Intelligent Design: is it science?

[nobody]

You might want to add Not In Our Classrooms to your reading list. (I'm reading it now)

[tonyenglish7]

That article by Theodore was really good, even though it was more dismissive of the theist view then the neo-atheists, he makes some really good points and I suggest everyone read it. Here is an excerpt.

"Either we test ideas according to arguments in their favor, independent of their origins, thus making the argument from evolution irrelevant, or all possible beliefs come under the same suspicion of being only evolutionary adaptations—and thus biologically contingent rather than true or false. We find ourselves facing a version of the paradox of the Cretan liar: all beliefs, including this one, are the products of evolution, and all beliefs that are products of evolution cannot be known to be true." He is an atheist by the way!

OK, the very question, is ID science, reveals the bias built in to the debate about origins. ID is not theism; it is only asking, did life on earth originate with an intelligent designer? This is science, to study the facts and make a determination freely where the evidence leads. Obviously, the logical aversion that naturalist reveals immediately, is then where did that intelligence come from? But why is that a problem for science? That is a philosophical question not scientific, (although you need philosophical truths first to even do science but that is another discussion).

Let's just answer the issue about life on earth. I mean, we have the SETI project looking for coded programmed intelligence in the universe. It is easy to determine intelligence when studied using scientific techniques. Science, if it is consistent, will not jump to metaphysical conclusions that are left to the "persons" who are utilizing the tools of science. But also, science should not be limited because of the aversion of the user’s preferences prior to the answer of the tool called science. If there are complex software programs found in the building blocks of life that cannot be explained by any theoretical model of blind chance, than the limits of science should in no way impede the conclusion. It should not threaten the non-biased scientist.

The true scientist will not be shaken my the outcome of the evidence. Where it leads down the road may become a problem but there is no need to panic yet dear Atheist. Richard Dawkins gave you an out regarding aliens…. I even had one of you say that I cannot know that rock's don't have consciousness so there are all kinds of philosophical paths you are free to run with once you have the outcome of the scientific process...

Any biologists out there that are also Atheists?

[spongebob]

That article by Theodore was really good, even though it was more dismissive of the theist view then the neo-atheists, he makes some really good points and I suggest everyone read it. Here is an excerpt.

"Either we test ideas according to arguments in their favor, independent of their origins, thus making the argument from evolution irrelevant, or all possible beliefs come under the same suspicion of being only evolutionary adaptations—and thus biologically contingent rather than true or false. We find ourselves facing a version of the paradox of the Cretan liar: all beliefs, including this one, are the products of evolution, and all beliefs that are products of evolution cannot be known to be true." He is an atheist by the way!

OK, the very question, is ID science, reveals the bias built in to the debate about origins. ID is not theism; it is only asking, did life on earth originate with an intelligent designer? This is science, to study the facts and make a determination freely where the evidence leads. Obviously, the logical aversion that naturalist reveals immediately, is then where did that intelligence come from? But why is that a problem for science? That is a philosophical question not scientific, (although you need philosophical truths first to even do science but that is another discussion).

Let's just answer the issue about life on earth. I mean, we have the SETI project looking for coded programmed intelligence in the universe. It is easy to determine intelligence when studied using scientific techniques. Science, if it is consistent, will not jump to metaphysical conclusions that are left to the "persons" who are utilizing the tools of science. But also, science should not be limited because of the aversion of the user’s preferences prior to the answer of the tool called science. If there are complex software programs found in the building blocks of life that cannot be explained by any theoretical model of blind chance, than the limits of science should in no way impede the conclusion. It should not threaten the non-biased scientist.

The true scientist will not be shaken my the outcome of the evidence. Where it leads down the road may become a problem but there is no need to panic yet dear Atheist. Richard Dawkins gave you an out regarding aliens…. I even had one of you say that I cannot know that rock's don't have consciousness so there are all kinds of philosophical paths you are free to run with once you have the outcome of the scientific process...

Any biologists out there that are also Atheists?

Tony, I was the atheist who asked you the question of whether rocks have consciousness. And while I'm not sure where your post is going (I'm never really sure because you seem to wander around when you aren't making dramatic scientific mistakes), you have stumbled upon an important truth. The scientific truth of ID is not a threat to science or even naturalism. Atheists and evolutionists don't fear such conclusions, as you seem to imply. The entire problem with ID is the fact that those who support it are force-feeding it to the public, cloaked as science. ID is not science. It could be science if it involved the scientific method. It doesn't. There are no objective findings, no peer reviewed papers, just religious views that have been re-branded to look like science. The failure of Creation "Science" in the 80's was the cue for the religious crowd to change (evolve) their message to a more sophisticated and skeptical audience. Credit them with realizing this fact. But the "science" part didn't change one bit; there never was any and there is none now. Science has jumped to no conclusions at all; it maintains it's same old standards of evidence. Call it old-fashioned if you will, but that is how science is done. Minus evidence, such notions as ID will remain little more than myth or superstition.

If there are complex software programs found in the building blocks of life that cannot be explained by any theoretical model of blind chance, than the limits of science should in no way impede the conclusion. It should not threaten the non-biased scientist.

I pointed out this particular comment because it is illustrative of the fact that you don't seem to understand how science works. An idea such as this does not threaten "science". It only stands to challenge current models of the universe. But it can only do that if it provides enough evidence to make those old models irrelevant; and so far, ID isn't even close. Sorry.

[flawedprefect]

Naturally, I agree with Spongebob's arguments on this thread. Might I add my own opinion:

ID is NOT science purely because it does not satisfy the scientific method.

When you ask a scientific question, you put forward a proposition, then test the evidence at hand. Then, you weight up the evidence for and against, and come to a conclusion - right or wrong. Science continually evolves - from Newtonian physics through to the theories of Stephen Hawking, each theory that comes along often breaks preconceived notions that have gone before.

A quick outline:

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

From: http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_la ... ndixe.html - pretty text book example.

The theory of evolution (originally called transmutation, btw) adheres to this. There is overwhelming evidence to prove it works - from fossil records, to statistical data gathered of migration patterns, distribution of species, and variation in species. If, for some reason, some evidence came to light to disprove the already held scientific beliefs, the theory would be rejected, reassessed, and the new supposition and hypotheses tested once again - that is the beauty of science: there isn't really any dogma which stands saying "this must be so".

Intelligent Design begins with the conclusion: God HAD to have been the intelligent creator of Mankind - now lets use Scientific method to prove this is so. It is backwards, commences with a foregone conclusion, and all evidence must prove it correct - this is not science, regardless of evidence which may count for the case, because it disregards or refutes the evidence against the case as inherently incorrect because the claim must be so.

[spongebob]

Intelligent Design begins with the conclusion: God HAD to have been the intelligent creator of Mankind - now lets use Scientific method to prove this is so. It is backwards, commences with a foregone conclusion, and all evidence must prove it correct - this is not science, regardless of evidence which may count for the case, because it disregards or refutes the evidence against the case as inherently incorrect because the claim must be so.

Actually this would be impossible to frame in a scientific model because god has no definitive definition. If you can scale it down a few turns, you could frame a hypothesis that is counter to evolution. Let's say you believe all biological life emerged less than 10,000 ago and each "kind" as created specially and distinctly. That's testable. And it's also demonstrably false.

[Pseudonym]

I'm going to disagree with this in part:

Intelligent Design begins with the conclusion: God HAD to have been the intelligent creator of Mankind - now lets use Scientific method to prove this is so. It is backwards, commences with a foregone conclusion, and all evidence must prove it correct - this is not science, regardless of evidence which may count for the case, because it disregards or refutes the evidence against the case as inherently incorrect because the claim must be so.

Intelligent Design contains some science and some non-science. AFAICT (and I haven't looked a this closely), the only real scientific part is the notion that certain biological structures could not have evolved by a Darwinian process. This is a perfectly good theory, and it's even falsifiable: For any proposed biological structure, showing a plausible evolutionary path, and finding homologues in other species would pretty much completely knock it down (as was famously done for, say, the bacterial flagellum).

There is also some non-science. ID, for example, has a type of pseudo-information theory which doesn't seem to be internally coherent.

[Mr. Sluagh]

I'm going to disagree with this in part:

Intelligent Design begins with the conclusion: God HAD to have been the intelligent creator of Mankind - now lets use Scientific method to prove this is so. It is backwards, commences with a foregone conclusion, and all evidence must prove it correct - this is not science, regardless of evidence which may count for the case, because it disregards or refutes the evidence against the case as inherently incorrect because the claim must be so.

Intelligent Design contains some science and some non-science. AFAICT (and I haven't looked a this closely), the only real scientific part is the notion that certain biological structures could not have evolved by a Darwinian process. This is a perfectly good theory, and it's even falsifiable: For any proposed biological structure, showing a plausible evolutionary path, and finding homologues in other species would pretty much completely knock it down (as was famously done for, say, the bacterial flagellum).

There is also some non-science. ID, for example, has a type of pseudo-information theory which doesn't seem to be internally coherent.

But what isn't scientific about it is in the name itself. Intelligent Design assumes from the start that if evolution fails, the only alternative is design. Most of its proponents additionally assume that the designer is some kind of god.

[marc]

I just so happened to watch Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial from PBS/NOVA today. You too can watch the show in easily digestable chunks here. Very enlightening, I highly recommend it and it answers this exact question. Sorry if this has been posted before.

[Pseudonym]

But what isn't scientific about it is in the name itself. Intelligent Design assumes from the start that if evolution fails, the only alternative is design. Most of its proponents additionally assume that the designer is some kind of god.

What you call a scientific thing has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the thing itself is scientific. There's a gene which regulates division of adult stem cells called the "hedgehog gene". The names of the protein homologues include such delights as "desert hedgehog", "Indian hedgehog", "tiggywinkle hedgehog" and "sonic hedgehog". There is also a gene named "Pokemon" and an unrelated protein named "Pikachurin". (Most respectable molecular biologists don't stand for this sort of thing, partly because it's a debasement of science, and partly because they don't get invited to that sort of LAN party.)

What gets me about the name "intelligent design" is not that it's inherently unscientific (it's not), but that that it's unnecessarily confusing, and I suspect it was deliberately coined to cause as much confusion amongst Abrahamic theists as possible.

If you ask a typical Christian, who hasn't heard the term before, what they think "intelligent design" means in the context of the origin of species, most people seem to think that it means something like theistic/guided evolution. Most biologists don't have a problem with people believing in theistic evolution but, as we all know, "intelligent design" doesn't mean that at all. If you think about it, it's quite a devious move on the part of the Discovery Institute et al.

[OzAnt]

What gets me about the name "intelligent design" is not that it's inherently unscientific (it's not), but that that it's unnecessarily confusing, and I suspect it was deliberately coined to cause as much confusion amongst Abrahamic theists as possible.

Interesting. Many evolutionists see "Intelligent Design" as another way of saying "God". They see it as an alternative way for creationists to keep bangin' on that same ol' drum. The book "Of Pandas and People" backed this argument up quite well and makes a good case for Abrahamic theists - specifically Christians - as being the folk that coined the phrase.

Ant

[Pseudonym]

Many evolutionists see "Intelligent Design" as another way of saying "God". They see it as an alternative way for creationists to keep bangin' on that same ol' drum.

I agree, but I'm also suggesting that theistic evolutionists who actually understand how the DI use the term see "Intelligent Design" as part of an attempt to cause confusion, because it's a term that most theistic evolutionists could, without context, agree with.

I didn't realise the sheer volume of confusion until I read this post from Skepchick some time last year. I suggest that you read it and the follow-up discussion with an open mind. It all makes sense when you see just how confused people are over the term.

The book "Of Pandas and People" backed this argument up quite well and makes a good case for Abrahamic theists - specifically Christians - as being the folk that coined the phrase.

I haven't read "Of Pandas and People", but I think that's substantially true. It was likely Christians who coined the phrase and the Discovery Institute (and their ilk) who misappropriated it in order to sow discord and confusion, or it was the DI (who are largely Christians) who coined the phrase with confusion in mind.

I think the plan was something like this: they picked the term "Intelligent Design" precisely because it sounds like something that lay (i.e. non-scientific) de facto theistic evolutionists would agree with. When the scientific community inevitably rejected what is really sexed-up creationism, they could then play on the confusion to pretend that the scientific community was actually attacking theism.

I said on that Skepchick thread:

Remember, it’s in the DI’s best interests that typical Christians be confused about what they mean by “ID”, because that’s the only way they can spin it as an atheism vs Christianity issue. If everyone really understood what they really meant by “Intelligent Design”, almost nobody would support it. It’s not naturalistic evolution, it’s not theistic evolution, it’s not YEC and it’s arguably not even OEC. It’s actually deliberate ignorance dressed up in scientific language, and nobody wants that.

[marc]

What gets me about the name "intelligent design" is not that it's inherently unscientific (it's not), but that that it's unnecessarily confusing, and I suspect it was deliberately coined to cause as much confusion amongst Abrahamic theists as possible.

Interesting. Many evolutionists see "Intelligent Design" as another way of saying "God". They see it as an alternative way for creationists to keep bangin' on that same ol' drum. The book "Of Pandas and People" backed this argument up quite well and makes a good case for Abrahamic theists - specifically Christians - as being the folk that coined the phrase.

Ant

Ant,
Google "cdesign proponentists" to see just how much "OPaP" is without a doubt religously inspired. Basically it has been shown (in court, Kitzmiller v. Dover PA) that between one early revision of the book (originally called "Creation Biology", then "Creation and Biology") and a later one, someone did a horrible job trying to change "creationists" to "design proponents".

Pseudo,
Thanks for your new post in the Christians forum. I didn't want to reply there as I have an aversion to that part of the forum

[OzAnt]

Google "cdesign proponentists" to see just how much "OPaP" is without a doubt religously inspired.

That was my point - which is why I said "OPaP backed [the] argument [that Christians were effectively using ID as another way to keep bangin' on the same old drum] up quite well".

Basically it has been shown (in court, Kitzmiller v. Dover PA) that between one early revision of the book (originally called "Creation Biology", then "Creation and Biology") and a later one, someone did a horrible job trying to change "creationists" to "design proponents".

...and change "Creator" to "Intelligent designer". I didn't link Wikipedia's entry for the book because if you google "Of Pandas and People" it's the first hit that pops up. In there are links to the Dover trial etc.

Thanks though, for clearing up why I mentioned it - I probably should have made it clearer.

Ant

[OzAnt]

Hi Pseudonym,

Thanks for explaining, and in the process, clarifying your supposition. It sounds a little too conspiratorial to me and I'm not sure that I'd credit DI with that much foresight and intelligence.

I see it as more of a "lucky" morphology (I'd say evolution, but the pun's just too lame):

• creation - finally gets kicked out of American schools
• creation science - the wolf's wearing sheep's clothing alright ...but the clothing's way too light on wool content
• intelligent design - a good phrase because it removes abiogenesis inferences out of the title, it sounds all scientificky, and in their minds who else was God other than the ultimate intelligent designer?

Nevertheless, I certainly don't know enough to be able to disprove your hypothesis. Whilst I'm not prepared to buy it, I'll certainly be mindful of it in the future. Thanks for sharing.

Ant

[darkumbra]

Hi Pseudonym,

Thanks for explaining, and in the process, clarifying your supposition. It sounds a little too conspiratorial to me and I'm not sure that I'd credit DI with that much foresight and intelligence.

I see it as more of a "lucky" morphology (I'd say evolution, but the pun's just too lame):

• creation - finally gets kicked out of American schools
• creation science - the wolf's wearing sheep's clothing alright ...but the clothing's way too light on wool content
• intelligent design - a good phrase because it removes abiogenesis inferences out of the title, it sounds all scientificky, and in their minds who else was God other than the ultimate intelligent designer?

Nevertheless, I certainly don't know enough to be able to disprove your hypothesis. Whilst I'm not prepared to buy it, I'll certainly be mindful of it in the future. Thanks for sharing.

Ant

Read... http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/ ... heory.html


""When ID got its own day in court in 2005 in the historic Kitzmiller case, the plaintiffs subpoenaed drafts of the book and discovered how the key terms had been switched after the 1987 Supreme Court decision against Creation-science. In draft, Pandas had been titled Creation Biology, and the concepts were familiar as well. For instance, in the published book ID was explained in this way:

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. [Pandas 99-100]

But in the pre-1987 drafts, the prior creationist terminology had been used:

Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas draft pp 2-14, 2-15)""

And make note of this paragraph...

"This kind of search-and-replace substitution was found throughout the book. Expert witness Barbara Forrest even unearthed a linguistic transitional form showing how the ID authors had slipped when doing a hasty cut-and-paste in the manuscripts. In trying to replace the term "creationists" at one point, they failed to select the whole word before pasting in the new term "design proponent," resulting in the hybrid "cdesign proponentists.""