Scientists See No Scientific Merit in ID

It's about being scientifically relevant. Look at Behe, what has he done for science in the last decade? His latest book "Edge of evolution" shows how ID can only make its claims when ignoring scientific progress. Guillermo Gonzalez failed to impress his tenure committee that he should be given tenure. They promote ID, they get people to respond, and in most cases they totally ignore the criticism. Look at how Behe is ignoring the devastating observations by Matzke in this forum for instance. Of course, Behe has no duty to respond but it shows how ID fails to be able to really present its case or defend itself against real criticism. That ID has its roots in Christianity is just an additional bonus to help understand why despite its scientific vacuity, ID is still attempting to introduce it under the guise of, what is the flavor of today?, oh yes, academic freedom.
You could perhaps move forward this discussion by explaining how ID explains any 'designed' system? What hypotheses relevant directly to design does it generate?
I have seen various attempts by ID proponents to make claims of 'research programs' based on ID but ID lacks a foundation for that as well, I'd argue.

--
But it's more than we don't understand' thus designed. It's specified complexity. Wherever we find specified complexity we find a designer. But for the theological implications this would be non-controversal.
--

That is yet another one of these ID claims which lack in much relevance. But for the sake of the reader, let's explore Jim's claim because otherwise the ID proponent may argue that I have not fully represented the ID argument.

Specification is something that is, as is with so many aspects of ID, ill defined and even harder to measure but according to Dembski. first of all in biology, specification seems to be similar to 'function', which in evolution leads to an immediate problem namely that function is also an expected outcome of evolutionary processes.

--
Addressing the particular question regarding whether the bacterial flagellum is specified, Dembski confidently declares that, “Specification is never a problem. The irreducibly complex systems we consider, particularly in biology, always satisfy independently given functional requirements.... For instance, in the case of the bacterial flagellum, humans developed outboard rotary motors well before they figured out that the flagellum was such a machine.”NFL, p. 289.The flagellum functions like an outboard rotary motor. The rotary outboard motor pattern represents a functional requirement independent of biological systems. Therefore, concludes Dembski, the flagellum is specified.
--

Source: Hopward van Till, "E. Coli at the No Free Lunchroom"

http://www.counterbalance.net/id-hvt/isthe2-body.html

In other words, in biology, the complexity part is established through our ignorance and the specification through function, so we can slightly revise our claim to state that in biology 'design' refers to science's ignorance about how a particular system with a function came around.

Note that ID also does not provide any additional side hypotheses to explain from the ID perspective how such specification came about.

In other words, outside biology, what is sufficient to identify some subjective function or pattern which is independent of the system and voila the foundation for a specification arises. Since we are very well aware of the fact that us humans are extremely capable of seeing 'design' in many aspects of life, it should not come as a surprise that under ID's approach the "Old man in the mountain" is as valid a design inference as Mount Rushmore, but of course likely to be wrong. Similarly, the patterns of circles or stable orbits combined with a lack of understanding of how science would explain this, caused Newton to infer 'design' for planetary orbits.
Worse of course, the ID hypothesis does not only infer 'design' but provides no measures to show that its inference is more likely than 'we don't know', making the inference highly unreliable. And if we take Dembski's claim that if the design inference includes false positives, it would be useless, I am surprised why we are still talking about this.

--Jim
Remember the question we are addressing is: Does ID have merit? I have explained why I think it does. It is a part of science if science is a search for the truth. If we are walking togehter and you pick up an object and declare it to be an arrow head, I may say it is a stone. We argue about this. If we are anthropologist on a dig, are we doing science?
---

Actually the question is 'does ID have scientific merit' since I am reluctant to address its much stronger theological claims. Again, the confusion of ID with archaeology is understandable but misleading as it suggests that is is how ID infers design. In fact, as I have shown, science's design inference are not based on "we don't understand' thus designed.

So what kind of design are you interested in? The kind science already successfully detects or the kind that seems to be doomed to remain elusive to science, also known as 'rarefied design' [1]

[1]See Wilkins and Elsbery The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance. Biology and Philosophy 16 (November):711-724, 2001.

We should be careful not to confuse ID's approach and definition of design with how the terminology is more commonly used in science and by laypeople as I believe that this has been cause for significant confusion.

--
ID may assert but as a science their contributions remain largely with content.
I think you meant to type without, not with. A reasonable infrence that a God created us in without content
--

Not really, remember we were talking about ID as a science.

--Couldn’t atheism be the main reason people have come to embrace a certain type of evolution and object to ID? The emotions so commonly seen in the rejection of ID support this.
--

Emotions do run high but opposition to ID comes from all sides, not just atheists. In fact, ID's status as lacking scientific content should be a concern to all, not just atheists.

--

Just the reverse is true. An atheist is stuck with no ID. If science leans in that direction, (as ID says it does) that is an interpretation they must reject. The rejection is based on philosophical assumptions, not science. Believers can go from a God who set the universe in motion (if that) and has done nothing since, to a God who involves himself in our daily lives.
--

That assumes that sciences leans in that direction and as I have pointed out such a position is ill supported at best. ID may assert but as a science their contributions remain largely with content.

Was it not you who argued that evolutionary science removes a caring God from consideration? So it seems that you have a similar problem. Of course, ID is not rejected based on its theology which is in the minds of many, quite flawed, but rather on the lack of content scientifically speaking. A God who set it all in motion is quite compatible with science as is the position of atheism. Seems that we can find common ground here. Of course, the concept of design as formulated by ID hardly seems suitable to reach such a scientific conclusion, at best this seems to be a theological interpretation. After all, design is not something that seems directly relevant to science.

--
The bottom line is some interpretations of evolution leave little room for a caring God.
--

Which I argue is the main reason people have come to embrace ID and object to science. And yet, when God was removed as a necessity from the stability of planetary orbits, noone objected.

So Crick says that we must not confuse what we see with 'design' and proposes a valid, testable scientific hypothesis. ID says that we should not confuse what we see with absence of 'design' and produces no competing hypotheses.

--Jim
I don’t believe science will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of a personal, caring God. But that’s the point. Right now many are using evolution as if it already has proven that God has nothing to do with our existence. That has not been proven and ID reminds of us of that. Jim
--
Science will never be able to do so and if you allow others to define this as if it has happened then you are granting these atheists a lot of power. If ID is just about reminding us of this then surely it has far less of a relevance as a scientific contributor than most imagine it does.

--Jim

This is the view that life is the result of random, purposeless arrangements of molecules shaped by natural selection. Where does God come in? Little or no room for God in this interpretation. Hence if you believe that you can be an atheist. If it is true you are almost certainly right in your belief.
--
Well, atheists have the advantage that they can incorporate science easily as it does not interfere with their philosophical position, but that does not mean that Christians cannot reconcile the fact of evolution, the mechanisms of evolution with the concept of a caring God. In other words, accepting evolution does not force you either way, although I agree that given the position of some Christians, science is in fact at odds with faith. That's too bad, but rather than throw up our arms and proclaim, science must be wrong because I cannot imagine how there is room for a loving God now that He is not a necessity anymore, shows, in my personal opinion, a severe lack of faith.

--IDNET--
To comment on whether ID has merit or not, it is minimally necessary that people be properly informed of the arguments involved. Instead of informing us, the NCSE keeps telling us "ID is religion" and "Scientists think ID is silly". How about engaging with the arguments.
--

Many people including the NCSE have been involved addressing the arguments. So let's not pretend that no such argument exist. Of course, ID proponents have generally avoided dealing with these objections.

Now that's the rest of the story

--IDNet
The following statement by the employee of NCSE is the exact form of inference to the best explanation that ID scientists use to demonstrate that there is intelligence behind life. No one would think that it is by undirected chance that all the names on the list are Steve.
--

No because these are stated requirements. How do we know this? From the available background information.

--
ID proponents use exactly the same type of scientific statistical methods to prove beyond reasonable doubt that intelligence was involved in the origin of the cosmos and of life.
--

ID uses no statistical methods at all. If you disagree, show us how these tools and methods were followed to infer design for the bacterial flagella

And then there was silence...

take your time, I'd rather have you think about it, digest it and respond than give a hasty response which would not help us resolve these issues.

No rush. If you have any additional questions, feel free to post them. I actually enjoy a good discussion and you have shown yourself to be willing to evaluate these issues carefully.

--Or that evolution is a process involving randomness and natural selection. Has that been tested?--

Yes, in fact it has. First of all we need to understand the meaning of the term 'random' which just means that mutations do not arise in response to environmental needs. More on this later. This has been tested and so far no evidence has been found that seems to contradict this, although some data suggested that mutations did arise in response to needs. However, on closer scrutiny, science discovered the 'SOS response' where organisms enter a stage of hypermutations which combined with the new environmental pressures allows mutations which confer a benefit to quickly spread. As to natural selection, science has tested that natural selection is a real process and has measured many instances of it.
This brings us to the final issue, is natural selection and variation the only mechanism of evolution? The answer is no, just like Darwin suggested, there are other processes, most notably 'random drift'.

--Jim--Finally, I just want to say that it appears to me that statements made against ID and their proponents -- made by others, not you -- regarding ID has been so emotionally charged it makes me feel their judgment is affected. It seems that it’s a very powerful argument to say if something appears designed, it may be because it is designed. Some make the statement it may appear designed but it is not. If that is so, where’s the proof?
--

Just look at Darwin who showed how what previously had been seen as requiring design now suddenly did not necessitate design. In other words, while design in the larger sense can never be disproven since we can always propose a designer who used natural law, it can be shown that design is not a requirement or a necessary component.

So we see the evidence strongly point to the fact of evolution (change over time, common ancestry) and thus there is strong evidence that suggests that design in these cases is apparent as it can be explained by processes of regularity and chance. However, we can also agree, that a God could very well have designed through these processes of regularity and chance, making design not a necessity but still a logical plausibility. Of course, there are variants which involve a God who created species at every single step and decided to make it appear to have evolved through natural processes of regularity and chance. That of course, requires one to propose motives and means for which we have no evidence.

Sure, the arguments surrounding ID are emotionally loaded, mostly because of the strong religious overtones however my major concerns are not with the theological flaws of ID but rather how it is doomed to remain scientifically vacuous.

--Jim---
1. You never responded to my comment: When Crick said molecular machines appear designed but are not, he was never castigated for being "unscientific." If some one responds and says those molecular machines are designed, they are harshly criticized for being "unscientific." Why?
---

Likely because when Crick said it, he had positive hypotheses about how such molecular machines had arisen. And indeed, looking at the genetic evidence it shows, as expected a nested hierarchy. When people say that it looks 'designed' and is 'designed' none of these people presents anything more that just that statement. And for good reasons because ID really cannot say more than that as it is based on an eliminative/negative argument.

PS: I am not sure what Crick said when or where. I have tracked down one of Crick's statements to ID proponents' writings

---
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
--

Source: William A. Dembski "Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences"

The source of the original Crick claim appears to be ""What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery," [1988], Penguin Books: London, 1990, reprint, p.138" and I will have to double check the context.

--Jim---
2. You write ID is merely a negative argument. I don't know about that (Luskin's article) but is it not normal in scientific discourse to point out the weakness of a theory and then argue against it on the failure to explain away the weakness?
---

this is what I call bait and switch or moving the goalposts. When pointing out that ID is vacuous, you state, but well, it keeps science honest. If that were the full extent of ID, then there seems to be no need to get ID pushed into are school curricula, nor would it really add anything to science as this is, as you point out what science already does. Things get worse however, when said 'arguments' against evolutionary theory are based on fallacious, misleading or outright false claims. So even in this aspect I have found ID to be lacking scientific relevance. The real issue of course is that ID proposes nothing beyond 'well science cannot explain 'x' yet'. So what... Why the attempt to call this 'design' and then use bait and switch to conflate the narrow definition of 'design' with how people commonly understand 'design'. That's too Rovian for me...

If the full extent of ID is that it remains 'critical of science' then you would have to agree with me that this renders ID scientifically without content, as it fails to contribute any knowledge to science, other than point out that science does not yet explain 'x'. Look at the bacterial flagella for instance, what has science done to increase our understanding of the flagella versus what has ID done? I can tell you that science has increased our understanding significantly and has proposed, tentative hypotheses. What has ID done? Deny the relevance of the work of these scientists.

to be continued

-- It seems to me that Luskin is being "more scientific" in that he talks about a method for testing ID--

That's ironic because Luskin presents no testable ID. Although I understand your confusion where ID claims that showing that a gap in our ignorance, which has been defined to be 'design', should count as a way to test 'ID'. But then ID is merely the negative argument that science cannot explain 'x' and has no relevance to what one commonly perceives ID to be, in other words, ID fails to place 'design' at risk.

Perhaps you can tell me how you believe ID can be tested. Does this mean that since ID's flagellum has been shown to be plausibly evolved that somehow design and the designer have been falsified? Does the fact that regularity and chance processes, contrary to claims by ID proponents, can in fact increase information and complexity mean that ID has been falsified and that the 'designer is dead'? Of course not. At best it means that ID proponents were wrong in making their claims about science and since they never placed the concept of design at risk, ID remains scientifically without content.
If you feel that I have missed other points worth addressing, please let me know. Realize that ID is very good at bait and switch, and that one need to carefully study its claims and arguments to be able to get to the core and come to realize that there is not much there.

I am assuming you know how ID has defined the concepts of 'design' and 'information' and that they are at odds with how science typically defines such terms or how the layperson may interpret such terms?

It's not about 'believing in ID', many people have come to accept by faith the existence of a god, but rather that scientists do not believe that ID has much of anything to offer scientifically speaking.

--NCSE Statement--
It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
--

Of course, if you are interested in the many rebuttals of ID by scientists, then I suggest you show your interest to discuss and we shall see where this leaves. The fact that scientists, even many Christian scientists see no scientific merit in ID is not really much of a surprise given the approach chosen by ID to rely on a scientifically vacuous concept.

So what are you waiting on?