Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific?

Russ Paielli ^ | 2006-10-01 | Russ Paielli

[RussP]

----cut----

The notion that Intelligent Design 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.

----cut----

The ultimate irony here is that, given Popper's definition of science, the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution itself is based on an "unscientific" foundation. How did the first living cell come to be? If Intelligent Design is categorically rejected, then that first cell must have come together more or less by random chance. Mathematicians and physicists have argued (and claim to have proved) that the simplest conceivable living cell is far too complex to have come together by random chance, but evolutionists always reply that, given enough time and space, "anything" can happen. In this case, the evolutionists are correct: proving that the first cell could not have formed by random chance is impossible. But that is just another way of saying that any purely naturalistic theory of abiogenesis is unfalsifiable, hence "unscientific" according to Popper's falsifiability criterion. [When cornered with this undeniable fact, evolutionists usually claim that abiogenesis is "separate" from evolution. But that's not quite true: evolution depends on abiogenesis. Evolution obviously could not have occurred if the first living cell had never come into existence!]

----cut----

[Dimensio]

How would you know?

I know this because I have studied the theory sufficiently to understand that imperfect replication is a necessary element for the process of evolution to occur.

[Southack]

"I know this because I have studied the theory sufficiently to understand that imperfect replication is a necessary element for the process of evolution to occur."

That's an insufficient base from which to make absolute statements about the mechanism for inanimate matter evolving into the first living cell. There could easily be an Evolutionary process (or not); you simply don't know it.

Computer programs replicate, for instance.

[grey_whiskers]

Maybe we can just 'compare degrees' to see whether my supposition above is accurate....

Argument from authority remains invalid.

Cheers!

[RussP]

"You know, I would be willing to bet that, were we to do a survey, we'd find that the average IQ of the 'evolutionist' posters to this thread exceeded that of the 'creationist' posters by 10-15 points."

You're dreaming, and your arrogance has gotten the better of you. I'm not a "creationist," but I'll bet you a dollar to a dime that my IQ is as high or higher than yours.

Has it occurred to you, by the way, that it is the utterly failing public schools who are the strongest advocates of teaching evolution?

[Dimensio]

That's an insufficient base from which to make absolute statements about the mechanism for inanimate matter evolving into the first living cell.

How can a process dependent upon the existing of imperfect replicators occur in the abscence of imperfect replicators?

Computer programs replicate, for instance.

"Inanimate matter" does not replicate. Self-replicating organic chains could not be considered "inanimate".

[Southack]

"How can a process dependent upon the existing of imperfect replicators occur in the abscence of imperfect replicators?"

How do we know that replicators were missing?

[RussP]

"I reject ID as a scientific claim. I have never claimed to know it to be false."

So you're saying that Intelligent Design theory could be true, but even if it is, it's not scientific?

[Dimensio]

How do we know that replicators were missing?

How can the existence of imperfect replicators be logically assumed when speaking of the process by which the first imperfect replicators came to exist?

[Southack]

"Inanimate matter" does not replicate."

Yes, it does. Inanimate computer programs replicate. That's a fact. That's evidence. That's scientific. That's irrefutable. That's *not* supposition.

You're busted. You lost. Game over.

[Dimensio]

So you're saying that Intelligent Design theory could be true, but even if it is, it's not scientific?

I am saying that the conjecture labelled as "intelligent design" does not satisfy the criteria required by the scientific method.

[Dimensio]

Yes, it does. Inanimate computer programs replicate.

Computer programs are not "matter".

You're busted. You lost. Game over.

You do not win arguments by redefining terms to suit your whims.

[Southack]

"Computer programs are not "matter"."

Oh good grief. As if you've never heard of Einstein! Pathetic. Energy is matter. E=MCC

Computer programs replicate. Computer programs are matter.

You lose. You even resorted to symantic games, pretended that Einstein never existed, and you still lost.

[Dimensio]

Oh good grief. As if you've never heard of Einstein! Pathetic. Energy is matter. E=MCC

Energy is not matter. Energy and matter can be interconverted based upon a constant ratio. Moreover, computer programs are not "energy". You are formulating your argument upon false assumptions.

[Southack]

Oh please. You're grasping.

Computer programs are inanimate (well, most of them). Computer programs replicate. You claimed otherwise. Game over. You lose.

Even *if* your last gasp above was worthy of a full breath for sake of argument, you are incapable of explaining why Evolutionary Theory would care, apply, or not apply to matter versus energy.

It doesn't. In your own words it just depends upon imperfect replicators.

[Dimensio]

Computer programs replicate.

Please explain the process of computer program 'replication' and how this is analagous to the 'replication' employed in the process of evolution.

In your own words it just depends upon imperfect replicators.

This is correct. I have stated all along that prior to the existence of imperfect replicators, evolution could not occur, meaning that evolution could not explain the means by which the first imperfect replicators came to exist. Your counter, that there 'may have' been imperfect replicators prior to the emergence of the first imperfect replicators implies a contradiction.

[Southack]

"Please explain the process of computer program 'replication' and how this is analagous to the 'replication' employed in the process of evolution."

Here's an easy, universal example: the computer virus program. It replicates itself (i.e. makes a copy) and propagates from computer to computer.

The better viri spread faster and to more computers. Errors in replication of the virus are likewise replicated. Viri will function differently based upon errors in replication.

This is **precisely**, incontravertibly analogous to replication among living cells.

It's not even an argument, man. There is no debate. Computer programs replicate.

[Southack]

In your own words it just depends upon imperfect replicators.

"This is correct." - Dimensio

Then stop with your useless attempts at digression vis-a-vis energy/matter. Makes no difference, per **you**!

[RussP]

Thanks for that clarification. I don't agree, but I can respect your position.

Let me give you an example of what bothers me about doctrinaire evolutionism. Several months ago someone posted a scientific article about a discovery of sophisticated network optimization in the human brain. The article was not advocating ID or anything like that. It was just one of those "gee whiz" scientific articles.

Well, someone posted it on FR as evidence for ID. No, it was not necessarily "proof" of ID, but it was certainly evidence.

The reply of evolutionists was very telling. A reasonable response would have been, "OK, that's interesting, and it may be a challenge to our theory, so we'll look into it and get back to you later." But their collective response was nothing like that. Instead, they simply dug in their heels and smugly denied that this new knowledge could possibly threaten their theory in any way. They had replies like, "Nothing new here, move along." But there *was* something new there.

Do you see what I am talking about? Doctrinaire evolutionists are so closed minded that they don't think any new evidence can possibly even challenge their grand theory. That's not how science is supposed to work.

[Dimensio]

Here's an easy, universal example: the computer virus program. It replicates itself (i.e. makes a copy) and propagates from computer to computer.

Thus it alters the energy states of specific components of the computer system. This is not analagous to self-replicating matter, especially beause this self-replication is also a direct function of the physical structure of the computer environment (rather than physical environments for imperfectily replicating matter, where the environment may sustain the imperfect replicators, but it does not 'interpret' and cause the imperfect replication).

This is **precisely**, incontravertibly analogous to replication among living cells.

Would you say that the first imperfectly replicating computer program came to exist through the same process by which copies of that program came to exist through self-replication?

[grey_whiskers]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but last call was about two hours ago.

You're not going to get *this* thread to 1000 posts just posting the same "Less Filling, Tastes Great" lines back and forth at each other.

Go read my vanity on Foley instead. :-)

(Shameless trawling alert! :-) )

Cheers!