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----

[Vaquero]

The bible....especially the old testament....was written by MEN...they may have been inspired by God, but they were written by sandle wearing, bronze age, sheep hearders....

read this:

the Vatican's chief astronomer, Fr. George Coyne, issued a statement on 18 November 2005 saying that "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science." Cardinal Paul Poupard added that "the faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity." He also warned of the permanent lesson we have learned from the Galileo case, and that "we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism." Fiorenzo Facchini, professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, called intelligent design unscientific, and wrote in the January 16-17, 2006 edition L'Osservatore Romano: "But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science....It only creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious."

[highball]

"But it was obviously not written in such a spirit of fair play - confusing evolution and abiogenesis reveals either gross ignorance of science or a dishonest attempt to obfuscate.'

Confusing?

Not to me!

It merely pointed out that you HAVE to have the Second before the First can be alledged to occur.

Not confusing in the sense that one gets lost reading it, but confusing in the sense that it pretends the two subjects are necessarilty related. The author is confused about the subject matter. Well, that or deliberately obfuscating, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Introducing abiogenesis into a discussion on evolution is disingenuous. They are two separate subjects. Only people who cannot address the former feel compelled to cover such inabilty by insisting that we talk about the second instead. It's an attempt to change the subject, and it betrays either a lack of knowledge or a hidden agenda.

Think of it like physics. When describing the velocity of a car in motion, it doesn't matter who built the car.

Add "changes the subject" to "tries to redefine terms" on our 'Objective Signs That the Argument Is Weak' list.

I swear, no conservative would ever let a liberal get away with the kind of rhetorical tactics that ID relies upon....

[GourmetDan]

Likewise, evolution fails as science because it is ultimately an appeal to ignorance. It suggests that if no known natural process can produce a biological feature, than there is some unknown natural process that can produce it.

It is not an explanation derived from evidence, it is conjecture resulting from ignorance. This is not how science operates.

[Dimensio]

You are incorrect.

[Dimensio]

Get a copy of Grey's anatomy and flip through a few pages. Read the text too. Then get back to me and tell me if you see any evidence of design.

Merely looking at human anatomy is not itself evidence of design. Evidence would require demonstrating artifacts indicative of a design process. You have not even stated the mechanisms of the design process, much less what artifacts may be left from it.

[Dimensio]

Evolution is all speculation and zero speciation.

You are incorrect.

Only intelligence can create intelligence, randomness does not.

This is a false dichotomy.

[Dimensio]

Likewise, evolution fails as science because it is ultimately an appeal to ignorance. It suggests that if no known natural process can produce a biological feature, than there is some unknown natural process that can produce it.

This is an assumption of all biology, which is itself as specialized assumption of naturalism applicable to all of science. You are attacking a scientific theory as 'unscientific' because it adheres to the limitations of science. Your objection is illogical.

[js1138]

Most Christians 'believe' Evolution the earth orbits the sun because they do NOT know what their Bible says.

Fixed it.

[skeptoid]

just finished following the '...routinely cause..' and 'subtraction' shortcuts.

I must point out that the "Scenario #2: Loss of Scaffolding" argument is seriously flawed. It requires a need for the arch, a decision to build, a designer, a builder and a crew to erect and later dismantle and remove the scaffolding.
If the example were at all valid, an impossibly tiny set of instructions accidentally dropped on the bank of the stream by a random windborne speck of dust would inspire two stones to spontaneously reproduce themselves in the shape of the arch.

The example shown in the shortcut:

is a perfect example of ....
EROSION,

NOT EVOLUTION.

[js1138]

Do you have a point? Erosion happens in evolution.

[skeptoid]

wAKE Up.........you are in the wrong class

[DoctorMichael]

Actually I thought it was quite jocular given the content of the previously posted article.

[GourmetDan]

Yes, the 'a priori' commitment to naturalism is quite a restraint on 'all of science'. I agree.

I merely point out that 'science' has it's own 'God of the Gaps' in the *assumption* that unknown natural processes exist and therefore is just as un-scientific as ID.

Real science is actually known today as 'technology'.

What passes for science today is actually pantheism repackaged.

[Dimensio]

Yes, the 'a priori' commitment to naturalism is quite a restraint on 'all of science'.

It is not a restraint, it is a paremeter. Science is the study of natural processes within the natural universe. Studying non-natural processes is therefore not science.

I merely point out that 'science' has it's own 'God of the Gaps' in the *assumption* that unknown natural processes exist and therefore is just as un-scientific as ID.

Are you saying that all natural processes are known?

What passes for science today is actually pantheism repackaged.

Please justify this assertion.

[js1138]

d0UhaveA.?

[VadeRetro]

I must point out that the "Scenario #2: Loss of Scaffolding" argument is seriously flawed. It requires a need for the arch, a decision to build, a designer, a builder and a crew to erect and later dismantle and remove the scaffolding.

Begs the question, wouldn't you think? Can you prove the need for a Designer by simply invoking the need for a Designer?

[Buck W.]

Evolution IS an example of an "intelligent design" path.

[skeptoid]

typingwhile recclimimg withm laptop on chest

[skeptoid]

Somebody built the arch.

[RussP]

"One can believe in the creation of the universe by a creator..the same creator who made the 'soul' of man in his own image and likeness, without throwing out the science of the universe. You see by throwing out the science...your questioning God's motives...his techniques and you're not living up to his expectations of the inquisitive sentient being he breathed life into."

This is a classic example of "begging the question." Who is "throwing out science"? You perhaps, but certainly not me. Would you say that Newton, Kelvin, and Pasteur "threw out science"? They all believed passionately in ID, and they were the fathers of science. Get a clue.