Experts and users discuss intelligent design, evolution, religion in society, religion and science: Artificial Wall between 'Design' and 'Designer' Is Unscientific
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
Artificial Wall between 'Design' and 'Designer' Is Unscientific
- From Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
By Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights - Advancing Objectivism
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Testing ID
Theories are not supported by finding confirming evidence only. They are largely supported by consistently failing to find disconfirming evidence. Conversely, they are refuted by consistently finding disconfirming evidence. Confirming or disconfirming evidence is determined by making predictions. On the condition that the predictions logically follow from the explanation the theory provides, failed predictions are disconfirming evidence and successful predictions are confirming evidence. Although it is clear that ID has led to some successful predictions, the best way to test ID is ultimately to derive predictions that logically follow from the explanation and never (or hardly ever) make failed predictions.
Those opposed to ID must use ID and generate failed predictions even when the predictions logically follow from the explanation. Predictions that do not logically follow from the explanation will not be a test of ID. For example, stating "If there is design in nature, then nature will be perfect" contains a prediction that does not logically follow from the explanation. This is because we have a wealth of experiences with designed objects, none of which are "perfect". Another example of an illogical prediction is "If the world is designed, then there should be no pain and suffering". This is because we have experiences of designed things that cause great pain and suffering.
I would like to see real scientists do real tests of ID.
- ufcarazy
January 20, 2009 9:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Predictions?
ufcarazy> "Although it is clear that ID has led to some successful predictions"
Really? What predictions has ID made? And, along those lines, how exactly would ID be falsifiable? Without valid answers to these two questions, it does not even begin to qualify as science .
- The Dark Ride
August 30, 2009 6:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Answers
- Features that appear vestigial and functionless actually serve a function (eg., appendix, coccyx)
- "Junk" DNA does, in fact, have a function.
- The alteration of an organism will not always be slow and gradual, or step-by-step.
- That which determines the fundamental features of an organism will be logical and ordered (eg. DNA), as opposed to random.
- There is no explanation invoking randomness or chance that can explain specified complexity.
ID would be falsifiable by testing its predictions. Some scientists have already claimed that ID has been falsified and adequately refuted, such as Ken Miller. Some non-scientist evolutionists believe that the ability to produce a mousetrap with fewer parts falsifies intelligent design . Seemingly every evolutionist believes that imperfection falsifies intelligent design. There is also a paper published in Science (1) that claims that a study by Bridgham and a study by Lenski “solidly refute all parts of the intelligent design argument”. Unsurprisingly the very next sentence is contradictory: “Those ‘alternate’ ideas, unlike the hypotheses investigated in these papers, remain thoroughly untested."
(1) Adami, C. (2006). Reducible Complexity. Science, 312 (5770), 61-63.
- ufcarazy
September 1, 2009 1:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
specified complexity?
"- Features that appear vestigial and functionless actually serve a function (eg., appendix, coccyx)"
So what, using intelligent design , is the purpose of the appendix?
"- "Junk" DNA does, in fact, have a function."
ID only says that all DNA has to have a purpose, it does not predict what that purpose is or describe a mechanism for how that part of the DNA strand came to be.
"- The alteration of an organism will not always be slow and gradual, or step-by-step."
Where does evolutionary theory say that it will be slow or gradual? Evolution has been observed to act very quickly, sometimes over the course of decades.
"- That which determines the fundamental features of an organism will be logical and ordered (eg. DNA), as opposed to random."
The Theory of Evolution says the same thing... features are not random, they are 'built' on features already present in an organism (A fish cannot give birth to a bird).
"- There is no explanation invoking randomness or chance that can explain specified complexity."
Specified complexity? Can you qualify that further?
"ID would be falsifiable by testing its predictions. Some scientists have already claimed that ID has been falsified and adequately refuted, such as Ken Miller."
Like the bacteria flagellum... which was claimed to be 'irreducibly complex' but has since been demonstrated to be otherwise.
"There is also a paper published in Science (1) that claims that a study by Bridgham and a study by Lenski “solidly refute all parts of the intelligent design argument”."
You mean the Lenski long term evolution experiment? Where E.Coli bacteria underwent a significant change (gaining the ability to use Citric Acid as a food source) over the span of twenty years? That experiment was a very good example of how a species can change in the presence of environmental pressures... without genetic manipulation from a 'designer'
"Unsurprisingly the very next sentence is contradictory: “Those ‘alternate’ ideas, unlike the hypotheses investigated in these papers, remain thoroughly untested.""
How so? Can you show one recorded demonstration of intelligent design in action? One scientific study that would show the manipulation of a designer?
- MrBook
September 1, 2009 7:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response
“So what, using intelligent design , is the purpose of the appendix?”
ID simply predicted that the appendix would have a function. The degree of specificity in our predictions concerning what an intelligence will or will not do is limited due to intelligent agents having freedom in their creation. For example, we can predict that Tom Cruise’s next movie will be an action flick, but we cannot predict the plot of the movie before he agrees to a part.
“Where does evolutionary theory say that it will be slow or gradual? Evolution has been observed to act very quickly, sometimes over the course of decades.”
It is true that evolution ( change over time) has been observed to act quickly, but the theory of evolution has from day one predicted that this change has always occurred step-by-step. The first time this prediction was made using the theory of evolution was in the Origin of Species. However, the Cambrian Explosion demonstrated this prediction to be false even before random natural processes wrote the Origin of Species.
“Specified complexity? Can you qualify that further?”
Specified complexity describes any sort of pattern. Some patterns are specific but not complex (eg., gtgtgtgtg). Some patterns are complex but not specific (eg., ctaagtcg). Some patterns are both specific and complex (eg., gattaca).
“Like the bacteria flagellum...”
Exactly. Ken Miller has claimed to have tested a supposedly untestable claim, a claim that is supposedly religious and has nothing to do with science .
“You mean the Lenski long term evolution experiment?...”
The Lenski study did not show e. coli changing into a different species of bacteria via undirected processes. The bacteria began as e. coli and ended as e. coli. Even if e. coli did change into a different species, the study would not justify inferring that all life changes into new species via non-intelligent processes.
Concerning the paper published in Science, the author claimed that ID is untestable immediately after claiming that it had been tested and refuted. This contradiction was ignored by the reviewers and editors of the journal.
“Can you show one recorded demonstration of intelligent design in action? One scientific study that would show the manipulation of a designer?”
I could remind you of many examples of homo sapiens intelligently altering organisms, but I cannot show you a non-homo sapien live and in-person designing anything. Intelligent Design is inferred from the evidence, much like the intelligent design of pyramids is inferred from the evidence even though no one can actually show me Egyptians building them thousands of years ago. Unobserved entities are allowed in science, such as dark matter/ energy .
- ufcarazy
September 1, 2009 10:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
predictive
"ID simply predicted that the appendix would have a function. The degree of specificity in our predictions concerning what an intelligence will or will not do is limited due to intelligent agents having freedom in their creation. For example, we can predict that Tom Cruise’s next movie will be an action flick, but we cannot predict the plot of the movie before he agrees to a part."
If it cannot make predictions then it is not a viable theory. Remember that the current research into the use of the appendix was done using evolutionary models, not design models.
"t is true that evolution ( change over time) has been observed to act quickly, but the theory of evolution has from day one predicted that this change has always occurred step-by-step."
When evidence was produced to the contrary, that evolution can occur suddenly, the theory was adjusted to reflect that information. In the Modern Synthesis theory it is recognized that significant changes can occur within the span of a few generations.
"The first time this prediction was made using the theory of evolution was in the Origin of Species."
The Origin of the Species is a historical document... there was much that Darwin did not know at that time that we now know, and his original theory has since been supplanted by more modern versions of his theory.
"However, the Cambrian Explosion demonstrated this prediction to be false even before random natural processes wrote the Origin of Species."
I'm not quite sure I follow you... Charles Darwin would not have been aware of the Cambrian explosion, so there is no way he could have included it.
As to the 'Cambrian Explosion'... it took place over the span of ~10 million years, hardly a sudden change.
"Specified complexity describes any sort of pattern. Some patterns are specific but not complex (eg., gtgtgtgtg). Some patterns are complex but not specific (eg., ctaagtcg). Some patterns are both specific and complex (eg., gattaca)."
That is still not very descriptive... can you demonstrate that the sequence gtgtgtg is less likely to occur via random chance then ctaagtcg? Assuming a purely random system (each bit selected randomly) they would have an identical chance of occurring.
"Exactly. Ken Miller has claimed to have tested a supposedly untestable claim, a claim that is supposedly religious and has nothing to do with science ."
It was put forth that the flagellum was irreducibly complex, this was shown to be false (a simple change led to a structure that was different but still functional).
"The Lenski study did not show e. coli changing into a different species of bacteria via undirected processes. The bacteria began as e. coli and ended as e. coli. "
Yet it demonstrated a radical change over the comparatively short span of twenty years.
"Even if e. coli did change into a different species, the study would not justify inferring that all life changes into new species via non-intelligent processes."
One study would not be enough... but when combined with the body of evidence for Evolution it is a very powerful demonstration of the change.
"Concerning the paper published in Science, the author claimed that ID is untestable immediately after claiming that it had been tested and refuted. This contradiction was ignored by the reviewers and editors of the journal."
The experiment was not testing ID, it was testing Evolution... can you describe an experiment similar to the Lenski experiment that could be used to test ID?
"I could remind you of many examples of homo sapiens intelligently altering organisms, but I cannot show you a non-homo sapien live and in-person designing anything."
Why not? What experiment could be performed to show the action of a designer?
"Intelligent Design is inferred from the evidence, much like the intelligent design of pyramids is inferred from the evidence even though no one can actually show me Egyptians building them thousands of years ago."
There is a massive amount of evidence showing that the Egyptians built the pyramids. There is their own records, the carvings on the structure itself, known mechanisms by which the pyramid could be built... is there a similar body of evidence for id?
"Unobserved entities are allowed in science, such as dark matter/ energy ."
Dark matter is observed through its interaction with matter. Dark energy is still rather theoretical in nature, though the universe is expanding at an increasing rate there is no described mechanism for its action.
- MrBook
September 2, 2009 6:38AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response 2
"If it cannot make predictions then it is not a viable theory. Remember that the current research into the use of the appendix was done using evolutionary models, not design models."
ID did make a prediction, and the prediction was accurate. Since the appendix was once used as evidence for evolutionary theory ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html ), I am skeptical that evolutionary theory also found a function for the appendix. Any theory that predicts both A and Not A is no theory at all. So, it seems as though evolutionary theory's ability to predict both function of the appendix and non-function makes it not a theory, but merely a set of observations which themselves need explaining by a genuine scientific theory. Oooh, I know one!!
"When evidence was produced to the contrary, that evolution can occur suddenly, the theory was adjusted to reflect that information."
I agree that theories can be revised. Evolutionary theory needed to be revised because it was wrong, but ID need not be revised because it never made that false prediction. ID predicts that change occurs at different rates. However, a theory can be revised so much that it really isn't a theory anymore but simply a set of observations. Natural selection can explain slow change, but how can it explain the Cambrian Explosion? It is not enough for evolutionary theory to simply admit that this explosion occurred, but evolutionists must explain how random mutation and natural selection can produce this event. In other words, a theory that revises it's prediction must also revise it's explanation, but the explanation offered by evolutionary theory has not been revised. What makes me skeptical that evolutionary theory can be falsified is that evolutionists will simply revise the observational aspects of the theory whenever it is contradicted by evidence and then claim that evolutionary theory can explain that evidence when, in fact, in cannot. Convince me that the theory of evolution is falsifiable (I will play devil's advocate and argue that your examples don't refute the theory).
- ufcarazy
September 2, 2009 10:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response 2 cont'
"there was much that Darwin did not know at that time that we now know, and his original theory has since been supplanted by more modern versions of his theory."
First, don't make a darwin -of-the-gaps argument. Intelligent causation has no role in science . Second, if conflicting evidence does not refute evolutionary theory, then neither does it refute ID. Why can't ID simply be revised rather than abandoned if there is ever conflicting evidence?
"Charles Darwin would not have been aware of the Cambrian explosion."
There is no evidence that such a being existed. However, the Origin of Species does talk about the Cambrian Explosion as problematic. "The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.” - p. 344; "The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” -p. 351.
"can you demonstrate that the sequence gtgtgtg is less likely to occur via random chance then ctaagtcg?"
I never stated that gtgtgtg was less likely to occur than ctaagtcg. Since it contains only two letters instead of 4 it would actually be more likely to occur, but that's not the point. What's-his-face asked me to explain what is meant by specified complexity and that is what I did.
"It was put forth that the flagellum was irreducibly complex, this was shown to be false"
An untestable claim cannot be shown to be false.
- ufcarazy
September 2, 2009 10:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Resp 2 con't again
"Yet it demonstrated a radical change over the comparatively short span of twenty years."
Time is not as relevant in evolutionary theory as is the number of generations that reproduce. Over the span of 20 years Lenski attempted to evolve 40,000 generations of e. coli, which is the equivalent of 1.2 million years for humans (e. coli can create 6.64 generations per day, the equivalent of 166 years for humans). Essentially then, the e. coli had 1.2 million years to change into a new species via natural selection and random mutation. Evolutionary theory claims that the past 1.2 million years of our history has included not just one but at least three examples of speciation via random mutation and natural selection. The e. coli did not undergo any speciation even though it is a much simpler organism. Lenski's study failed to find support for evolutionary theory. It did find support for change over time, but change over time is something that no ID theorist denies.
"can you describe an experiment similar to the Lenski experiment that could be used to test ID?"
Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer is the best source I know that you could turn to for an answer.
"What experiment could be performed to show the action of a designer?"
An analysis of the coded language within DNA, as well as any examination of irreducibly complex systems in an organism. It is not the scientific community's belief that we must see a designer designing in order to infer design. Otherwise, you and I would have no idea if Lenski ever designed his experiment since we never actually observed him doing so.
- ufcarazy
September 2, 2009 10:17AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response
“So what, using intelligent design , is the purpose of the appendix?”
ID simply predicted that the appendix would have a function. The degree of specificity in our predictions concerning what an intelligence will or will not do is limited due to intelligent agents having freedom in their creation. For example, we can predict that Tom Cruise’s next movie will be an action flick, but we cannot predict the plot of the movie before he agrees to a part.
“Where does evolutionary theory say that it will be slow or gradual? Evolution has been observed to act very quickly, sometimes over the course of decades.”
It is true that evolution ( change over time) has been observed to act quickly, but the theory of evolution has from day one predicted that this change has always occurred step-by-step. The first time this prediction was made using the theory of evolution was in the Origin of Species. However, the Cambrian Explosion demonstrated this prediction to be false even before random natural processes wrote the Origin of Species.
“Specified complexity? Can you qualify that further?”
Specified complexity describes any sort of pattern. Some patterns are specific but not complex (eg., gtgtgtgtg). Some patterns are complex but not specific (eg., ctaagtcg). Some patterns are both specific and complex (eg., gattaca).
“Like the bacteria flagellum...”
Exactly. Ken Miller has claimed to have tested a supposedly untestable claim, a claim that is supposedly religious and has nothing to do with science .
“You mean the Lenski long term evolution experiment?...”
The Lenski study did not show e. coli changing into a different species of bacteria. They began as e. coli and ended as e. coli. Even if e. coli did change into a different species, the study would not justify inferring that all life changes into new species via non-intelligent processes.
Concerning the paper published in Science, the author claimed that ID is untestable immediately after claiming that it had been tested and refuted. This contradiction was ignored by the reviewers and editor of the journal.
“Can you show one recorded demonstration of intelligent design in action? One scientific study that would show the manipulation of a designer?”
I could remind you of many examples of homo sapiens intelligently altering organisms, but I cannot show you a non-homo sapien live and in-person designing anything. Intelligent Design is inferred from the evidence, much like the intelligent design of pyramids is inferred from the evidence even though no one can actually show me Egyptians building them thousands of years ago. Unobserved entities are allowed in science, such as dark matter/ energy .
- ufcarazy
September 1, 2009 10:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Just a question.
Do you Know that there is a God? You're 100% on this?
- ttut21
September 2, 2009 1:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I am confident
I am confident there is a God.
- ufcarazy
September 2, 2009 10:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Re: But why are questions...
"But why are questions about the “identity or nature” of something religious questions?"
"The DI’s writer" saying "that ID “limits its claims to what can be learned from the empirical data, meaning that it does not try to address religious questions about the identity or nature of the designer.”" does not mean all "questions about the “identity or nature” of something" are "religious questions".
It means ID "does not try to address religious questions about the identity or nature of the designer."
It does not say "all questions about the identity or nature of the designer" are religious.
- Screen Name
January 27, 2009 4:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.