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----

[js1138]

Ah, one or more of the 3 Evolutionist panic moves:
#1 attempt ridicule
#2 attack
#3 flee (or feign disinterest)

Science would grind to a halt if I stumbled in a debate or didn't have a snappy answer.

[Southack]

Well, at least you don't overestimate your opinion of yourself...

[Gumlegs]

Thank you for turning off the cricket chirping. They were really quite distracting.

Gee, then you'll have no difficulty citing the precise words (no more, no less) in the Theory of Evolution itself that preclude an Evolutionary explanation for inanimate matter evolving into the first living cell.

Please tell me if I go over the word limit. I’d just hate to disappoint on a technicality …

Here’s a definition from Wikpedia:

In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones.

Sharp-eyed readers will no doubt note that the theory requires shifts in allele frequencies of genes (see above paragraph). This means that for evolution to take place, one must first have alleles and genes themselves, which, in turn, occur only in living organisms. Thus, the theory assumes the existence of life before evolution can take place. Which, in turn, means, the origin of life is outside the theory.

There's also the line stating, "Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones." I hope this does not put me over the limit, but it does help to illustrate the point: the TOE is about new species from old. (Insert "Aladdin's Lamp" joke here). If you don't have the "old" species, you can't have a "new" one. QED.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Indeed it does Elsie, I just won't tell you which one it winnows out. LOL

[b_sharp]

"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."

How is that 'begging the question'?

Would that be the same Lord kelvin who in 1895 stated "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" (Australian Institute of Physics)?

Even fathers of science can on occasion be wrong.

BTW, Pasteur accepted Evolution.

Do you have any independent evidence that any of the three incorporated their belief in a Grand Designer into their science?

None of the three you mentioned had the knowledge of biology, genetics and physics that we now have. Throwing them into the mix is no more than an appeal to authority.

[Southack]

"Sharp-eyed readers will no doubt note that the theory requires shifts in allele frequencies of genes (see above paragraph). This means that for evolution to take place, one must first have alleles and genes themselves, which, in turn, occur only in living organisms."

That's incorrect. Allelomorphs (unabbreviated alleles) are merely genetic data at a specific point on a chromosone.

This appears in non-living genes (read: dead organisms) as well as in our electronic datasets of decoded genomes.

Moreover, it is problematic to guess, as you have done, that genes instantly poofed into existance in the first living cell rather than evolved from inanimate matter.

[Southack]

"There's also the line stating, "Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones." I hope this does not put me over the limit, but it does help to illustrate the point: the TOE is about new species from old."

It just runs contrary to your above guesses...as the first species *was* new.

[b_sharp]

"Sorry, but you are wrong. Pasteur lived well after Darwin's theory was widely known, and he rejected it in no uncertain terms. And he is widely recognized as one of the greatest, if not *the* greatest biologist to ever live."

Pasteur accepted evolution, although he disputed the Darwinian mechanism of inheritance and leaned more toward Lamarck's ideas.

"Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases - which does not seem very likely."¹

If you have evidence otherwise could you please post that evidence?

¹Cuny, Hilaire. 1965. Louis Pasteur: the man and his theories. Translated by P. Evans. London: The Scientific Book Club.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

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?

Russ, it would help if you actually understood what the theory of evolution does and does not cover--evolution, as a theory in the scientific sense, does not propose to answer the question of how cells came to be, as there is precious little information available to support an answer, and therefore insufficient evidence to form a theory (there are several hypotheses; however, the jump from hypothesis to theory is a significant one in science).

[Gumlegs]

You're just playing word-lawyer; the "dead organisms" objection, being a case in point. And I said "new species from old," councilor, not just "new."

[Southack]

It's not a word game. Evolution can hardly be excluded from inanimate matter evolving into the first living cell.

And how did genes suddenly appear in the first living cell if they weren't already in the inanimate matter?

I gave you two valid examples of genes existing in non-living areas: dead organisms and electronic genome logs. A third such example prior to the first living cell is hardly out of the question.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

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

A mathematical "proof" does not refute a scientific theory unless that theory itself is purely mathematical and without any observational evidence to support it.

Among other things, there is the question of how the mathematicians and physicists modeled "the simplest conceivable living cell." All modeling involves simplifying or abstracting certain elements of the thing being modeled. The choice of what to abstract can have a drastic effect on the outcome of the model. (Witness the global warming debate; changing something as simple as the cell scale in a climate model can have drastic effects on the model's output. One such change caused the model in question to "prove" that we were in a global ice age, with 20-foot-thick glaciers as far south as Mobile, Alabama.)

[Gumlegs]

I gave you two valid examples of genes existing in non-living areas: dead organisms and electronic genome logs. A third such example prior to the first living cell is hardly out of the question.

So, your addition to the TOE is that life arose from death, a sort-of "Night of the Living Evolution Theory"? Fine. Write it up and get it published, although personally I'd wonder where death came from. In the meantime, though, the current theory does not include the origin of life, no matter how devoutly you wish it were so.

[cornelis]

'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.

You're onto something here, but Dimensio is right about your antipathies.

[balrog666]

I guess he's just a wilfully-ignorant psycho-ceramic.

[Gumlegs]

I dunno. I think all scientific theories should include candy. Who do I phone?

[Stultis]

How do you *know* that inanimate matter evolving into the first living cell is outside of the realm of an Evolutionary Theory explanation?

Because evolutionary theory presupposes the existence of entities with at least the following characteristics (all these being required, for instance, for the operation of the natural selection mechanism):

1. Reproduction.
2. Superfecundity (or what Darwin called "ratio of increase;" this being the tendency to produce more offspring than the environment can ultimately support were all to survive).
3. Inheritance.
4. Variability.
5. Death.
6. Dependence on some kind of a material environment to provide the resources necessary to life.

Any entity which possessed all of these necessary characteristics would inevitably be a biological organism. Therefore evolutionary theory presupposes the existence of biological organisms.

There is nothing odd about this. All scientific theories have "boundary conditions" that delineate their relevant application. A theory without clear boundary conditions will be vague and unfocused, and invariably useless. It will be a BAD (or non-) scientific theory.

A scientific theory should apply as broadly as do it's explanatory mechanisms, but no farther. For the reasons noted above the explanatory mechanisms of evolutionary theory apply only to living things.

[Al Simmons]

"The comment from Al Simmons was purely to incite argment and should be ignored."

I plead guilty as charged. It was late, and I was feeling cranky. And since I don't drink, I can't use that alibi......

[Southack]

"Any entity which possessed all of these necessary characteristics would inevitably be a biological organism. Therefore evolutionary theory presupposes the existence of biological organisms."

No, that's just supposition on your part. All of those conditions are possible in an inanimate environment (e.g. software programs), for one thing, and for another, you've basically made them all up since they aren't itemized in any peer-reviewed paper on ToE, anyway.

[Southack]

Ah, one or more of the 3 Evolutionist panic moves:
#1 attempt ridicule
#2 attack
#3 flee (or feign disinterest)