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----

[freedumb2003]

Because.

[freedumb2003]

LOL!!! Cool!!! I win!!! LOL!!!

It always feels good to win the thread.

[FairWitness]

There are estimated to be at least 1000 enzymes in a functioning cell. Each one is a remarkable physical machine. For the most part, they are organized in "pathways". I had to memorize dozens of these pathways as a biochemistry student in the 60's. Back then "intermediary metabolism" was still being worked out. The thing is, so many of the "intermediates", each of which is produced by an enzyme, are of no use to the cell without prior existence of the other enzymes in the pathway. This can involve up to 8 steps, as in the de novo synthesis of purines. I am still waiting for an explanation of the selective process/pressure for dedication of the resources of a cell to produce enzymes which produce metabolites for which the cell has no use unless it already has the other enzymes in the pathway. I believe it can be done, but that is an expression of faith, not scientific proof.

[VadeRetro]

There are estimated to be at least 1000 enzymes in a functioning cell. Each one is a remarkable physical machine. For the most part, they are organized in "pathways". I had to memorize dozens of these pathways as a biochemistry student in the 60's. Back then "intermediary metabolism" was still being worked out. The thing is, so many of the "intermediates", each of which is produced by an enzyme, are of no use to the cell without prior existence of the other enzymes in the pathway. This can involve up to 8 steps, as in the de novo synthesis of purines.

You're claiming, if I get you right, that this is evidence for Intelligent Design and not patchwork evolution. Does this Designer like us?

[mugs99]

This article is a straw man. Intelligent Design is nothing more than an attempt to get religion into the schools and that is easily proved.

"I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance."...Charles Darwin

The supporters of Intelligent Design attack "Darwinism" yet "Darwinism" is Intelligent Design. They're forced into this ridiculous position by their need to compete with evolution to achieve their goal.
.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

And again, so what?

Evolution does not depend on the nonlife before life, it really doesn't care.

Life came into existence, evolution kicked in.

Imperfect replicator, and evolution did it's thing.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Does this Designer like us?

Highly doubtful, otherwise he would have designed us better.

If we had a designer, he hates us, and he's evil, and sadistic.

[balrog666]

Wow! You've demonstrated that you haven't learned a single thing since the last time you posted this ignorance-inspired drivel - welcome to Trollville, RussP.

[FairWitness]

You're claiming, if I get you right, that this is evidence for Intelligent Design and not patchwork evolution. Does this Designer like us?

No, you dont get me right (see reply #21 bove). What it is, is evidence that evolutionary mechanisms are still not very well understood or satisfying to some of us who have struggled with the complexity of the living cell (one little dot on the metabolic pathway chart I posted was put there by my work - it has taken thousands of folks to put the whole thing together). I believe there is no such thing in chemistry, or biochemistry, as "action at a distance". In other words, every molecule, every enzyme is built up by some understandable (but still to be understood in some cases) mechanism. I will be right up front, clapping, when such mechanisms are discovered/explained (I'm retired and past the point where I could contribute).

[Gumlegs]

TOE is useless if it can't explain how life evolved from inanimate matter.

That's like saying color theory is useless if it can't explain how colors evolved from blackness.

[FairWitness]

Evolution does not depend on the nonlife before life, it really doesn't care.

I know this is supposed to be a conversation stopper, but it always strikes me as strange. It is as if you are saying that you wouldn't argue back if someone argued that the first cell could have come into being by "design" rather than natural processes, and I doubt if that's what you mean.

[VadeRetro]

No, you dont get me right (see reply #21 bove).

I assume you mean 27, but I found it. I can't guess when we'll know the precise evolutionary history of every metabolic pathway in every living cell. This is a somewhat a separate issue from accepting the general notion that evolution has produced the diversity of life on Earth, life on Earth is related by common descent, and the Earth is pretty old BTW.

I realize you're not debating all that stuff, but everyone else here is and to the extent you're not, you're a non-combatant wandering around in the line of fire.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

I really have no idea if it was by design, or if it was accidental, or what, there isn't enough evidence that I have read for me to make any kind of statement.

I know what I believe, but that's not scientific by a long shot.

The thing you guys must realize, is that science is not afraid to say, we don't know. And neither am I.

[AtomicBuffaloWings]

Do you consider astrology to be science?
Micheal Behe has said that his definition of THEORY is so broad that ID as well as astrology are acceptable scientific theories.

I don't know any conservatives that read the daily horoscopes but I know quite a few liberals that do.

[DaGman]

Good response. This was also my first thought. Evolution is not concerned with how the first cell came about. Maybe a creator actually created it just to get things going. Maybe the first cell got here as a cell on a meteorite from Mars or some other world. Evolution doesn't claim to know or care. Evolution is concerned with what happened after that.

[cornelis]

Nice.

linear progression: first A then B then C then D.

What happens B needs D to produce C?

[FairWitness]

Evolution does not depend on the nonlife before life, it really doesn't care.

I guess maybe that is why I am here. I don't think a lot of the "combat" (and vitriol) is very helpful. furthermore, I don't think the world will fall apart if one sentence is included in a textbook acknowledging that evolutionary theory should be viewed as incomplete in some respects.

I've said before that, following my freshman biology class in college, I went through 9 more years of scientific training and 32 years as a practicing biochemist (with supervisory responsibility for a couple of molecular biologists/gene splicers) without ever hearing any further discussion of evolution. I firmly believe that any kid who has any meaningful scientific curiosity will do fine in science even if his/her beginning biology text is "tainted", because for the rest of their life, if they are "scientists", they will go where the facts lead. I wish a truce could be called.

[FairWitness]

Wrong quote. I meant for #57 to respond to: "I realize you're not debating all that stuff, but everyone else here is and to the extent you're not, you're a non-combatant wandering around in the line of fire."

[grey_whiskers]

Your argument employs three false premises, thus it cannot be trusted as valid.

Validity of an argument does NOT depend on the truth value of its premises.

Perhaps the word "veridical" or "veriferous" would be better.

Cheers!

[balrog666]

I know this is supposed to be a conversation stopper, but it always strikes me as strange. It is as if you are saying that you wouldn't argue back if someone argued that the first cell could have come into being by "design" rather than natural processes, and I doubt if that's what you mean.

That's exactly what he means.

Any alien (or any god) could have jump started life on Earth with a few well designed cells.

It just doesn't make any difference to what happened later.