Intelligent Design: is it science?

[Emery]

Hey, what's worse than reading a boring court case? Listening to Emery read a boring court case. So, for those of you with a perverse fascination with the sound of my voice, or if you are having trouble sleeping, or if you want to annoy people (I hear playing this podcast over and over to prisoners at Gitmo DOES amount to torture), check out the latest show. Intelligent design is soon to be a timely topic again, that is if Ben Stein's Expelled movie gets popular. So get a jump on the competition with your ID knowledge with this podcast, and discuss your thoughts on ID as science here.

[spongebob]

Yeah, that Ben Stein is a real scientific genius.

[wondersforoyarsa]

Yeah, that Ben Stein is a real scientific genius.

He's right up there with Judge Jones.

[nobody]

Hey, what's worse than reading a boring court case? Listening to Emery read a boring court case.

LOL...yeah, I had to turn it off. BUT I did read Behe's rebuttal which seemed to consist of two arguments

1. The court didn't understand the "theory" of irreducible complexity.
2. If the Big Bang can be science, so can ID 'cause they both could lead one to believe in a creator.

I didn't find either reason convincing enough to make me think that ID should be considered science.

I did, however, find this very simple article of why ID should not be considered science...basically because ID is not falsifiable.
Why Intelligent Design is not science

But I also found this article which I haven't had a chance to read yet.
The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory

[Rian]

Yeah, that Ben Stein is a real scientific genius.

He's right up there with Judge Jones.

LOL! Good one, wonders!

Tell NASA to drop funding for SETI if you don't think we can detect signs of intelligent design. Tell archaeologists to just pack up their little picks and brushes and find another job if you don't think we can detect signs of intelligent design. Heck, in radar we determine what's a signal and what's noise!

[Rian]

I did, however, find this very simple article of why ID should not be considered science...basically because ID is not falsifiable.
Why Intelligent Design is not science

Eh, neither is macroevolution, but that doesn't stop evolutionists.

As someone who has worked with signal analysis and processing, I think ID is a valid and interesting field and is worthy of some scientific resources and analysis.

[Atheist37]

If I had my way, all public schools would teach The Ten Commandments and Intelligent Design, as part of the Mythology and Pseudoscience curriculum (respectively) that all adults in today's society should know something about.

1. First Commandment: Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me.
2. First Amendment (to the US Constitution): Thou Shalt Have Whatever God You Want.

This is why I am a flag-waving patriot. USA! USA! USA!

[spongebob]

Forgive me, Rian, but I fail to see what signal analysis has to do with the biological sciences. And I happen to agree that the ID concept is an interesting one. I applaud any research that goes into it. But until any actual objective evidence is discovered, it will remain a pseudo-science and has no place in science classrooms, except to be an example of what is not science.

And can you please stop referring to macroevoloution in your peculiar way that suggests it is not well supported by evidnece. I feel the need to respond every time you do it and it's tiresome. You know that you are speaking against the scientific conensus, so why keep repeating yourself? You are beginning to sound like one of those 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

[spongebob]

I guess I have to agree with you Wonders, Judge Jones seems to be a very intelligent judge with a keen eye for science. Is that what you meant?

[wondersforoyarsa]

I guess I have to agree with you Wonders, Judge Jones seems to be a very intelligent judge with a keen eye for science. Is that what you meant?

It has to do with the readiness to embrace non-scientific power or influence to come to bear on a scientific debate when it happens to support your given side.

[spongebob]

Let me back up for a moment and be very specific. I don’t like this notion of forcing science teachers to teach ID. It’s clear ID is not science and does not belong in the science classroom. But I’m certainly open to the discussion of what ID is. I find it fascinating, in fact. And although I made that remark about Ben Stein, I’m even willing to hear what he has to say. It might be interesting. But I sense an onslaught of rhetoric clothed as science and some unrelenting Evolution bashing may be in store. If Ben’s movie is made of that stuff, then I will be unrelenting in my criticism of his work. Ben is no scientist, but he has the opportunity to be fair and balanced in his film. Let’s just see if he is truly open-minded or if he’s just a Behe acolyte.

[wondersforoyarsa]

Let me back up for a moment and be very specific. I don’t like this notion of forcing science teachers to teach ID. It’s clear ID is not science and does not belong in the science classroom. But I’m certainly open to the discussion of what ID is. I find it fascinating, in fact. And although I made that remark about Ben Stein, I’m even willing to hear what he has to say. It might be interesting. But I sense an onslaught of rhetoric clothed as science and some unrelenting Evolution bashing may be in store. If Ben’s movie is made of that stuff, then I will be unrelenting in my criticism of his work. Ben is no scientist, but he has the opportunity to be fair and balanced in his film. Let’s just see if he is truly open-minded or if he’s just a Behe acolyte.

I certainly don't like in general forcing science teachers to do anything besides covering the basic material. But if a teacher wants to take a lecture or two and cover what the basic arguments are in the ID debate, making sure the students have enough scientific background to do it, I think that would be fine. In fact, they'd probably learn about the relationship of DNA, mRNA, Proteins, and Molecular Machines far better this way. I know I did, and it's what's inspired me to focus as much as I can in my graduate program on computational biology and bioinformatics, so in my case at least ID has resulted in helping me learn more science.

ID isn't science or pseudoscience - it's a framework for looking at the science. And there is ID, and then there's ID.

[Emery]

That telicthoughts is a good site, Wonders. As usual, the debate is more than skin deep, and each side tends to misrepresent the other. Hence, the reason for the two-way discussion format of our podcast!

Still, I think folks like Eugenie Scott legitimately attack the simplistic ID arguments, because they are put out there so often, as the Dover school district did. Similarly, there are fundy atheists that put out poor arguments, and even though they aren't representative of all atheist arguments, theists should attack them too.

If either side puts their head on the chopping block, folks are right to take a swing!

[Rian]

Forgive me, Rian, but I fail to see what signal analysis has to do with the biological sciences. And I happen to agree that the ID concept is an interesting one. I applaud any research that goes into it. But until any actual objective evidence is discovered, it will remain a pseudo-science and has no place in science classrooms, except to be an example of what is not science.

Information theory - how we analyze something and decide if it came about by random processes (noise) or from intent (information-bearing signal).

And can you please stop referring to macroevoloution in your peculiar way that suggests it is not well supported by evidnece. I feel the need to respond every time you do it and it's tiresome.

You must feel that it needs a lot of defending!

[wondersforoyarsa]

If either side puts their head on the chopping block, folks are right to take a swing!

Naturally, though in my experience the Christian side does a little better job at correcting their own than the atheist side does. It would be nice to hear more criticism of folks like Dawkins coming from atheists.

One pleasant exception to this was this article by skeptic Theodore Dalrymple:

What the New Atheists Don’t See