The 'Science' of Intelligent Design

Solitary said:
I would question whether Mott was saying that ID itself has been debunked, or the claim that ID is science has been debunked.

It was my impression that he meant the latter.
Click to expand...

Either is a misstatement. I go back to my point about nuclear fission... when scientists contemplated splitting the atom, did some idiot like Mott tell them it wasn't science, it had been debunked, it wasn't possible to split an atom? That is essentially what is being said here. You have all 'refuted' ID as science, without exploring it from a science perspective at all. I understand why you do it... because it gives you comfort to say ID isn't science, therefore, isn't credible. But you haven't made your case, because science doesn't draw such conclusions. YOU can draw that conclusion, but science doesn't support you.

I've made several scientific points which could indicate design by intelligence, and I have yet to see any contradicting evidence presented here. I see a lot of hot air, a lot of denial and refusal to acknowledge facts, and I see a lot of stubborn closed-mindedness, but nothing you could hang your hat on to refute what I have presented. Mott apparently believes science to be limited to only what a contingent of pinhead scientists have published in a journal. You seem to think your profound wisdom trumps anything presented to the contrary. But science itself is inconclusive on the matter, and I have presented a valid argument which hasn't been refuted.
 
Dixie said:
Either is a misstatement. I go back to my point about nuclear fission... when scientists contemplated splitting the atom, did some idiot like Mott tell them it wasn't science, it had been debunked, it wasn't possible to split an atom? That is essentially what is being said here. You have all 'refuted' ID as science, without exploring it from a science perspective at all. I understand why you do it... because it gives you comfort to say ID isn't science, therefore, isn't credible. But you haven't made your case, because science doesn't draw such conclusions. YOU can draw that conclusion, but science doesn't support you.

I've made several scientific points which could indicate design by intelligence, and I have yet to see any contradicting evidence presented here. I see a lot of hot air, a lot of denial and refusal to acknowledge facts, and I see a lot of stubborn closed-mindedness, but nothing you could hang your hat on to refute what I have presented. Mott apparently believes science to be limited to only what a contingent of pinhead scientists have published in a journal. You seem to think your profound wisdom trumps anything presented to the contrary. But science itself is inconclusive on the matter, and I have presented a valid argument which hasn't been refuted.
Click to expand...

Prior to the splitting of the atom, the science was solid. Your argument is pure nonsense.

Also, you have used numerous examples that did not actually apply. Science has not changed, but the information that has. With each new discovery we have more questions. But the way science investigates things has remained the same.

Before we discovered black holes there were theories that light could be captured by a strong enough gravitational pull. The dual wave/particle ideas about light have been around for a while. Finding black holes actually answered some questions.




And the biggest difference between nuclear fission, black holes and the other things you named is that they expanded the knowledge in science.

ID does not. Find something that backs it up (other than the claim that a certain level of organization supposedly proves it was designed) and perhaps it will be scientific.

As the theory stands right now, it is not.
 
Solitary said:
"Evolutionists" have stated why ID should not be taught in a science class. And that is because it does not fit the scientific model or method. ....
Click to expand...
Except, of course, that it does:

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
Click to expand...
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
 
Southern Man said:
Except, of course, that it does:

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
Click to expand...

And the idea that things that are irreducibly complex must have been designed has been debunked. The first idea along those lines was the eye. The claim was that it was too complex and too interdependent on all its parts to have evolved.

Except that we have examples of eyes that run from simple light sensitive eyespots on planeria to the comlex human eye, and many many in between. They have fewer and more parts. They have more interdependency and less. And there are steps from each to the next.


Using how complex something is as a determination of whether or not it was designed is not scientific. That is an assumption without any real evidence.

You could look at a quartz crystal and see complex design with ruler straight edges. And yet it was not designed.

Of course, the problem with arguing against ID is that the pat answer can always be "maybe it was designed that way".
 
Why is this important?

If you want to believe ID, that's cool No one is stopping you; there are no current or proposed laws against you believing it.
 
Onceler said:
Why is this important?

If you want to believe ID, that's cool No one is stopping you; there are no current or proposed laws against you believing it.
Click to expand...

Onceler, the only thing I have said is that it should not be taught in science class.

That is where the argument has stemmed from.
 
Solitary said:
Prior to the splitting of the atom, the science was solid. Your argument is pure nonsense.

Also, you have used numerous examples that did not actually apply. Science has not changed, but the information that has. With each new discovery we have more questions. But the way science investigates things has remained the same.

Before we discovered black holes there were theories that light could be captured by a strong enough gravitational pull. The dual wave/particle ideas about light have been around for a while. Finding black holes actually answered some questions.
Click to expand...

Of course it answered some questions, but before these questions had answers, one could not claim it wasn't "scientific" to ponder them. That is the point I am making with ID, you have refused to ponder the question, based on answers to the question which haven't been revealed. That isn't "science" it is "presumption" and contradictory to science.

And the biggest difference between nuclear fission, black holes and the other things you named is that they expanded the knowledge in science.

ID does not. Find something that backs it up (other than the claim that a certain level of organization supposedly proves it was designed) and perhaps it will be scientific.

As the theory stands right now, it is not.
Click to expand...

They didn't expand knowledge before they were discovered. In fact, they contradicted the current principles of science at the time, because we didn't understand them. Indeed, people had theories, but there was no scientific proof you could split an atom until it was done. Prior to that, it was pondered and explored, but we didn't know the answer. I suspect, if something were to 'confirm' intelligent design, it would also 'expand knowledge' in science... don't you think?

If you don't think we should teach kids there is a theory we originated by intelligent design, that is fine, but we should use the same criteria for other things, like black holes... or the notion humans emerged from some other species of primate. Those things have no scientific basis or evidence to support them, so they shouldn't be taught in a science class. Personally, I think any and all theories of origin should be taught, as it's information. No one is saying we should teach children we are indeed the product of intelligent design, but not teaching them that this is a theory many people believe, is contradictory to what education is. You see Sol... you have drawn a line in the sand... You want to teach and educate about things you personally believe are true, whether they have been proven or not... and you want to deny the teaching and education about things you don't believe to be true, whether evidence exists or not. I've drawn no such line, I want to educate and teach ALL possibilities... as possibilities... not facts... and let the students absorb the information in an unbiased way. One of us wants to truly "educate" the other wants to "indoctrinate."
 
Black holes were theorized and tested mathematically, because of the constant positive result in the testing we sought and found what had been theorized and tested by physics.

Black holes are a very bad example of your premise. Without first theorizing and testing the theory mathematically, people never would have even looked for the things.

Another thing that is tested mathematically that we have yet to discover... dark matter. We'll find it, because we can see its effects on other things. But without the math of gravity's effect on light (discovered during theory testing) we wouldn't have been able to see that or theorize in this direction. If ID could be quantified mathematically you might have a point of it being a scientific theory rather than a philosophical one. However, even the "irreducible complexity" has been shown mathematically to fail. It won't reach a "Theory" until aspects test with a high positive result.
 
Dixie said:
Of course it answered some questions, but before these questions had answers, one could not claim it wasn't "scientific" to ponder them. That is the point I am making with ID, you have refused to ponder the question, based on answers to the question which haven't been revealed. That isn't "science" it is "presumption" and contradictory to science.



They didn't expand knowledge before they were discovered. In fact, they contradicted the current principles of science at the time, because we didn't understand them. Indeed, people had theories, but there was no scientific proof you could split an atom until it was done. Prior to that, it was pondered and explored, but we didn't know the answer. I suspect, if something were to 'confirm' intelligent design, it would also 'expand knowledge' in science... don't you think?

If you don't think we should teach kids there is a theory we originated by intelligent design, that is fine, but we should use the same criteria for other things, like black holes... or the notion humans emerged from some other species of primate. Those things have no scientific basis or evidence to support them, so they shouldn't be taught in a science class. Personally, I think any and all theories of origin should be taught, as it's information. No one is saying we should teach children we are indeed the product of intelligent design, but not teaching them that this is a theory many people believe, is contradictory to what education is. You see Sol... you have drawn a line in the sand... You want to teach and educate about things you personally believe are true, whether they have been proven or not... and you want to deny the teaching and education about things you don't believe to be true, whether evidence exists or not. I've drawn no such line, I want to educate and teach ALL possibilities... as possibilities... not facts... and let the students absorb the information in an unbiased way. One of us wants to truly "educate" the other wants to "indoctrinate."
Click to expand...

You keep claiming that prior to this or that, it would have been considered not science. And that is absolutely not true.

It is not what we know, it is how the research is processed. ID makes leaps in logic that science does not support. The idea that a certain level of complexity points to it being designed is not scientific.

Whether I believe it or not is not the issue. It is whether or not it fits the criteria that the scientific community has set as the standard for any scientific theory.
 
Solitary said:
And the idea that things that are irreducibly complex must have been designed has been debunked. The first idea along those lines was the eye. The claim was that it was too complex and too interdependent on all its parts to have evolved.

Except that we have examples of eyes that run from simple light sensitive eyespots on planeria to the comlex human eye, and many many in between. They have fewer and more parts. They have more interdependency and less. And there are steps from each to the next.


Using how complex something is as a determination of whether or not it was designed is not scientific. That is an assumption without any real evidence.

You could look at a quartz crystal and see complex design with ruler straight edges. And yet it was not designed.

Of course, the problem with arguing against ID is that the pat answer can always be "maybe it was designed that way".
Click to expand...

Your understanding of various eyes is inaccurate. True, there are many various kinds of eye. Some of them are similar in function, but the planeria eye spots function totally different than the human eye. It's like saying a computer must have evolved from a typewriter! Indeed they have a similar attribute, but the way in which each thing functions is completely different. The components of a computer are not needed in a typewriter, and would serve no function or purpose.

According to Darwin, the components found in the human eye, could not have evolved into the species from the state of a planeria eye spot, it's contradictory to his theory for this to be the case. This is the basis for the irreducible complexity argument, and science does not support any refutation of it. Now... way back, before we had the technology to thoroughly examine the differences, many scientists did believe the human eye "evolved" from the planeria eye spot state, but now we know differently. The functionality of the planeria eye spot is not related to the functionality of the human eye. they have a similar purpose, but the way they work is totally different, and not indicative of the natural selection process.
 
Dixie said:
Your understanding of various eyes is inaccurate. True, there are many various kinds of eye. Some of them are similar in function, but the planeria eye spots function totally different than the human eye. It's like saying a computer must have evolved from a typewriter! Indeed they have a similar attribute, but the way in which each thing functions is completely different. The components of a computer are not needed in a typewriter, and would serve no function or purpose.

According to Darwin, the components found in the human eye, could not have evolved into the species from the state of a planeria eye spot, it's contradictory to his theory for this to be the case. This is the basis for the irreducible complexity argument, and science does not support any refutation of it. Now... way back, before we had the technology to thoroughly examine the differences, many scientists did believe the human eye "evolved" from the planeria eye spot state, but now we know differently. The functionality of the planeria eye spot is not related to the functionality of the human eye. they have a similar purpose, but the way they work is totally different, and not indicative of the natural selection process.
Click to expand...

I did not say the eyespot was like our eye. I said they are at different ends of a long line of "eyes" that show that they function, despite varying degrees of interdependence and complexity.

The process of evolution has not been disproved by the complexity of the eye. I am sure that there are plenty of people who are trying.




And Dixie, just as an FYI, disproving evolution will still not make ID scientific.





BTW Damo, an excellent post.
 
There are a lot of very good scientific explanations for the evolution of the eye, which has happened independently at least a dozen times in different species. There's no miracle involved. It starts out simple, it grows more complex. Each piece of the eye has a function on the lower-order of eye, so your premise that "the retina is useless, it had to just magically appear!" is totally hogwash. I'm sure with about half a second of googling you could find a great explanation, but I'll save you the trouble:

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains the evolution of the eye.
 
Last edited:
ib1yysguy said:
There are a lot of very good scientific explanations for the evolution of the eye, which has happened independently at least a dozen times in different species. There's no miracle involved. It starts out simple, it grows more complex. Each piece of the eye has a function on the lower-order of eye, so your premise that "the retina is useless, it had to just magically appear!" is totally hogwash. I'm sure with about half a second of googling you could find a great explanation, but I'll save you the trouble:

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains the evolution of the eye.
YouTube - Dawkins Makes an Eye
Click to expand...

Good post, Ib. SM, what did you think of the video? It answers the charges quite nicely, I would say.
 
Solitary said:
Onceler, the only thing I have said is that it should not be taught in science class.

That is where the argument has stemmed from.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a given. I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm too lazy to read through Dixie's endless "irrefutable" posts. I have no idea why he thinks it's important to teach in science class, and don't really want to know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top