Starboy

There are many Christians that appear to think the theory of intelligent design is a scientific theory. The primary reason they think this is because it is a theory that is being advanced by scientists. However what they fail to understand is that the criteria for being a scientific theory has nothing to do with it being proposed by a scientist. Below are the following reasons why I think ID is not a scientific theory:

1. ID can account for the complexity and variety of life as we see it today, but how does it explain the fossil record? The only thing I can think of was that the designer designed by trial and error. Most engineers would not consider that to be intelligent.

2. ID has no predictive power. How would you use ID to figure out how bacteria will change over time now that we have introduced all these antibiotics into the environment? How would you use ID to predict how plants will change now that we are warming up the planet?

3. ID has no exclusionary power. Sure it can explain any given set of facts but it can’t explain why certain phenomena are never observed in nature. In order to do this, one would have to know the mind of the designer and of course that would mean you would have to know the mind of god.

As I have stated before on this forum. Scientific theories do not have to be true they just have to work. ID may be true but it doesn’t work. Evolution may be false, but it works very well. Until something better comes along Evolution is the current reigning theory. If creationists want to replace evolution, they better stop doing religion and start doing science, and they better understand that scientists are just as rough on each other as they are with anyone who proposes ID!

Starboy

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Bubba

Nice Post Starboy

Actually, ID asks an impossible question. If one is perhaps old earth and believes in ID, your asking for a rational explanation of where God, aliens, or some other agency acted. This is beyond both science and religion to answer, thus ID starts and ends with a non-sensical question.

Bubba

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: Bubba ]</p>

Starboy

Thanks Bubba, my point exactly.

tgamble

I have to disagree here. ID can explain anything and everything. Why are certain phnomena never observed? Because the designer didn't put them there.

Id can explain anything that isn't found or is. It can also explain why things that weren't found that were found out later. Or explain things that were found but turned out to be errors. It can explain anything and everything and that's why it's utterly useless and not science.

Starboy

Hi tgamble, That is correct as pointed out in 3, but not as well as your explaination.

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Albion

It seems to be nothing much more than an argument from incredulity with intellectual window dressing. It would be nice if the proponents gave some idea of definitions and falsification criteria, both of which Darwin was very careful to do when presenting his theory.

Principia

ID is notorious for avoiding characterizing the nature of their Designer and positing that such information is unnecessary for their philosophy. But, of course, avoiding answering questions like 'Who is the Designer' or 'When did the Designer intervene' or 'How did the Designer interface with nature' leaves ID with the only assertion: "This phenomenon was designed." And that inevitably leads to the question, "So what?" A neverending vicious cycle of evasion, ID is.

You can see the IDi[s]ts trying hard to plug this gaping hole in their argument by positing various hypotheses which force characteristics onto the putative Designer(s) through fiat. For instance, Mike Gene advocates front-loaded evolution. In other words he gives a vague sense of 'when' (an apparent, one-time shot before RMNS took over) and 'how' but not 'who.' On the other hand, Bertvan advocates EAM, and the sense of 'internal' intelligence. She therefore perfers to answer 'who' but not 'how or 'when' (possibly ongoing?). In all cases, they dance around the issue of whether or not the Designer is detectable, except through the designs. Of course the question that always comes to my mind is why call it 'design' then, if the Designer is so elusive? The answer comes in the form of the negative hypothesis of all ID variants -- that evolution as it is known currently is incapable of creating 'novelty.' Then the typical argument with an IDist spirals aimlessly into a bunch of metaphysics and beliefs that science has no hope of answering -- or as the IDi[s]ts are fond of pointing out -- that science has to adopt as an epistemology.

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

Starboy

Albion, that really is the most facinating thing about creationism. It is really no so much as a theory for something, but a theory against something, which really isn't any kind of a theory at all.

Starboy

After thinking about this further, it seems to me that creationism is just another rehash of the “God’s favorite creature” argument. This battle started with Copernicus and really has just been raging on ever since. The Catholics have finally figured out that they just can’t win and have given up. I think the Catholics have given up because they are probably better educated then the rest of Christianity. The current crop of Christians appear to be aware of this problem and are adopting the strategy of screwing up the educational system enough so that people won’t know how to make rational decisions.

Starboy

WinAce

ID would be a science if it actually made testable predictions. I don't care what the theological implications of the designer making parasites and crap is; it might mean he's a sadistic bastard but it has no validity on the hypothesis of design itself.

If they could say 'these genes should be identical in these species, but these should be different, because the designer used genetic splicing which left these fingerprints' and have it match reality, also being something evolution had no way of predicting, then I'd be perfectly willing to accept it.

As it is, however, it's just another example of pseudoscience. No actual explanation, no mechanisms whatsoever, no testable predictions, no clues on the identity of the designer, no clues on his origin, NOTHING at all.

"You can't explain it, so my ad hoc hypothesis is correct by default. Oh? You can explain it? Well, you can't prove that was the way it happened. Until you do, my ad hoc hypothesis is still correct by default!"

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />