Why Are Darwinists So Afraid of Intelligent Design?

Human Events ^ | Jan 17, 2006 | Barney Brenner

[jec41]

Scientists often disagree. Why can't religious people?

On the contrair, religions, and religious people do disagree continuously. Their positions are based on belief and faith and none has provided any empirical proof but only philosophical proofs derived from logical deduction.
Each would argue that their belief and faith is more logical deducted than any other. A religion that presents a presents a strong logical deductions for its belief and faith is more likely to be received or accepted than a religion that presents a weak argument for it belief and faith. That determines why some religions fail and fade away while others struggle on.

[mlc9852]

Same reason scientific theories continue to be argued about.

[b_sharp]

I don't think anybody is denying that we can identify human or even another organism's design as long as we are familiar with the designer's capability, opportunity and intent.

My point was that every technique we currently use to identify design is based on the previously mentioned knowledge or the assumption that other 'alien' designers will create artifacts similar to ours. Even SETI uses this assumption. They are not looking for a complex or information filled signal, they are looking for a signal on what we feel is the most likely frequency to reach us. If we determine this frequency to be the most effective then other intelligences will probably utilize that same frequency.

Now this does reinforce the idea that ID can be science if they use the same assumptions of limitation for alien intelligences that SETI uses, but is this what ID is proposing?

ID is proposing that there is a method that will enable us to determine if the genome has evolved or if it has been designed. Before this methodology can be considered useful in any science it has to pass testing. Does it reliably provide true positives while minimizing or eliminating false positives? Can it be used to differentiate between natural and designed objects outside of the genome? Can it be used rigorously?

The ID hypothesis is not simply stating - 'it looks designed so it must be designed' - it is stating that there is a rigorous scientific method that can be used successfully in different circumstances.

For this to be true the method must be able to function equally well in a wide range of conditions. It has to be able to tell if a rock is really a hammer or just a rock. It also has to be able to tell if the 'information' our atmosphere receives from the Sun is designed or natural.

If we apply our current design recognition methodology to 'rocks' in an attempt to determine human design, we must know a number of things, no single one of which is sufficient to make the determination. We need to know that humans have frequented the area and when, whether or not those humans were capable of producing an artifact of this level as well as what tools they had to create the artifact. Of course the reason we singled out this particular rock from a host of others is because something about it looked out of place when compared to our knowledge of naturally occurring rocks.

When we apply this same methodology to the genome or to the 'information' being transmitted from the Sun to Earth it is of no help.

The only intelligent role model we have is ourselves. Currently, we can not create life from chemicals (if we could there would be no doubt that abiogenesis is possible). All we can do is substitute one gene for another, making us mechanics not true designers. This does not help us determine if the genome is designed or natural, as we have no knowledge of a designer on which to base our decision. Even if we extrapolate our own abilities into the future where we can produce a genome from scratch, the genome we create would only look out of place if we intentionally make it look so, or put our stamp on it. We do not see this in the genome, there are nothing but similarities; all genomes look to be 'in place'. Additionally, there are no tool marks that we recognize, we have no idea if a designer was available at the start, we have no idea of a putative designer's capabilities or his intent. Perhaps the designer intended on growing a loaf of bread and things got out of hand. Would that make the genome designed or a product of natural evolution? This may sound like a silly question, by my intent is to show the difficulty in design determination using our current methodology given that the capability and intent of the designer is unknown .

Your argument that the methodology used by archaeologists proves that ID can be scientific fails when considering the genome. ID needs to use some other methodology to determine design in something like the genome; it requires a methodology that can verify or falsify the ID hypothesis.

So far all ID has come up with is an argument from incredulity - the genome is too complex to be anything but designed -, Dembski's CSI and an inference engine that has been show to produce many false positives, and Behe's IC which has been shown to be an unfounded assumption and a simple restatement of the argument from incredulity.

ID as it stands right now is based on a false assumption - that nature cannot produce complexity that 'appears' to have intent. Much has to be fixed before ID can be considered a science.

[jec41]

And what are the 'odds' of winning the PowerBall???

Yet, people do it quite regularly.

A religion that is proved true will remain constant in belief, faith and proof always. It will refute any testing. On the other hand the sequence of numbers that wins powerball are only correct when they win in a given time frame. If they always won the same numbers would be submitted by everyone every time.

[Ichneumon]

[In all likelihood, biologists would realize rather quickly that the sequence was out of place, simply by comparing it to other pig genomes.]

Testable, falsifiable. So ID is, in this case, scientific.

You're missing the point. For the most part, the "ID movement" very carefully *avoids* making any testable hypotheses. And the few times it has, they have *already* been falsified.

This is *why* the ID folks are so reluctant to stake out any actual position, construct any actual theory. Until they do, ID isn't science, it's a mere belief.

In order to be taken seriously, and deserve a spot in classrooms, etc., the ID folks will have to BOTH come up with an actual scientific "theory of ID" (i.e., a system of explanations which both make testable predictions and which can potentially be falsified), *AND* have that theory be actually validated by having been tested against the evidence and found to be consistent with the evidence AS A WHOLE.

Until then, they can hold their breath until they turn blue, but that still won't make their unsupported (and for the most part religiously-based) beliefs into *science*. The IDers want to pretend that their notions are science, in order to dishonestly gain the respect that scientifically validated theories rightly have earned.

[r9etb]

You're missing the point. You're missing the point. For the most part, the "ID movement" very carefully *avoids* making any testable hypotheses. And the few times it has, they have *already* been falsified.

1. I have the advantage of dealing with specifics, whereas you persist in generalities.

2. If you're correct that certain ID hypotheses have been falsified, then the standard "it's not science because it can't be falsified" argument is self-evidently wrong.

[PatrickHenry]

Hee hee.

[jec41]

Same reason scientific theories continue to be argued about.

Yes, all theories should be tested. However most scientific arguments are either resolved or continued on empirical evidence and whats logically concluded from the evidence. Philosophy attempts to to prove by logical deduction beliefs and faith that are devoid of empirical evidence. Lacking empirical evidence proof is derive by presenting the strongest argument and the most logical deduction.

[Ichneumon]

[You're missing the point. You're missing the point. For the most part, the "ID movement" very carefully *avoids* making any testable hypotheses. And the few times it has, they have *already* been falsified.]

1. I have the advantage of dealing with specifics, whereas you persist in generalities.

I have dealt with the specifics of "ID" many, many times. Don't pretend I haven't. I have earned the right to generalize about my findings.

2. If you're correct that certain ID hypotheses have been falsified, then the standard "it's not science because it can't be falsified" argument is self-evidently wrong.

Incorrect. What the IDers are left with after their few falsifiable claims have been thrown out (because they *have* been falsified) is indeed unfalsifiable.

There's no contradiction here. "ID" is a mish-mash of claims that have been proven false, *and* claims which are unfalsifiable. When we speak of ID being unfalsifiable, we're speaking of the latter, because that's what the ID folks are almost exclusively pushing these days.

[b_sharp]

Here I thought I presented a good post, but you have to top it by posting quite appropriate and funny cartoons...:^P

[mlc9852]

And you make adjustments to your beliefs (scientific or otherwise) accordingly, correct?

[js1138]

You're saying Superman didn't do that?

I believe I read somewhere that Superman did it, so it must be true. I could be wrong about reading it, but that that wouldn't change the possibility that he did it. Therefore it must be taught as a rational alternative to the unguided process of plate tectonics.

[r9etb]

My point was that every technique we currently use to identify design is based on the previously mentioned knowledge or the assumption that other 'alien' designers will create artifacts similar to ours.

And what's wrong with designing tests for an ID hypothesis based on similar assumptions? At worst, the test would have no power when applied to conditions that violate the assumption. Given that the putative designer would be working with the same laws we are, it's a reasonable starting spot.

ID is proposing that there is a method that will enable us to determine if the genome has evolved or if it has been designed. Before this methodology can be considered useful in any science it has to pass testing. Does it reliably provide true positives while minimizing or eliminating false positives? Can it be used to differentiate between natural and designed objects outside of the genome? Can it be used rigorously?

All good questions. A reasonable start on that front has been made for our example of the glow-in-the-dark pigs.

The ID hypothesis is not simply stating - 'it looks designed so it must be designed' - it is stating that there is a rigorous scientific method that can be used successfully in different circumstances.

True enough.

[r9etb]

Don't pretend I haven't. I have earned the right to generalize about my findings

You don't have the right to do that when the topic of discussion is precisely opposed to your generality.

Incorrect. What the IDers are left with after their few falsifiable claims have been thrown out (because they *have* been falsified) is indeed unfalsifiable. Pshaw. You cannot have missed the logical contradiction in your claim. It's either possible to formulate falsifiable hypotheses for ID, or it's not. You say it's possible. The rest of your statement is, therefore, bluster. And then you go on and say it a different way:

There's no contradiction here. "ID" is a mish-mash of claims that have been proven false, *and* claims which are unfalsifiable.

Hmmm. Since falsifiability is allegedly the standard by which "science" is found, I fail to see how you can persist in your comments.

[Elsie]

The question is how can the conflict between science and philosophy be resolved if philosophy does not present new thought and only chooses to recite refuted thought.

That's 'cause it is still relevant.

---

Ecclesiastes 1:9

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

[Elsie]

Nah.. You Evo's KNOW that those are going OUT.

I'm talkin' 'bout the things that are coming in!

[jec41]

So, are you saying that since there are a lot of false one's; then NONE can be real??

No not at all. You have inferred what you would wish to be my thoughts. It can be simply stated. All religions have different beliefs otherwise they would be the same. Having these differences if one religion and its faith and belief is proved true then all others except the proved one would be proved false because of the difference. You would do well to study the religious philosophy that forms the logical foundation for religion and in particular the Christian religion and you might discover this is not a mispost but a thought and question that has been proposed by philosophers for hundreds or years. Religions survive or fail based on the philosophical proofs for and against their existence. What is amazing is that most remain unaware of the proofs presented for and against their religion and simply present opinion rather than studied religious philosophical thought that is either refuted or proved.

[Elsie]

...but both the fish-to-mammal transition and the land mammal-to-whale transition are covered here.

Translation: guessed at.

---

They got FAITH that it happened this way.

[Elsie]

A religion that is proved true will remain constant in belief, faith and proof always. It will refute any testing.

This just CAN'T be accurate!!!

Why, someone has said that they are all FALSE, yet they continue on!

---

Something is amiss in this reasoning...

[jec41]

That's 'cause it is still relevant.

Absolutely, but not resolved.