Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific?

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

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.

I was also going to throw Von Mises in there, but he was more economist I guess, and I think he was before WWII anyway.

But you're right, I had a hard time thinking of any good ones. I guess the existence of the modern corporation is to make money? haha

I have my own reasons for being in business, they are tied to my faith and calling before God. I think the real reason for our present existence as a nation, right now, is to bring freedom and ultimately, the knowledge of Christ to the communist and islamic world. Not in an oficial governmental capacity, but as individuals working with the ebb and flow of history.

God always seems to work within empires a certain way. The mantle has fallen to Rome, Gaul, Spain, Britain and now us.

Just my theory. I have to go now, Merry Christmas!

Hilarious - accusations of "character assassination" from the poster who thinks that accusing darwinists of being communists and/or fascists in dress-up is a legitimate critique.

Refund - that's the ticket for you.

I never said Darwinists were communists or fascists! You don't seem very high in reading comprehension, do you? My point was that the teaching of Darwinism, while ruling out any challenges or discussing its full implications, is bad for a free and decent society. I think a look at societies which were founded on materialistic views of man and ruled out anything transcendent bear that out.

And that's why, BTW, SETI has not yet come with anything - they have been looking for the wrong thing.

So we should be searching for the extraterrestrial version of "Oprah" -- call it "Myanous"

Humans, are they a myth? Next on "Myanous" we have interviews of those who claim to have been collected by humans..."

"It was horrible...they did bizarre experiments on me..."

Cheers!

(It seems to me this is just question begging though - how dumb can it be and still be Intelligent Design?)

Ask Bill Gates ;-)

Full Disclosure: DU doesn't count, as it is NOT intelligent.

Cheers!

...and Merry Christmas!

"...I was never taught another alternative to evolution ..."

Neither was I, and that was in private Catholic grade and high school and college.

Besides evolution and ID there are a couple of other "theories" that could explain the origins of life on our planet.

When we exclude all others for the sake of one (evolution) we imply that evolution is scientific fact and all others to be "theory" or "belief".

That is not teaching science. This is teaching religious dogma.

"Agamben"

Never even heard of the name. Can you give further details?

Full Disclosure: Have you ever read Hilaire Belloc's The Servile State (written pre-Bolshevik revolution, BTW)?

Cheers!

...and Merry Christmas!

Find a very old alien seedship and a biology lab in the asteroid belt or on the dark side of the moon, and you'd be up to your hips in evidence and research projects.

Not to mention a lifetime supply of tired, old sci-fi plots.

Cheers!

...and Merry Christmas!

I agree whole heartedly! Our government should get out of the business of education and get into the business of protecting its citizens from bad guys that wish to do us harm.

Let the free market place provide our education!

There's no evidence for that, but it's probably what we would do if we found another planet that would support Earth life forms.

There'd be a battle royale among the Exxon Mobils, the environmentalists, the lawyers, and the developers over who got first dibs.

...and as usual the winners would be the lobbyists.

Cheers!

...and Merry Christmas!

"YEC SPOTREP - what a waste of time this has become: evolutionists refuse to examine any evidence offered by creationists/ID. Evolutionists simply resort to name calling and cliches ... no further entries will be made on this thread."

LOL! I've made the same promise to myself on a dozen other threads like this for the same reason ... and I always come back to the next one.

Resistance is futile. You will be absorbed.

ID is a dead issue. It died with the Dover school board decision. To discuss ID futher only gives it more life than it deserves. The only people even interested in trying to discuss ID are people that believe it.

Prediction: This post will be responded to with the usual chants of "evolutionists refusing to debate the merits of evolution". The ID'ers, as did the Dover court, have heard the arguments. But the ID'ers refuse to acknowledge they heard then repeat their chant again in a circular fashion. Therefore, why even engage ID'ers. They are not intellectually honest nor do they ever intend to be.

Most people don't...until they need one.

...and then they find out just WHY they had been right to hate them all along.

Cheers!

...and Merry Christmas!

What you call "politicians" who "interfere" in the classroom are the elected representatives of the people. I'd rather have them making decisions than some priesthood of elitists in "conferences." As Wm. Buckley once said, he'd rather be governed by the first few pages of people in the phone book than the faculty of Harvard. Evolution, true or not, has no practical utility to the vast majority of people, even scientists. So why the obsession with teaching it to students who have no real grasp of even simple facts of hard science? The answer is that it is essential to a reductionist materialist view of life. Having members of one elite priesthood (the legal profession) stomp on elected officials to please another secular priesthood (evolutionists) should frighten any conservative.

"ID is a dead issue. It died with the Dover school board decision."

I suppose the issue of slavery died with the Dred Scott decision? And the issue of abortion with Roe v. Wade?

What gives this hack judge who probably never studied anything but the minimum science required by his pre-law degree, any qualification to determine what is and is not science?

LOL. Let's introduce all these studies of societies that were ostensibly "Darwinist" into science class, and pretend that it has some bearing on the worth of the science. Riiight.

Nah, I think you're just going to have to find some other board to try selling that one - nobody here is really quite as dumb as you seem to assume in trying to pass that pile off.

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.