blargg

Does he claim ID is a scientific theory?

By definition, all scientific theories have to be falsifiable. Meaning, you have to be able to perform tests to determine whether or not the scientific theory has any merit.

Further, scientific theories have applications (give examples with a high impact, ones that save lives, antibiotics and such, etc.). Ask him, What is an application of intelligent design? --this argument is not my idea though I cannot remember whom I heard it from originally.

If he tries to bend the definition of scientific theory, ask yourself if any pseudosciences would now fit within that definition, such as astrology.

amstar

Here are two observations from the biology side:

From the notes Roland98 put up at the Pandas Thumb website:

1.

Gonzalez says the way to test for IC is just to do knockout experiments [on the flagella] and see if it eliminates function.

Hasn’t this been done over and over and over again? Here is an example of a peer reviewed paper from 1988 (a full 8 years before Behe came out with his book). There are many others.

2.

The use of Axe’s paper is an example of very selective use of data. Again just using the bacterial flagella as an example there have been many studies demonstrating that proteins are able to undergo single and multiple AA changes and retain function (in fact Axe’s paper demonstrates just that). Also as one might expect when you look at areas of proteins that are most important to the retention of function, you find that they tend to be the most highly conserved parts of the structure. To put it simply, nothing Axe found is inconsistent with evolutionary theory.

Hope this helps

amstar

MrDarwin

First off, don't even think about debating him unless you know the subject inside-out; don't even try for "gotcha" questions because he's probably already heard most of them, and will have ready answers. But you shouldl come with your own earnest and honest questions about ID.

You should also be careful to distinguish between cosmological ID and biological ID. The two are very different, and it's essential to distinguish between the two, but ID proponents often don't distinguish and are often very slippery on this.

Some possible questions are about inefficient & stupid designs (check out the female reproductive system of the spotted hyena for a real jaw-dropper; and the reproductive cycle of the ichneumon wasp is downright ghoulish)--how does ID explain those? He may say that it doesn't (if not, why not), or may say that not all things were designed (if so, then how do we distinguish between the two?) or that the "designs" of some things have deteriorated (then they weren't very good designs in the first place, were they?). Or he may say that, by definition, those designs we can call "good" were obviously designed, whereas those we call "bad" were not--in which case he is just making a circular argument.

You could ask whether the appearance of numerous disparate phyla in the "Cambrian Explosion" indicates that there were several different designers, each producing a different phylum with a different basic "blueprint".

Or you could ask why ID is being pushed almost entirely by Christians if it is not religiously motivated. A follow-up question might be why ID is generally not being supported by atheists or agnostics, if ID is not a religious viewpoint.

Finally, if he ever, ever says the "designers" could be aliens (or anything other than the biblical god), ask him who or what he believes the designer to be. Or ask him if he knows any ID proponents who believe the "designer" to be anything other than the biblical god.

ninewands

Good point to raise ... I think I would also ask why, if ID is so scientific, how come presentations like this are always held in churches rather than at, for instance, GSA meetings?

I think another good question is why, if Evolution is so "controversial," almost 20 times as many clergy have signed a statement in support of ToE than have signed the DI's statement, and more scientists named Steve have signed onto the NCSE's statement of support as have signed the DI's statement.

I personally can't think of a less pleasant evening than sitting and listening to an ID presentation by an otherwise qualified scientist gone badly wrong.

Santas little helper

Why enter a debate at all ? Just go there to learn something. If you don't feel you can learn anything don't go at all. Plus there's nothing wrong with having your ass handed to you as long as you learn something in the process. So don't try to "get him" , just try to ask sincere questions.

Some questions I would want to ask:
1) What is the meaning of "intelligent designer" ?
2) Does the intelligent designer still make designs ? If yes can we identify them ?

Spenser

How would you be able to distinguish between what is or isn't designed?

show_no_mercy

Ask him for a published peer reviewed journal on ID.

Roland98

Be careful...the last Gonzalez talk I went to was hosted by Sigma Xi, a scientific honor society.

I think these are good.

At least at the talk I went to, he did introduce Dembski's filter, which supposedly does this. There are all kinds of problems with it (and, of course, it's never been tested), but they have a mechanism, at least.

That's also tricky, as there have been published papers in refereed journals. Of course, one got into the journal under suspiscious circumstances, and another has been ripped to shreds by people who actually know what they're talking about, but asking them this gives them the chance to say, "yes, we *have* been published in these journals" and you likely won't be given the chance to rebut.

_Naturalist_

1. What was designed? The origin of the universe and nothing else? Life, and nothing else? Were the fossils designed to fool us?
2. What is the scope of the theory, what evidence supports it, and what predictions are made?
3. If there is a designer, who designed her?
4. Is there only an architect, or are there engineers and construction workers as well?
5. Considering that life has changed during billions of years, with some species appearing later than others, does this mean that each and every organism is designed? If we see natural selection, but no designer, why should the conclusion be "intelligent designer"?

CJW

I wonder what the End game looks like for some of these ID Folks....say they get their way and ID is the prevelant "theory" taught in schools - what would research in that dystopia look like, what would medical advances look like? How much different would that be under the current prevailing theory?

Say an organism is determined to be "designed" does that mean no additional research may be conducted related to its origin? What if an organism is incorrectly defined as "designed"? What self-correcting mechanics does ID offer?

I feel that the brute force of economics will continue to drive scientific research, if not in this country than elsewhere, and in the end ID will have added nothing of value to our collective knowledge.

Chris