Posted on 12/25/2005 1:41:41 PM PST by RussP
This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. --Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia
Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific?
2005-12-20 -- If you've participated in online debates about the theory of evolution, you know the standard arguments of evolutionists. Their "trump card" is the claim that Intelligent Design (ID) theory is simply outside the realm of science. This claim is not that ID has insufficient empirical corroboration, although they often make that claim too. This claim is that ID is not even a valid scientific theory because it is "unfalsifiable."
The notion that ID theory is fundamentally "unscientific" is based on the philosophy originated by Karl Popper (1902-1994), who postulated a set of rules for science known as "Falsificationism." The main idea is that a hypothesis or theory does not qualify as "scientific" unless it is "falsifiable" (which is independent of whether it is actually "true" or "false"). Popper is revered by evolutionists, but certainly even they would agree that we should not blindly accept his word as revealed truth. So let us consider some of the implications of his "falsifiability" criterion.
Consider first the hypothesis that "extraterrestrial intelligent life does not exist." If a spaceship landed on earth carrying aliens from another planet, this hypothesis would obviously be disproved or "falsified." If an intelligent message were indisputably received from a non-man-made source in space, that would also disprove the hypothesis. Hence, this hypothesis clearly meets the falsifiability criterion and is therefore "scientific" according to Popper's definition.
Now consider the opposite hypothesis, namely that "extraterrestrial intelligent life exists." How could this hypothesis be falsified? The only way to falsify it would be to prove that absolutely no intelligent life exists anywhere in the entire universe other than on (or from) earth. Because that is obviously impossible to prove, this hypothesis fails the falsifiability criterion and is therefore "unscientific."
According to Popper's criterion, therefore, the hypothesis that "extraterrestrial intelligent life does not exist" is "scientific," but the opposite hypothesis, that "extraterrestrial intelligent life exists," is not. But if the former "scientific" hypothesis is disproved, then the latter "unscientific" hypothesis is obviously proved! Hence, a hypothesis about the natural world can be proved true yet still be "unscientific" according to Popper's criterion. Popper's definition of science is therefore misleading if not just plain nonsensical.
Popper's followers readily concede that what they call an "unscientific" hypothesis can be true. For example, the hypothesis, "nutritional supplements can improve a person's health," is "unscientific," yet it is also certainly true. The problem is that their misleading technical definition of science is used by evolutionists to deceive the public about ID theory. Hence, a substantial percentage of the public has been fooled into believing that, because ID theory is "unscientific" (according to Popper), it must also be untrue or bogus.
Several years ago the "Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence" (SETI) project was initiated. Large radio telescopes were used to receive radio signals from space, and massive computing facilities were used to analyze those signals in search of "intelligent" messages that could be presumed to have originated from an "intelligent" life form. Apparently, nobody informed the SETI team that their motivating hypothesis -- that "extraterrestrial intelligent life exists" -- is "unscientific"!
Suppose an apparently "intelligent" message were detected by SETI. The first question would be whether the message really originated from space and not from a man-made source, but suppose a man-made source could be ruled out. The next question would be whether the message really originated from an intelligent source, or whether it was merely a statistical fluke that only appeared to have come from an intelligent source.
Suppose the message contained the first 100,000 binary digits of pi, repeated indefinitely, with each repetition separated by a "spacer" of 1000 zeros. Now, one cannot "prove" with absolute mathematical certainty that such a sequence cannot occur by random chance, but most reasonable people would agree that the probability would be extremely low. In fact, most would agree that the probability of a such a signal originating from an "unintelligent" source would be zero for all intents and purposes.
The repeating pi signal coming from a non-man-made source in space would therefore conclusively prove the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, and it would prove it even if the location and identity of the source were never determined. But according to Popper's falsifiability criterion, the hypothesis that "extraterrestrial intelligent life exists" does not even qualify as "scientific." Thus, SETI would be in the strange position of having proved a truly monumental -- but "unscientific" -- fact about the universe!
The hypothesis of extraterrestrial intelligence can shed some badly needed light on the philosophical debate over whether or not intelligent design theory is "scientific." The philosophical question is not about how much order or complexity is needed to reasonably prove the existence of Intelligent Design; that is a scientific and mathematical question. The philosophical question is whether any amount of evidence for ID could be enough to get evolutionists to concede that it ID is even a possible explanation. Apparently the answer is no, because they have ruled ID "out of bounds" from the start.
Evolutionists often point out that ID theory "makes no testable predictions and explains nothing." But what "testable predictions" can be made based on the hypothesis that extraterrestrial intelligence exists? None. So, what do evolutionists say about the potential for intelligent messages from deep space? Do they insist that such messages wouldn't prove anything and should simply be ignored? I doubt the SETI team would agree with that, yet it is the logical equivalent of the evolutionist position on ID. The irony is that evolutionists would probably be the first to embrace the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence because it would transform the origin of life from a "miracle" to a "statistic," as Carl Sagan once explained. Indeed, most or all of the SETI participants probably are evolutionists!
Both professional and amateur evolutionists will continue to arrogantly asert that ID theory cannot possibly be "scientific." If a famous philosopher said it, apparently that's all the "proof" they need -- common sense notwithstanding. And that's just the start of their many ridiculous assertions. After explaining that ID is "unfalsifiable," many evolutionists then proceed to explain that it has indeed been falsified anyway! "It can't be done, but by golly we did it anyway just to reassure ourselves"! And the significance of the fact that their premise and their conclusion are identical apparently escapes them.
Another popular evolutionist canard is that ID theory is nothing more than a "thinly veiled" cover for Biblical creationism and is therefore unscientific. Never mind that many ID advocates were originally evolutionists before they studied the matter in depth. By the same "logic," evolution could be considered a "thinly veiled" cover for atheism, of course. Nonsense. Both atheists and creationists may indeed be biased, but attributed biases are never directly relevant to the actual validity of any scientific theory. The validity of Einstein's theory of relativity is completely independent of whatever personal biases he may have had!
In any significant online debate over evolution, some genius will inevitably proclaim that Intelligent Design theory is meaningless until the actual "Intelligent Designer" is physically located and identified. That is logically equivalent to claiming that the pi signal mentioned above would not prove the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence until the source of the message was explicitly located and identified. A related and equally absurd notion is that purely naturalistic evolution must remain the accepted theory until the "Designer" can be understood and explained scientifically. That is the logical equivalent of a prosecutor claiming that a criminal defendant must be presumed guilty unless or until another culprit is found. The truth is that, just as a defendant can be exonerated before an alternative suspect is identified, purely naturalistic evolution can be disproved before an alternative theory is fully understood or even available.
The point here is not that ID theory is true and purely naturalistic evolution is false. The point is that reasonable people can disagree on the issue, and both positions should be respectfully permitted to co-exist in the spirit of free and open inquiry. That is not what is happening today. A misleading definition of science is being used to exclude ID a priori. A judge recently ruled that even mentioning ID is prohibited in the science classes of a particular public school system. That kind of censorship is certainly more in the spirit of the Soviet Union than of the United States. Professors have been publicly censured by their peers for espousing ID. One can only wonder if Isaac Newton would be censured today for his professed belief in the intelligent design of the universe.
Centuries ago the church was the ultimate authority, and dissenters from orthodoxy were excommunicated and punished for their supposed heresy. But science and the church have reversed positions in modern times, and secularized scientific institutions now have the upper hand. Scientists who deviate in their public writings or teachings from the prevailing naturalistic orthodoxy are now ostracized, ridiculed, and sometimes even denied tenure or research funding. Those dissenters are modern day Galileos who are standing up to the Neo-Darwinian dogma and the misleading attacks by its believers, who fear the truth just as the church did centuries ago.
http://RussP.us/IDscience.htm
Nobody felt like embarrassing you.
"Not all of Newton's ideas are relevant, just some. Newton is a man, not God. As a man, he makes mistakes."
True enough, but Newton also happens to be widely regarded as the greatest scientist of all time. If he is mistaken about intelligent design, I figure I'm in good company. 8^)
"Total side issue but please explain what is so Intelligent about the Design of the human lower back. It's as poor a piece of engineering as the inability of humans to manufacture vitamine C, rare among primates."
"Intelligent" design does not mean "perfect" design. All engineering designs are imperfect, but that does not mean they came together without any intelligence.
As for the theological question of why the Creator would allow imperfections, that is another matter. Perhaps it has something to do with the distinction between heaven and earth.
Not exactly a similar case. Imagine if Velikovsky's supporters had shopped around for a school board willing to treat V's speculations as though they were science.
Actually, V. had a broader range of pseudo-knowledge than any ID-ist I'm aware of; it might be easier to get his stuff into schools than ID. I remember someone (CSICOP?) remarking that astronomers thought that V. was full of it in astro, but seemed to have a pretty good grasp of Egyptian and Hebrew history, while the historians said his history was wrong, but he seemed to have a pretty good grasp of astronomy.
A few out-of-context endorsements from real scholars, and voila, Velikovskianism is an alternate view that kids should be free to make up their minds about.
I don't know if you remember, but there used to be a Velikovsky-head on this forum. Fellow called himself Medved. Not too surprisingly, he also followed the anti-evolution line.
PH, Junior: One of the recommended spelling corrections for "Medved" is "Muddled".
So his belief it a creator is not only inappropriate for science class, it is a "mistake." It isn't about science after all. Despite the protests, it is all about athesism. You believe your religion should be taught, but no one dare mention that you may be wrong.
What a sad, and indefensible position to adopt.
On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." (22:22-23 (Behe)).
This is typical of the evolutionist mendacity.
Behe was a DEFENSE WITNESS, who testified IN FAVOR of ID. He testified under oath that there are no peer reviewed science articles "advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred" because, though it may have pained him to admit it, he knows this to be the case.
So, as you can see, rather than this being what you wrongly characterized as "typical evolutionist mendacity," it is in fact an instance where a major scientific proponent of ID was forced to admit under oath the utter non-existence of peer-reviewed research supporting the ID thesis. As for Spetner, we could dismiss him for any number of reasons, including that he has no credentials in the biological sciences and his work isn't published in a peer-reviewed biological journal, but rather than do so it is sufficient to point out he, like so many anti-evolutionaries before him, proposed a negative argument against evolution, rather than providing positive research and data in support of the ID thesis. This is precisely the sort of "false dichotomy" that the court said was at the heart of proposed ID arguments.
But don't take my word for it; let's let DEFENSE WITNESS and major ID proponent Behe's (and other experts') own words speak for themselves:
Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)).
Now if you want to see "mendacity" at the Dover ID trial, I suggest you look up the testimony and depositions of defendants Bonsell and Buckingham:
Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points. P. 105
And...
Defendants' previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere. Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. P.132 [emphsis added]
As you can see, the "typical mendacity" that was seen at the trial was committed, as is typical, by the anti-evos.
Yeah, but all you've got to back up your position on ID is the sworn testimony of the expert ID witnesses who were selected by the school board to suport ID.
</internet idiot mode>
Let us see whether he can admit to being a liar or just another dupe.
You are apparently quoting from the judge's characterization of Behe's testimony rather than from Behe himself. But even if Behe said that there are no peer-reviewed articles advocating intelligent design, that's not all he has said.
In his book, Behe wrote that he searched and searched for peer-reviewed papers giving *specific* mechanisms or stages by which various biological mechanisms could have evolved. He could not find any. The biological literature is apparently full of hand-waving *assumption* that Neo-Darwinian natural selection "could have" done the job, but virtually nothing in the way of actual explanation of plausible intermediate stages of the purported evolution.
If you are going to use Behe's own words against him, please don't ignore the relevant part that you find inconvenient. But that's just typical evolutionist mendacity again, isn't it.
If you have any regard whatsoever for freedom of scientific inquiry, the judge's statement should send a chill up your spine. What he is saying is that he understands the underlying motives of ID proponents and, since there is a possible connection with religious belief, their views should be blatantly censored.
By the same so-called "reasoning," evolution should also be censored because it is "clearly" intended for the advancement of athiesm, not to mention socialism.
That people on FR actually fall for this social engineering garbage in the name of science is even more frightening.
Okay, it's both.
The transcripts of Behe's testimony are on line, guy. 'Even if' doesn't cut it. If he said it, cite it.
Chapter and verse please.
And why not? That's how ID came about.
"I approach the creation- evolution dispute not as a scientist but as a professor of law" - The founding father of Intelligent Design.
I said "Newton is a man, not God. As a man, he makes mistakes."
Do you want to dispute the Newton is a man, or that Newton is not God, or that he never made a mistake ?
Your post 245 is a pathetic excuse for ID spin and slander.
"The transcripts of Behe's testimony are on line, guy. 'Even if' doesn't cut it. If he said it, cite it."
Behe also wrote a book, in which said basically the same thing about Neo-Darwinian evolution that he said about ID. If he said, cite it.
"Chapter and verse please."
So now Behe's testimony is your Bible?
You made statements about Behe's testimony, statements you're too lazy to corroborate. It's not my job to do your work for you. Put up or shut up.
Evoutionary theory will eventually be shown for what it is: a myth created by a bunch of egocentrics with a taste for paganism and an irrational hatred of God. If it were a multiple purpose instruction manual, it'd be seen that it always builds the same things: a top-down, collectivized hell-on-earth populated by soulless apes in service/slavery to their 'highly-evolved' masters.
If it were a road-atlas, it would invariably lead you to Hell. The Black Book of Communism condemns it as a "criminal ideology" hiding behind a 'wild sort of scientism."
"A wild sort of scientism"----that's what you're arguing on behalf of Peyton.
Hell? To paraphrase the late Reverend Sam Kinison, I was married. Hell would be like Club Med.
and an irrational hatred of God.
As a deist, I certainly don't hate God. I do dislike Bible thumpers who lie in court in order to push faith-based beliefs as scientific theory.
Do you know that the theory of evolution was actually attacked under stalin's regime?
Those motives are explained in the wedge document:
Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. source
and the connection between creationism and ID isn't tenuous at all - ID is merely a rebranding of creationism.
Pre Edwards decision definition of creation in "Biology and Creation" (Draft of "Of Pandas and People" Kenyon & Davis):
Creation means that the 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.
Post Edwards decision definition of Intelligent Design in "Of Pandas and People" (Kenyon & Davis):
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, wings, etc.
Ergo, intelligent design = creationism, and the whole Dover School Board episode is nothing but a disingenuous attempt at circumventing the Supreme Court's Edwards decision.
Spetners work has been published in peer reviewed biological journals, he is not an advocate of the ID hypothesis and he offers a positive argument for his NRE hypothesis. So bascially, you got everything wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.