Replies

Unless and until Intelligent Design theorists can reformulate the I.D. hypothesis in such a way as to present it as "disprovable," which is the test of a scientific argument, the theory remains unscientific and does not pass the "rationality test" nearly so well as the Theory of Evolution. The researchers are attempting to prove the origins of complexity and design. The I.D. theorists insist that we accept an Intelligent Designer on faith since those origins have yet to be effectively demonstrated.

The test of a scientific argument -- falsifiability -- depends on observations of phenomena that reside within the 4D block of "ordinary" space-time. However, neither mathematics nor information appears to be the product of the 4D block, although we readily recognize that both are in evidence within the 4D block. Similarly, we can readily observe evidence of design in nature. But design presumably is also "extra" to the 4D block, similarly as mathematics and information. So how can we directly test it? How does science test a universal that does not have its origin in ordinary space-time?

And yet the evidence or by-products of design are there in nature, and can be observed.

Evolutionary theory likewise is not a phenomenal object in the sense that it is not a direct production of nature. It is a conceptualization; that is, it is an immaterial entity that purports to be a universal rule of nature. In this regard, I do not perceive any real difference in its status as compared with design theory: Both are non-phenomenal, immaterial objects that arise in human consciousness -- another non-phenomenal reality that appears to be irreducible to "matter in its motions."

That is, consciousness is something that is "extra" to the 4D block of directly observable phenomena. Because it is intangible, ought we to ignore it? If we must ignore it in order to satisfy the scientific method, then what would be the status of either evolutionary theory or design theory? Falsify their source, and what have you got left?

Just one more quick reply and then I gotta go. Betty Boop sez:

Because [consciousness] is intangible, ought we to ignore it? If we must ignore it in order to satisfy the scientific method, then what would be the status of either evolutionary theory or design theory?

I would certainly say that consciousness should not be 'ignored' by science, and I hasten to add that I don't think it is ignored. However, I don't see that this issue, though fascinating in its own right, has any special bearing on natural selection vs. intelligent design, which concerns not the existence or nature of consciousness but the possible role of intelligence in the generation of complex systems.

So long, everyone. Thanks for the interesting chat.

Magnificient post, betty boop!

The test of a scientific argument -- falsifiability -- depends on observations of phenomena that reside within the 4D block of "ordinary" space-time. However, neither mathematics nor information appears to be the product of the 4D block, although we readily recognize that both are in evidence within the 4D block. Similarly, we can readily observe evidence of design in nature. But design presumably is also "extra" to the 4D block, similarly as mathematics and information. So how can we directly test it? How does science test a universal that does not have its origin in ordinary space-time?

And yet the evidence or by-products of design are there in nature, and can be observed.

Evolutionary theory likewise is not a phenomenal object in the sense that it is not a direct production of nature. It is a conceptualization; that is, it is an immaterial entity that purports to be a universal rule of nature. In this regard, I do not perceive any real difference in its status as compared with design theory:

Well said. Excellent argument - all theories ought to be weighed on the same scales.