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.

Is it also possible that you could be mistaken?

If you look at Vade Retro's tag line

"Creationism is a cancer on conservatism"

I thought that to be too harsh and complained about it. But you know what, he was right and I was wrong and I freely admit it here and in post 151 on this thread.

Indeed, nothing like using someone's tagline for a guiding principle. I imagine Marx would have said something similar, but I guess we can never know that. I guess once you dismiss all religious works and the Constitution, taglines are about all you have left to form you beliefs around.

You've finally crossed the line from confused to just silly. Best of luck to you.

If someone wants to publish it, why not.
The next question should be
Should children be required to read it as a high school text book ?

My answer is no way.

Agreed, on both counts.

That was YOU who thought I was too harsh? I thought it was all the creationists!

;)

I most posters start out wanting to be reasonable and just patiently lay out why they think as they do. I did, six years ago.

Anyone who spends any time disagreeing with creationists quickly learns to expect the merry dance, the slop bucket over the head, the "I see nossink!" Sgt. Schultz mimic, the mentions of facing God's wrath later on ...

Except more lately it's civil war and metal-jacketed bullets and burning at the stake. Losing in Dover may have unhinged some of them. Then again, unhinging a creationist is like stinking up a skunk.

Would "and the connection between creationism and ID as defined by the authors of the ID textbook "Of People and Pandas" isn't tenuous at all - ID is merely a rebranding of creationism" suffice?

I am compelled to fall back upon what I presented in post 259. If "Creation", as used interchangeably with "ID" by the authors of "Of Pandas and People" isn't the central tenet of "Creationism", and "Of Pandas and People" isn't an authoritative textbook on (now) "ID", then I'll accept the error of my ways.

If, on the other hand, "Creationism" and "ID" are merely nebulous catchalls for a multitude of dissimilar beliefs (God created the world in 7 days vs. God took his time, ID that rejects evolution vs. ID that accepts evolution, etc.), then I don't feel any responsibility whatsoever for failing to take into account the heretical views of the hellbound who turn their backs upon orthodoxy. = )

As to Judge Jones, am I going to have to review the relevant portions of the Edwards, and Freiler decisions to get some background on his statement? Yes. Am I willing to do that at this time? No.

So, yeah, the portion of Judge Jones' decision that you quoted does appear odd to me, but my opinion is admittedly ignorant.

"I will say, unequivocally, I am (as practically every professional working biologist I have ever met) convinced by the overwhelming body of evidence that Darwin’s concept of evolution, and its subsequent modifications by the last 150 years of investigation, is the correct, and the best explanation for the great cornucopia of living creatures with which we share this planet."

Now, there's an open-minded reviewer for you, eh.

"I’m absolutely appalled by Behe’s arguments, which are simply a rehash of ideas that Darwin considered and rejected."

Oh, so Darwin knew enough to reject Behe's analysis of blood clotting and flagellum? Baloney.

But here's my favorite little tip-off to the mindset of this reviewer:

"At present I’m involved in product development for an immunodiagnostics company, and we are discussing how to approach to Avian flu, and how we can design a test that takes into account the constantly evolving nature of the RNA viruses. Do the intelligent designers want to return us to a time when mankind attributed disease to evil spirits, and allow us no tools to understand the ravages of epidemic diseases, and how to design therapies and diagnostics against them?"

So one needs to apply the theory of evolution to study the "evolving nature of the RNA viruses"? I'm sure that will come in handy if one of those viruses evolves into a salamander or something, eh!

This "review" demonstrates nothing more than the level of irrational and vociferous opposition that pioneers like Behe face on a daily basis. The sheer vehemence of the review demonstrates that all by itself.

Again, I thank the Lord I did not choose biology as a career. They get pilloried for thinking.

Do you suppose it is "faulty memory" that cause certain people on this thread to appear to forget that it was Behe himself who testified under oath that HE compiled the list of reviewers and gave the list to his book editor, or perhaps something more pernicious is at work here?

The stunning incoherence and lack of rationality, as well as a paucity of facts in the face of verifiable quotes from the trial testimony, the court's decision, as well as other sources, manifested by some here who are unhappy with the outcome of the trial are quite revealing. I don't think I can recall ever witnessing the spectacle of such an intellectual bed-wetting as this. I, too, am glad such people never decided to be biologists.

The reviews of Behe's book that were posted on this thread were a joke. When someone claims with a straight face that Darwin had already considered and rejected Behe's analysis, something is obviously wrong. The reviewers clearly had their minds made up before they even started reading.

And you want to talk about lies? When a reviewer implies that ID theorists reject micro-evolution ("evolution" of a virus to another form of the virus), he is just rehashing a classic evolutionist lie about ID.

If nothing else, the sheer hostility of these "reviews" is a dead giveaway to the agenda of the reviewers. Why are they personally offended by the notion of intelligent design? Obviously because it threatens their worldview. So much for "disinterested" scholarship!

Clearly Behe would have an extremely difficult time getting a fair review of his book. It would be like Galileo trying to get a fair review from the church.

If you don't see the difference between "believe in a creator is a mistake" and "teaching belief in a creator in science class is a mistake"

TN4Liberty took my post that I thought "teaching belief in a creator in science class is a mistake" and morphed into "Newton's believe (belief) in a creator is a mistake"

Sorry, but that is a lie. I never said anything remotely resembling "Newton's believe in a creator is a mistake"

I see. So basically, what you're suggesting is that the reviews covered so far are flawed due to some sort of bias, as indicated by the fact that they were generally negative. Instead, we're supposed to imagine that, somewhere out there, there are anonymous reviewers, mysterious reviewers we have no evidence for, writing reviews that have not yet been actually presented to us here, but we should, for some reason, assume that these imaginary reviews are both meticulous and favorable to Behe. That about the size of it?

Hey, while we're engaging in this rich flight of fancy, allow me to add on - maybe these mysterious reviewers were, in fact, Santa Claus and the Loch Ness Monster. No doubt it just slipped Behe's mind when asked about the reviews of his work to mention the meticulous and positive reviews he's garnered. I can't imagine why - I'd sure remember if Santa and Nessie gave me some good dust-jacket quotes,

Returning to an early issue, some posters have objected (See #249) to THIS quote from the Dover Decision:

On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." (22:22-23 (Behe)).

on the grounds that it was the judge's characterization of Behe's testimony, as opposed to the actual testimony itself.

I call your attention to the quotation marks around the testimony. You will note that elsewhere, when the judge paraphrases testimony, he does not use quotation marks. So, it seems safe to assume the statement atributed to Behe by the judge is, in fact, an accurate representation of Behe's testimony under oath to the court.

Transcripts of Behe's testimony are readily available - presumably, if this were really an issue, one of the critics would have posted corrections from the transcript by now. Of course, this assumes that said critics have an actual interest in actually uncovering the actual facts at hand, an assumption that is not exactly supported by the record thus far.

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.