we can observe.
end point
But that is not what ID does... ID just calls a 'God Did It' and asks no further.
That's what yoy say it is.
"But that is not what ID does... ID just calls a 'God Did It' and asks no further."
Of course not. What instance can you find of chief ID'ers inferring that way?
Apologies for the typo
But here's a few more links from ID'ers which explain how they operate:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1159
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1167
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1181
Doesn't seem like a goddidit argument to me.
ideas
" http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1159"
Irreducible complexity? So far no irreducibly complex structures have been discovered. The flagellum that was originally touted as being irreducibly complex has been show to be reducible.
Evolution of the Bacterial Flagellum: Cumulative evidence indicates that flagella developed as modular systems, with many components deriving from other systems
http://saier-144-51.ucsd.edu /~saier/bimm130/reading130/week4/paper4c.pdf
and
Asai DJ, Koonce MP (May 2001). "The dynein heavy chain: structure, mechanics and evolution ". Trends in Cell Biology 11 (5): 196–202.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11316608
" http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1167"
This is actually a fairly novel approach, but it is still a "God Did It" dodge (claiming that we can never know and should just stop researching now). Yet at the same time it has often been said in the past "this is all that we know, and we can know no more." Scientists have stopped saying this, because historically once the limit of knowledge is examined it is quickly seen that the limit is a bit further on then was originally anticipated.
Call "this is the limit" if you wish, but so far Science has steam-rolled over all the limits placed before it.
" http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1181"
This bit claims that while ID is an evolution stopper it is not a Science stopper... but the link above claims that we can never understand the designer... preventing further research into the 3W's of the designer.
And the theories they support
"Irreducible complexity? So far no irreducibly complex structures have been discovered. The flagellum that was originally touted as being irreducibly complex has been show to be reducible."
Let me guess, you've fallen for the straw man that Ken Miller has been milking for the past 13 years? You believe that the TTSS proves that the flagellum is not IC after all? In that case, some homework is in order:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=747
http://www.discovery.org/a/1364
If I'm wrong, can you show me how the flagellum evolved step by step while retaining the same function? The best attempt I've seen (Matzke) fails to do so (along with the one you cite showing mostly speculation), thus not proving the flagellum isn't reducible after all. Can we test the current pathways proposed (such as the one you cite)?
"This is actually a fairly novel approach, but it is still a "God Did It" dodge (claiming that we can never know and should just stop researching now)."
How so? The entire faq article spent the entire time showing that this isn't the case. The whole argument is that we've tried countless things in the past for many given problems in origins and it's time to look to new things. Do you have any real examples of how it's a "goddidit" argument instead of just waving your hand at it?
"Yet at the same time it has often been said in the past "this is all that we know, and we can know no more."
I take that as an argument against the current consensus if you ask me. Every new theory is born refuted. And today's consensus was yesterday's heresy.
"Scientists have stopped saying this, because historically once the limit of knowledge is examined it is quickly seen that the limit is a bit further on then was originally anticipated."
I can agree with this completely, and if I didn't I wouldn't be one to vote "Yes" on this debate to begin with. What I don't agree with is people who keep trying the same old tired "solutions" to the same problem and then try and make their views immune to full analysis and falsification by saying we must stay the course on a given problem even when it continues to give substandard results. But for the most part.....
"Call "this is the limit" if you wish, but so far Science has steam-rolled over all the limits placed before it."
...I would like to know when we can say we've tried every reductionist solution to various shortcomings it has had in science and can move onto non-materialistic ones.
"This bit claims that while ID is an evolution stopper it is not a Science stopper... but the link above claims that we can never understand the designer... preventing further research into the 3W's of the designer."
It's strange how you claim above that science has steam-rolled through barriers of knowledge in the past, yet here you have the opposite mentality. Do we need to know how the first life emerged for Darwin's theory to be true? Of course not, that is a separate question independent of his theory. The same applies to any postulated agency; ID identifies the effects of the intelligence but not the intelligence itself.
complexity reductions, loss of functions
“Let me guess, you've fallen for the straw man that Ken Miller has been milking for the past 13 years? You believe that the TTSS proves that the flagellum is not IC after all? In that case, some homework is in order:”
TTSS shows that with the change in a few proteins that the flagellum remains a useful structure.
“http:// www.discovery.org/a/1364 ”
ID still has yet to prove design, even if they define Irreducible Complexity as something that loses its present function when it’s structure changes. That change in function is fully consistent with MSToE, and is among it’s predictions.
“If I'm wrong, can you show me how the flagellum evolved step by step while retaining the same function? The best attempt I've seen (Matzke) fails to do so (along with the one you cite showing mostly speculation), thus not proving the flagellum isn't reducible after all. Can we test the current pathways proposed (such as the one you cite)?”
The flagellum as a means of propulsion may not be irreducible, but then the claim that it had to retain its function has only ever been made by ID proponents. The flagellum, deprived of its rotating capabilities, makes a serviceable needle for injecting toxins into other cells (as is seen by several other species of bacterium).
“How so? The entire faq article spent the entire time showing that this isn't the case. The whole argument is that we've tried countless things in the past for many given problems in origins and it's time to look to new things. Do you have any real examples of how it's a "goddidit" argument instead of just waving your hand at it?”
Unless it contains an attempt at demonstrating the designers process of making changes, or the nature of the designer then it is a ‘goddidit’ argument. But every form of ID I have ever encountered has hand waved questions about said designer(s). Provide a mechanism for which the designer(s) make changes or a way to determine why they made the changes that ID claims that they made.
“I take that as an argument against the current consensus if you ask me. Every new theory is born refuted. And today's consensus was yesterday's heresy.”
It is also an argument against the ‘we can never know the how or why of the designer(s).
“I can agree with this completely, and if I didn't I wouldn't be one to vote "Yes" on this debate to begin with. What I don't agree with is people who keep trying the same old tired "solutions" to the same problem and then try and make their views immune to full analysis and falsification by saying we must stay the course on a given problem even when it continues to give substandard results.”
There are many ways to falsify evolution , just as there are many ways to falsify gravity or thermodynamics… just because a given attempt to falsify a theory fails does not mean that the theory is unfalsifiable.
“...I would like to know when we can say we've tried every reductionist solution to various shortcomings it has had in science and can move onto non-materialistic ones.”
Once some evidence of a non-materialistic process is found… such as an observation of the designer in action. The whole point of Science is recognizing that we don’t know everything, then trying to find out what we don’t know.
“It's strange how you claim above that science has steam-rolled through barriers of knowledge in the past, yet here you have the opposite mentality. Do we need to know how the first life emerged for Darwin's theory to be true? Of course not, that is a separate question independent of his theory. The same applies to any postulated agency; ID identifies the effects of the intelligence but not the intelligence itself.”
The Modern Synthesis of Evolution does not attempt to explain how life emerged, just how/why life changes over time. It has a how (genetic mutation) and a why (natural selection). ID lacks both of those things (among others). By positing the existence of a designer as the reason for the complexity we observe around us you open the door to questions about the designer… questions that have already been answered regarding mutation and natural selection (which obey known laws of chemistry and physics).
Clarification
Let me clarify this lest folks think I don't know my basic physics :-)
Electrons, quarks and gluons are all fundamental constituents of matter and cannot be further subdivided. And for the record, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks (3 to be exact), electrons are not.
Contradictory arguments
In science, testing a hypothesis or theory means deriving predictions from them. Thus, if I hypothesize that species have changed over time, then I predict that million-year-old fossils will indicate similarities with species today but with stark differences. It follows, then, that if predictions cannot be derived from the supernatural, then neither can if-then arguments be developed against it. For example, one could not logically argue that if God is all-good, then there would be no evil because this is deriving predictions from the supernatural.
Nevertheless, every atheist who passionately opposes theism, religion, and ID has made these arguments. In "God: The Failed Hypothesis", physicist Victor Stenger even proposed to develop a scientific model of God that he claimed could be used to test the God hypothesis. Naturally, he found that his model did not hold and therefore God does not exist. But did the scientific community chastise him for baiting-and switching, for pretending like science can make statements about God when it really can't? Of course not! This is because his conclusions concerning the hypothesis were in the negative. What matters to atheist scientists is not the evidence, but whether the evidence can be interpreted as atheistic. If it can, then the evidence is strong. If it cannot, then it is weak. These are my predictions using self-verification theory. Let's see if my predictions are supported by evidence.
Ufcarazy - What Contradictions?
You are using the common tactic of forcing someone to disprove a negative. There is no "if-then" argument required for something which has absolutely no evidence. According to your reasoning I am justified in inventing anything that pops into my head and it is incumbent upon you to disprove it. This is not science.
P.S. - Characterizing atheists as "passionate" is like calling a rationalist "emotional".
Response
There is nothing wrong with asking someone to disprove a negative, that is, with asking someone to provide evidence contrary to a claim. You call it a tactic, I call it reason.
I agree that "if-then" arguments against God are not required. Nevertheless, many atheists develop them with great enthusiasm. If you have a problem with them doing this, then please take up your complaint with them.
You are justified for inventing ideas. This is what philosophy is all about. We use our imaginations to try to figure stuff out, and we invent explanations or concepts to help us deal with problems. If the invented idea sounds reasonable to some, but not me, then if I want to persuade people to abandon that idea I will have to use my imagination to invent an idea that conflicts with and/or is better than the idea they have adopted.
Here are the two contradictory statements:
1) "The supernatural cannot be tested."
2) "If the Judeo-Christian God exists, then there should be no gratuitous evil. If God is perfect, then the world should be perfect. If God exists, then no one should be a disbeliever because God would make his existence obvious to everyone, etc, etc. Therefore, the God hypothesis is false or probably false."
p.s. Atheists are human beings, and as such are passionate about some things. I don't know why you think they are not emotionally attached to anything. Perhaps it is because you have never debated with them?
Disprove a negative
"There is nothing wrong with asking someone to disprove a negative, that is, with asking someone to provide evidence contrary to a claim. You call it a tactic, I call it reason."
************************
It depends on the negative you ae trying to disprove. For example, I could pretty easily disprove the theory that there is not a stone inside a small box simply by looking inside the box and seeing a stone there. But now expand that to be a stone that does not interact with any of the known forces and is therefore not detectable in any way. It now would be pretty much impossible to disprove that stone does not exist. The same could be said for an invisible man reading over my shoulder. The same could be said for a God which is postulated to have magical and mystical powers that we do not understand.
Hypocrisy.
If ID is bait and switch, then so is evolution , considering that it's proponents tend to sell it off starting with the least extreme definition and just move on up from there:
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/enclosure/2007-01-05T12_05_59-08_00.mp3
I like the concepts Ayn Rand promoted. This is sad.
ID's bait and switch.
The Ayn Rand Center and I agree, for once, about the fact that ID is nothing more than bait and switch and that ID at best is a religiously motivated attack on science, as the DI seems to admit in their own Wedge Document.
As a Christian myself, I have a hard time understanding why 'bait and switch' would further a Christian message. But perhaps I am missing something here.