Intelligent design isn't science

"Is it just a coincidence"

No, Newtonian laws of physics, mechanics have to be obeyed by everybody and everything. Flagellation of an appendage in a fluid for locomotion works for swimming snakes, fish, mammals, human swimmers, etc.

"Darwin evolution shouldn't be taught for the same reasons you argue intelligent design shouldn't be taught; because people will exploit it for religious reasons."

No, because ID is super-natural, without evidence, ("this stuff's complex, some intelligence had to design it as is") and has not not won credibilty as part of the world's commonly agreed culture and civilization the way science has, to be transmitted to .

Because ID is tainted with religion, and even worse, creationism, the IDers, as seen by this week's PA ruling, will have a long, hard time getting ID accepted in public, secular schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

So, what proof do you have that intelligent design theory would be taught as proof of God's existence?

---

If there is intelligent entity behind our design (and creation), which given the complexity is obviously very powerfull, you are very close to the definition of god (you only have to add immortality, and some would argue not even that).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

I made the arguement early on that theists are just as likely to argue that intelligent design proves God's existence as are atheists to argue that Darwinian evolution proves there is no God.

Under this premise, Darwin evolution shouldn't be taught for the same reasons you argue intelligent design shouldn't be taugh
t; because people will exploit it for religious reasons.

---

Evolution theory does NOT challenge the existance of god. (it does however challenge the notion that everything was created in 7 days, which for some people is the same)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Darwin doesn't explain the nano-technology or DNA sequencing in a living cell. What's wrong with teaching they have traits of intelligent design?

In other words, human beings -- using their intellectual capacity -- designed the internal combustion engine. Is it just a coincidence the flagellar motor of a bacteria uses some of the same design principles, developed by man, to make a bacteria move?

I think that's a very interesting question. Before we had knowledge of the flagellar motor, we designed a similar machine. Wow! How is that?

That's what should be taught in High School.

---

Maybe because it's the best way to do it? Evolution promotes best solutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

So ID is an inference. That's a good and fine logical construct. When I do apologetics, I use inferential logic. I'm all for it. But that alone is not science.

Inferring the notion of ID would make a hypothesis, were it faslsifiable. But I can't fathom how one would construct an experiment, be it examination of the fossil record or whatever, to falsify the hypothesis. At best, results would be inconclusive, and the ID proponent could make another inference.

I've beaten this into the ground, but ID falls into the same fallacy as creationism, though it appears more sophisticated. As Westerners, we have accepted that science is the be-all, end-all of uncovering truth, and if something can't be proven scientifically, then we don't need to concern ourselves with it. That religious people even go to the trouble of coming up with things like ID means they have accepted this fallacy.

But that fallacy is like saying that the hammer is the be-all, end-all of tools, and if a job can't be done with a hammer, then it's not worth doing, and then going out and trying to build a house with just a hammer.

So the scientist, whose job it is to put up sheetrock and lay shingles, gets along OK, but the theologian, whose job it is to lay the foundation, looks like an idiot when he insists upon trying to do it with a hammer.


A. Scientist proposes evolutionary mechanism (hypothesis).
B. Scientist reviews fossil record or DNA to test hypothesis (experiment).
C. Hypothesis either is verified or falsified by experiment.

ID is a perfectly fine realm of study, in the sense that it looks at the body of data and infers the existence of creator. Great. I agree. I have discussions about this all the time on the philosophical and theological level.

But it's not science. And frankly, I hate it when it's used as science, because every new scientific discovery puts the theistic case into retreat. ID argues that some biological feature could not have devleoped on its own, then a biologist figures out the mechanism for its development, and the ID conception of God shrinks. It's called the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, and for as many ID proponents who say it isn't, well, sorry, it is.

Meanwhile, serious scientists are making discoveries that bring up ten new baffling and wondrous questions for every one they answer, getting all tingly and spiritual because of it, and yet the ID folks are nowhere to be found, because they're back making simplistic arguments about things long since settled.

My problem with the ID/evolution debate is not that I am an enemy of ID so much that the way proponents argue the case makes for terrible theology. We should have gotten past this notion that if we cannot explain it, God must have done it, long ago. God is bigger than just the things we don't understand yet about the world.

---

Bravo!

Excellent civilized discourse on the subject in this thread from FWD, Yoni, hegamboa and Stout with some nice sideline contributions from a few others.

One of the better exchanges I've seen since I've joined the forum, thanks guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smeagol

ID does not oppose evolution. It's just a compliment to evolution.

---

Have you read the websites?

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

As I have stated, it is merely a thinly disguised attempt to subvert science in the classroom and replace it with religious dogma.

[QUOTE=jochhejaam]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

So we should teach that God is great in our public school science classes? QUOTE]



If ID isn't Scientific (a large and growing part of the scientific community does not support this premise) it can be taught as a religious elective as an alternative view, or supplement if you prefer, to Evolutionary Theories.

---

ID isn't scientific.

Support the thesis a "large and growing part of the scientific community does not support th[e premise that ID isn't scientific]"

Don't use weasel words like "large and growing"

Try finding a poll that says "x% of scientists think ID is a scientific theory".

You and I both know that the portion of the scientific community that thinks ID is a scientific theory is NOT large, and to say it is "growing" is also misleading in that it implies that the theory is gaining more acceptance over time.

It may be growing in acceptance, but probably not among scientists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

I disagree with the general assumption that ID is an intentional slippery slope to Creationism by fundamentalists. Even if ID was somehow passed off as Science and taught in the classroom, it would still be an enormous fight to even consider bringing Creationism into public schools.

While it's not Science, it does have value as a philosophical theory... And I think teaching about world philosophies (not just Western) would have value in the Public School system.

---

The judge that heard the case disagrees.

He saw no small amount of evidence that the members of the school board that voted for the inclusion of ID pretty much all but said that is what they were trying to do.

I think it is just a *bit* niave to think the fundamentalists aren't using this psuedo-science to further their own agenda.

So, if we gain the intellectual capacity and technology to actually assemble the component parts of a living cell then actually do so and let evolution take over, we're God?

Because if nature can randomly assemble chemicals and come up with life it would seem humans would eventually gain the ability to do it themselves...it's just a matter of coming up with the technology to do the assembly.

If we can't, why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

The judge that heard the case disagrees.

He saw no small amount of evidence that the members of the school board that voted for the inclusion of ID pretty much all but said that is what they were trying to do.

I think it is just a *bit* niave to think the fundamentalists aren't using this psuedo-science to further their own agenda.

---

I think we've agreed that these school board members were the least qualified individuals to stand up in court in favor of ID....

It's a less glorified 'repeat' of the 1925 Scopes Trial...

Anyways it would be even more naive to think that agnostics/atheists don't have an agenda of their own when it comes to resisting the ID movement.... or to believe that they don't form a major backbone of the 'evolutionary' establishment.

When was forensics psuedo-science???

"it would seem humans would eventually gain the ability to do it themselves"

Of course. It's great to see you coming along so well in your acceptance of the inevitable.

Any limited, infantile dumbshit who defines God because "He can do what man't can't do" is insulting God. Happens every day.

Quote:

---

Anyways it would be even more naive to think that agnostics/atheists don't have an agenda of their own when it comes to resisting the ID movement.... or to believe that they don't form a major backbone of the 'evolutionary' establishment.

---

I'd agree that most agnostics/atheists do have an agenda when resisting the ID movement - founded or unfounded.

However, the "evolutionary establishment" probably includes about 99% of professional scientists. To assume that the majority of these people are atheist or agnostic is more naive (or maybe just stupid) than anything else suggested in this thread.

Like I've said previously, ID in it's current form is like trying to argue that the world is a triangle because there is proof that it isn't flat. The majority ID "scientists" seem to be so behind the curve on current science that it isn't even funny. They are arguing over things that have been settled for decades, and they aren't bringing anything new to the debate. The continued use of words like "Darwinism" shows that certain posters in this thread are about on the same level of advancement on scientific topics as the scientists who are scoffed at by their peers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

However, the "evolutionary establishment" probably includes about 99% of professional scientists.

---

What percentage of those see design elements to biological species and are interested in seeing if the theory conflicts with evolution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

What percentage of those see design elements to biological species and are interested in seeing if the theory conflicts with evolution?

---

I suspect a large percentage of those are looking for means to explain existence in the first instance and are open-minded (if not completely sold) on the idea of an intelligent design. I also suspect, however, that the resistence to teaching that lies largely in a desire to see that science teach testable theories rather than an untestable belief.

There seems to be a notion in this thread that one need not be religious to support the teaching of ID, but that one must be hostile to religion in wishing that it not be taught.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

What percentage of those see design elements to biological species and are interested in seeing if the theory conflicts with evolution?

---

"Design elements" and "evolution" are not naturally in conflict with one another - so why would anyone actively seek to find a conflict unless they had already developed the preconcieved notion that we can only have one or another?

Andrew Flew is many times held up as a poster boy for ID, and while I personally find him to be a crackpot, he is dead-on in one regard: he is constantly saying we must "follow the evidence wherever it leads." As it turns out, the evidence doesn't lead to ID as much as non-scientist ID proponents would probably like to believe. And it certainly does not lead to observing any design elements which are contradictory to evolution.

One can infer design - but it is just that, an inference, and does nothing to "debunk" evolutionary theory. In every instance in which IDers have attempted to poke holes in currently prevailing evolutionary theory, their criticisms have been quite effortlessly brushed aside not because they aren't given the time of day but because they are easy to brush aside from a scientific perspective. "Irreducable complexity" is the most notable of such criticisms.

While ID itself may not inherently be religious in that it names "God" as a creator (although it would be a mistake to not acknowledge that the currently prevailing ID movement is, in fact, just creationism repackaged), it makes the same logical leaps of faith that any religion does - attempting to make inferences to some "greater" force based on a lack of information.

ID may be in fact turn out to be the origin of life on Earth. Maybe it was God or a colony of Space Monkeys. But there is no reason to believe either of the two - certainly not to the point to want to suggest that there is some "designer" out there to a bunch of 9th graders. ID is something that should be pursued, and when ID scientists have something to bring forward that is more credible that what is presented now, the debate can continue in the appropriate circles. ID, as an idea and theory, needs significantly more refinement to be seriously considered - and it isn't because it is a controversial or provocative topic but rather because it must live up to the same standards as any theory. You don't take half of a product design idea to a manufacturing facility floor, and you don't take an theory in its infant stages to 9th grade classrooms. There has been no restriction on what ID proponents and/or scientists can do with their own time by the court's declaration that ID (in its current form) is not science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

ID isn't scientific.

It may be growing in acceptance, but probably not among scientists.

---

And you saying it isn't scientific settles the debate, thanks. :lol
Here's a good read RG.

William A. Dembski's ground-breaking work _Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology_. ID theory says nothing about creationism. It only seeks to reestablish design as a valid means of causation (along with chance and necessity) by identifing actions or events that demonstrate the clear indications of intelligent agency, using what Dembski calls the "explanatory filter." Simply put, the filter identifies events that are contingent, specific, and sufficiently complex in order to make an inference of design. Any event demonstrating these three criteria may reasonably be attributed to intelligent agency, while any event which does not meet all three criteria are thus rightly attributed to other modes of causation, namely chance or necessity. In order for a design inference to be made, then, the event MUST meet all three criteria. Simply because some events (for example, the Big Bang hypothesis) have theistic implications, this does not instantly relegate analysis of such events as religious. They still remain scientific in essence. THAT the universe is designed can still be discussed in any science class. WHO or WHAT designed the universe is not germane to the issue, just as one may know that a wristwatch is the product of design without having to cite the name of the watchmaker who made it. The standard objection to ID theory, which Mr. Krauthammer reiterates in his column, is that ID theory is just creationism in pseudoscientific garb. Along with this objection comes the usual ominous warning that the proponents of ID theory want to discard evolutionary theory and replace it with this warmed-over creationism. The assumption underlying this objection is that evolutionary theory is scientific, while any idea with theistic overtones is religion and thus not scientific. But this is circular reasoning. It assumes as a given the very thing that it seeks to establish: namely, that the theory of evolution is scientific and that ID theory is not. The fact is, regardless of any objections to ID theory, it is at the very least just as scientific as evolutionary theory, even more so. That's because evolutionary theory is NOT scientific. The evolutionary HYPOTHESIS is scientific, because it is based on empirical data, to wit, the fossil record. But the THEORY used to describe that hypothesis is not--it is simply the assertion that evolutionary change occurs due to two factors: natural selection working in tandem with genetic mutation. But the great shortfall of evolutionary theory is that there is NO data (that's right, absolutely NONE) demonstrating an instance where natural selection or mutation result in new speciation. Despite this appalling lack of evidence supporting the theory, it is still widely accepted as valid, and even taught in our schools as such. That is the great objection to evolutionary theory. And it is also the reason why an idea like intelligent design OUGHT to be taught in our schools. ID theory has empirical evidence to support it. The theory of evolution does not. For this reason, ID theory has greater explanatory power than evolutionary theory, which makes ID the superior theory. That Mr. Krauthammer calls such a superior theory rubbish demonstrates that he hasn't researched the matter very well, if at all. Intelligent Design is scientific, Chuck. Deal with it.

http://www.townhall.com/blogs/soapbo...18/176185.html

Some more extracts form the judges conclusion

Quote:

---

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

---

Quote:

---

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

---

Quote:

---

The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

---

from Wikipedia which Hendrix already posted but went unnoticed...

Quote:

---

The overwhelming majority[3] of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as neocreationist pseudoscience or junk science.[4] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[5]

[3]See Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. A Newsweek article reported The Discovery Institute's petition being signed by about 350 scientists. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID.
[4] Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't. H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005 http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../050530fa_fact
[5]"Creationism, Intelligent Design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science" In Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition National Academy of Sciences, 1999
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/25.html

---

Quote:

---

William A. Dembski

---

Well, he has doctorates in math and theology -- so I guess they could teach ID in those classes.

Might help his cred if he took some biology classes though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

"Design elements" and "evolution" are not naturally in conflict with one another - so why would anyone actively seek to find a conflict unless they had already developed the preconcieved notion that we can only have one or another?

---

I agree but, your statement on the 99% seemed to infer that only 1% thought the ID theory had any serious merit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Well, he has doctorates in math and theology -- so I guess they could teach ID in those classes.

Might help his cred if he took some biology classes though.

---

Good take on the article CD <sarcasm> and let's not oversimplify or understate his credentials.


William Dembski
A mathematician and a philosopher, William A. Dembski is associate research professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University and a senior fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture in Seattle.

Dr. Dembski previously taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas. He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University. A graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago where he earned a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a Ph.D. in philosophy, he also received a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988 and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1996. He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of seven books. In The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998), he examines the design argument in a post-Darwinian context and analyzes the connections linking chance, probability, and intelligent causation.

http://www.meta-library.net/bio/billd-body.html

Quote:

---

Might help his cred if he took some biology classes though.

---

Let's not forget you did nothig to refute this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

I agree but, your statement on the 99% seemed to infer that only 1% thought the ID theory had any serious merit.

---

You could make that inference from my statement... if you had already made up your mind that the "Evolutionary establishment" were by definition anti-theistic or anti-design. That's an assumption of mainstream IDers that only hurts their cause.

Quote:

---

ID theory has empirical evidence to support it. The theory of evolution does not. For this reason, ID theory has greater explanatory power than evolutionary theory, which makes ID the superior theory. That Mr. Krauthammer calls such a superior theory rubbish demonstrates that he hasn't researched the matter very well, if at all. Intelligent Design is scientific, Chuck. Deal with it.

---

This comes as news to scientists, and it is precisely this type of... well rubbish for lack of a better word... that will continue to keep most IDers as being indentified as "fringe" theorists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

ID as science

The scientific method is based on an approach known as methodological naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. Intelligent design proponents have often said that their position is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution, and want a redefinition of science to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design".[44] This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

* Consistent (internally and externally)
* Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
* Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
* Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
* Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[45] violates the principle of parsimony,[46] is not falsifiable,[47] is not empirically testable,[48] and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[49]

In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[50] And in October 2005 a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."[51]

Intelligent design critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts, the Daubert Standard. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four Daubert criteria are:

* The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
* The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
* There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
* The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

In deciding Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District on December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that "we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

[44] Stephen C. Meyer, 2005. The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories [82]
[45] Intelligent design is generally only internally consistent and logical within the framework in which it operates. Criticisms are that this framework has at its foundation an unsupported, unjustified assumption: That complexity and improbability must entail design, but the identity and characteristics of the designer is not identified or quantified, nor need they be. The framework of Intelligent Design, because it rests on a unquantifiable and unverifiable assertion, has no defined boundaries except that complexity and improbability require design, and the designer need not be constrained by the laws of physics.
[46] Intelligent design fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding entities (an intelligent agent, a designer) to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events.
[47] The designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can neither be supported nor undermined by observation, hence making Intelligent Design and the argument from design analytic a posteriori arguments.
[48] That Intelligent Design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that Intelligent Design violates a basic premise of science, naturalism.
[49] Intelligent design professes to offer an answer that does not need to be defined or explained, the intelligent agent, designer. By asserting a conclusion that need not be accounted for, the designer, no further explanation is necessary to sustain it, and objections raised to those who accept it make little headway. Thus Intelligent Design is not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data
[50] The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureats Initiative. Intelligent design cannot be tested as a scientific theory "because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." [83]
[51] Intelligent Design is not Science - Scientists and teachers speak out. Faculty of Science, University of New South Wales. 20 October, 2005. [84]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

You could make that inference from my statement... if you had already made up your mind that the "Evolutionary establishment" were by definition anti-theistic or anti-design. That's an assumption of mainstream IDers that only hurts their cause.

---

My point being related to your other statement:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

I'd agree that most agnostics/atheists do have an agenda when resisting the ID movement - founded or unfounded.

---

And, it is these agendized agnostics and atheists that are preventing design theory from being seriously considered in academia.

I would venture a guess that a good portion of those 99% who hold evolution as established science also see design as a theory that should be investigated.