Posted on 12/25/2005 1:41:41 PM PST by RussP
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
Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific?
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.
http://RussP.us/IDscience.htm
Evolution also allows for the possibility that speciation may be cyclic, going round and round the same track forever.
And yet, you felt compelled to post.
In your independent reading have you come across a complete, modern philosophical theory of the state written since, say, WW II?
Infinity is no obstacle, at least in principle. The first and unmistakable sign of intelligent life in any form is the existence of its own [immanent] idiots - and the idiots, and their product - idiocy - are universally detectable. This solves the problem of sensors and what to look for. And that's why, BTW, SETI has not yet come with anything - they have been looking for the wrong thing.
Very possible. Any idea what the right thing would be?
It's funny, in some article by Dembski he addresses this question, I think in relation to the human retina which is "backward" leading to deficits like the blind spot in the optical field and lessened light sensitivity. He says that "intelligent" in Intelligent Design has a specific, technical meaning and that a bad or dumb design can still be an Intelligent Design. (It seems to me this is just question begging though - how dumb can it be and still be Intelligent Design?)
Of course then he goes on for multiple paragraphs arguing that the retina being backward isn't really dumb at all. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Yes, the gap theory. The Hebrew word translated 'void' means 'destruction', among other shades of meaning. Later in Isaiah, God declares that He did not create the world 'in vain', the same word translated slightly differently.
The logical triangulation suggests that Eden and the present reality was built upon the destruction of an earlier order. This would explain the existence of the serpent in the first place, a holdover from the previous judgment that brought 'destruction' (darkness) upon the face of the deep in v.1.
This would also explain the mandate of rulership and conquest that God placed upon Adam. He knew there was an enemy out there, a resistance to His authority. Adam was to be His general, His sub-King. But treason was committed, and we have the present state of affairs.
Personally, I think this explains the sick proclivities of human nature as well as the nobility inherent in us all, much more convincingly than primordial amino acids. But then, I'm not a scientist.
Would Hayek or Rand qualify?
"It's funny, in some article by Dembski he addresses this question, I think in relation to the human retina which is "backward" leading to deficits like the blind spot in the optical field and lessened light sensitivity. He says that "intelligent" in Intelligent Design has a specific, technical meaning and that a bad or dumb design can still be an Intelligent Design. (It seems to me this is just question begging though - how dumb can it be and still be Intelligent Design?)"
Of course "dumb" design can still be "intelligent" design in the sense that it didn't fall together by random chance. Take the Chernobyl reactor as a case in point. It was certainly designed by intelligent beings, but it was a dumb design.
In that they can make up the rules to suit their conclusions and change them at will.
ID is a set of questions towards the theory of evolution, it is not a full blown theory. It is quite simply a smell test.
Staytrue said: "Teaching ID in schools would be nonesense (sic) and a bastardization of the word science."
Would Newton's quote be appropriate for a science class? Or would it be more appropriate to censor his work?
I have seen little since Spencer and Hegel that develops a non-marxian comprehensive idea of the state. A few hints here and there recently such as Agamben, but rejection of the fascist philosophers seems to have closed it down. There are a couple of libertarians, but they don't explain the existence of the modern corporation.
We, as unlimited yet finite beings, cannot, using mere logic, develop a concept of absolute reality.
I'm not sure I see the analogy. The notion that ID can be taught as though it were science is being challenged. If the ID-ers ever came up with a research program, they'd be perfectly free to persue it.
AS Behe and the DI have admitted, that's a big problem with ID - there is no research, either in the lab or in the field, nor is any contemplated.
SETI, on the other hand, is research. It is also privately funded. There is the observation that the only known sources of narrow-band radio signals are manmade, the observation that existing technology could detect signals from the Earth at a distance of hundreds of light years, the observation that there are thousands of stars, and perhaps planetary systems that close, and the hypothesis that there might be ETs using radio technology.
The SETI researchers have said, "this is one possible way that ETs could be detected, based on what we know about human technology. Let's give it a try."
They're not pestering school boards to do anything, nor are they using tax funds.
Where are the ID researchers? What hypothesis are they trying to confirm or falsify?
Even more to the point, why hasn't Behe come up with a proof that irredcucibly complex things cannot be the product of evolution. He uses this assumption, where's the justification for it? (One reason he hasn't, of course, is that it's not true)
RA, I'm pinging you in case you have anything to add about SETI.
Merry Christmas!
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
By the way, The Principia is widely regarded as perhaps the most important single scientific publication of all times.
Funny how science is being "bastardized" by the dogmatic denial of ID these days, eh?
I just mentioned - idiocy, and its source - idiots. Starting from what is familiar - the majority of electromagnetic [so-called informational] emissions from Earth consists of commercials, soap operas, cacophonous howling and other suchlike. The informational value is very low, and antillectual level is close to zero or negative. So, if one was to search for intelligent life on Earth from the sewage we pour out, one would conclude that the planet is devoid of intelligence [if one was looking for higher intellectual achievement]. If, OTOH, one would recognize that the idiotic trash we are spewing is, indeed, our intelligence [or whatever passes for it], then identification of planet Earth with intelligent life would be unmistakable. One does not even need to go into electromagnetic emissions. If one is visiting an exotic tribe, the chances of encountering the local Einstein are small, but chances of hitting upon an aborigine who is simultaneously picking his left nostril with his left hand, his right nostril with the right hand, and is drooling at the same time are much greater. Generalizing from this, one comes to the statement that the majority of antillectual output occurs at very low to negative levels.
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.