Using Intelligent Design Theory to Guide Scientific Research

The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) ^ | 05/10/04 | Jonathan Wells

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Intelligent Design theory (ID) can contribute to science on at least two levels. On one level, ID is concerned with inferring from the evidence whether a given feature of the world is designed. This is the level on which William Dembski's explanatory filter and Michael Behe's concept of irreducible complexity operate. It is also the level that has received the most attention in recent years, largely because the existence of even one intelligently designed feature in living things (at least prior to human beings) would overturn the Darwinian theory of evolution that currently dominates Western biology. On another level, ID could function as a "metatheory," providing a conceptual framework for scientific research. By suggesting testable hypotheses about features of the world that have been systematically neglected by older metatheories (such as Darwin's), and by leading to the discovery of new features, ID could indirectly demonstrate its scientific fruitfulness. In November 2002, Bill Dembski, Paul Nelson and I visited the Detroit headquarters of Ideation, Inc. Ideation is a thriving business based on TRIZ, an acronym for the Russian words meaning "Theory of Inventive Problem Solving." Based on a survey of successful patents, TRIZ provides guidelines for finding solutions to specific engineering or manufacturing problems. When Ideation's president took us out to lunch, he told us that before ID could be taken seriously it would have to solve some real problems.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

This is a well-written paper. I would ask that the ID skeptics give it a read.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Ping

[js1138]

TOPS then explicitly rejects several implications of Darwinian evolution. These include: (1a) The implication that living things are best understood from the bottom up, in terms of their molecular constituents.

This is wrong-headed from the get-go. The key component of evolution is selection, which is top-down.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP - ID is real science - despite the misinformation of evolutionists!

[AntiGuv]

Sorry, but I don't bother reading material that headlines itself with a logical fallacy right off the top:

...the existence of even one intelligently designed feature in living things (at least prior to human beings) would overturn the Darwinian theory of evolution that currently dominates Western biology.

This is of course false. There is nothing within evolutionary science that precludes the existence of even one intelligently designed feature in living things, or even thousands for that matter.

It's a shame, however, that with the bar set so exceedingly and ridiculously low ("even one") the ID preachers can't come up with even that..

[js1138]

Recent research shows that "junk DNA" does, indeed, have previously unsuspected functions. Although that research was done in a Darwinian framework, its results came as a complete surprise to people trying to ask Darwinian research questions. The fact that "junk DNA" is not junk has emerged not because of evolutionary theory but in spite of it. On the other hand, people asking research questions in an ID framework would presumably have been looking for the functions of non-coding regions of DNA all along, and we might now know considerably more about them.

Interesting that science finds things that it is not looking for, while ID stands on the sidelines finding nothing.

Science is driven by data and data is accumulated by people who have the curiosity and methodology to collect it.

It will be interesting to see what research programs result from the assumption that there are phenomena that cannot result from natural causes. Wouldn't an honest research program entertain the null hypothesis and search for natural causes. And how would that research differ from what is being done under the umbrella paradigm of evolution?

[AntiGuv]

ID is real science

ID is theology. A scientist would never write:

"...the existence of even one intelligently designed feature in living things (at least prior to human beings) would overturn the Darwinian theory of evolution that currently dominates Western biology."

Someone with a scientific mindset would [correctly] write something along these lines:

"...the existence of even one intelligently designed feature in living things (at least prior to human beings) would raise intriguing questions about certain aspects of the Darwinian theory of evolution that currently dominates Western biology."

[gal522]

Is there any scientific or mathematical way to prove that something was designed, as opposed to just coming about by chance?

[explodingspleen]

Sorry, but I don't bother reading material that headlines itself with a logical fallacy right off the top:

"...the existence of even one intelligently designed feature in living things (at least prior to human beings) would overturn the Darwinian theory of evolution that currently dominates Western biology."

Ah. I see. One example of a biological feature unexplainable by modern Darwinian theories is no basis for rejection of present theories, but one example of biological claim you believe to be fallacious is enough to discard the entire essay which contains it. Nope, no hypocrisy here.

Btw, even if that assertion is wrong, it is not set up as a logical fallacy. Things which are incorrect are not de facto logical fallacies. Using one unrelated argument to "disprove" something else, however, is. Just for your consideration...

[cookcounty]

"Science is driven by data and data is accumulated by people who have the curiosity and methodology [and huge grants and funding] to collect it."

You left out one critical element.

[Junior]

TUCvER ping.

[explodingspleen]

"TOPS then explicitly rejects several implications of Darwinian evolution. These include: (1a) The implication that living things are best understood from the bottom up, in terms of their molecular constituents."

This is wrong-headed from the get-go. The key component of evolution is selection, which is top-down.

Notice how what you just quoted says that TOPS "rejects several implications of Darwinian evolution" (one such aspect being that things are best understood from the bottom-up). So saying it's "wrong-headed from the get-go" because natural selection is "top-down" is absurd. That is like saying "the world must be flat because a curved surface would contradict basic tenets of contemporary flat-earth theory". You cannot use a competing theory of itself to disprove a counter-proposal.

[Ichneumon]

largely because the existence of even one intelligently designed feature in living things (at least prior to human beings) would overturn the Darwinian theory of evolution that currently dominates Western biology.

AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Where did these folks get their "logic" training, from a Crackerjack box?

"The existence of even one intelligently designed feature" would at most indicate that someone's been mucking with the genome at least once. It hardly "overturns" evolution, since the discovery would be 100% compatible with (among other scenarios) the thesis that life on Earth arose via Evolution, just as the rest of the evidence indicates, but aliens swung by the Earth at least once and did some tinkering:

Anyone who says that the discovery of *one* apparently designed feature would "overturn" evolution isn't using logic, nor approaching things scientifically, they're engaging in wishful thinking and irrational emotionalism in pursuit of a goal-driven agenda.

[RadioAstronomer]

bttt for later

[Ichneumon]

Notice how what you just quoted says that TOPS "rejects several implications of Darwinian evolution" (one such aspect being that things are best understood from the bottom-up). So saying it's "wrong-headed from the get-go" because natural selection is "top-down" is absurd. That is like saying "the world must be flat because a curved surface would contradict basic tenets of contemporary flat-earth theory". You cannot use a competing theory of itself to disprove a counter-proposal.

You're completely missing the point -- the point is that TOPS is engaging in straw-man fallacies, by misrepresenting what the implications of "Darwinian evolution" are, and then "rejecting" something that evolution does not actually include.

[AntiGuv]

Abrupt departures from the phylogenetic framework would provide ample scientific evidence of intelligent design were they discernable. As it is, everything fits quite neatly and orderly within the evolutionary progression that has been well-established for some while.

Leaving that aside, trivial modifications of inconsequential deviation from the dynamics of natural selection would not be provable. In that instance, I have no problem with ID theologians painting themselves into the corner of having to prove a negative.. =)

[AntiGuv]

Oh please. Life is way too short for me to waste my time on such shoddy thinking. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. Reality is what it is.

Otherwise, that statement is at bare minimum a Fallacy of Exclusion, probably a Converse Accident Statistical Syllogism, possibly a False Dilemma, arguably Denying the Antecedent, and perhaps (depending on how it's interpreted) a Complex Question Fallacy of Distraction, a Hasty Generalization, a Slothful Induction, Post Hoc Error, Equivocation, and a Composition Error.

As a matter of fact, it's a wonderful exemplar of precisely the kind of logical contortions necessary to attribute even a modicum of credibility to ID fantasies.

[Elsie]

Prove???

Probably not.

But plain ol' common sense ought to have SOME value..........

[Elsie]

(Now we'll get the pictures of crystals and snowflakes......)

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and some other science topics like cosmology. FReepmail me to be added or dropped. Long-time list members get all pings, but can request evo-only status. New additions will be evo-only, but can request all pings. Specify all pings or you'll get evo-pings only.]