LA Times Columnist Slams Intelligent Design as a "Ruse" and a "Ploy"

There's no "unsubstantiated guessing" or "hunches" in ID.

It's not hard to avoid hypothesizing when your "theory" is almost entirely devoid of substantive content and empirical implications! I.e. when you pretend to have a "theory" about "intelligent design," but refuse to say a single thing, or even hazard a single speculation, about when, where, how or by whom (or what) instances of ID are actually instantiated. Or when you tout theoretical constructs like "specified complexity," but then refrain from risking their rigorous application to a single real world instance of anything.

IOW you, in effect, praise ID for it's vacuousness. But then that's about all you could do.

By contrast, actual scientific theories are SUPPOSED to lead to the generation of "hunches" (or rather testable implications, proposed problem solutions based on the theory, new approaches to the data, and etc).

"Is there balance at the Los Angeles Times on this issue? Doesn't seem like there is. More cogently, should there be? Considering the 'issue' is science, clearly no."

See post #37. You may want to educate yourself on the science of ID. I've posted some helpful links.

Anything that depends on "God/Deity/Supernatural PB&J Sandwitch" as a root cause isn't science.

Hey! ID theory says that an intelligent designer, at some undesignated time, for purposes unknown, intentionally did something. Exactly what he did is unknown, and how he did it is unknown. Nor is it known where he did this thing that he did, or how long it took him to do it. Whether he worked alone or in teams is unknown. Further, it is unknown if he only had to do this thing once, or if several subsequent interventions were required. The identity of the designer is unknown. His nature is unknown. His origin is unknown. His design methods are unknown. His present location is unknown. Whether the designer still exists is also unknown.

So how could ID not be science?

"Anything that depends on 'God/Deity/Supernatural PB&J Sandwitch' as a root cause isn't science."

Well, I'm sorry, but you just reveal an ignorance on the issue. If you don't want to educate yourself on the science behind ID (it doesn't "depend" on "God/Deity/Supernatural PB&J Sandwitch (sic)"), there's nothing else I can say. Good day. You don't know what you're talking about.

Every notice how those that support the ToE take the time to explain to others about the theory while a significant portion of those that support ID just throw up a few links and insult others?

If I was a shrink I would say that the ID supports don't really know enough about their 'theory' to really support it so they then harass/insult the other side in a effort to silence them.

Not exactly the most adult of behaviors.

Is there a hypothetical observation that would falsify ID?

If I take your comment at face value, you are agreeing with the Newsbusters article that the Times is only presenting one side of the issue.

That's not, ipso facto, illegitimate. It's a matter of argument whether it's illegitimate. For instance if ID is not, in fact, a real scientific controversy, there's nothing the slightest bit illegitimate about consistently taking that point of view. For the same reason it's not illegitimate to consistently present only "one side" of Holocaust Revisionism.

You need to argue convincingly that ID really is a presumptively or potentially viable scientific theory, or at least the basis for some theory. To take the approach as presumptive that it's "only fair" to present "both sides" (independently and prior to the FACTS of the situation) is nothing more than wishy-washy relativism and intellectual affirmative action.

2. "it's NOT a genuine scientific controversy ..."

Well, I guess you aren't aware of the numerous public debates that have been taking place on the issue. A couple of examples are linked in the Newsbusters piece. You might want to check those out.

But this SUPPORTS exactly the point I was making! That the ID controversy is a POPULAR one, not a scientific one.

Scientists may engage in popular debates about, say, the implications of science for public policy issues, and other such matters. But they don't debate the substance of scientific theories themselves in such venues. Debate within science invariable occurs before COMPETENT audiences who can meaningfully challenge the claims that may be forwarded.

Of course interested members of the general public can attend such debates in most cases (maybe at the cost of a conference fee) but such debates are not held FOR the general public. If you're targeting your debating primarily, indeed almost exclusively, at the general public, then that's a pretty sure sign that, whatever you're doing, it isn't science.

OK - you win ;)

Your response to the question only shows that you don't really understand it. That principle cannot, by definition be relied on as a result of "evidence." It is an assumption about the nature of the universe, not of the "evidence" we have attained about it.

You are correct. That assumption is the core axiom of science, without which it would be impossible to make meaningful statements. A better phrasing would have been "Do you believe this to be an invalid position?"

I note that you ignored the rest of my questions. Why is this?

To all ID supporters:

Here's a few questions for advocates of intelligent design. (Note 1: We use the abbreviation "ID," but "intelligent design" and "designer" aren't capitalized because ID is alleged to be science, not theology. Note 2: The indented or parenthetical material after each question is based on responses to prior postings of these questions; we're attempting to discourage such inadequate comments.)

1. If something is not yet explained by natural causes, why is ID, by default, the only possible explanation?

Please don't respond merely to claim that ID really is a great answer. If that's what you claim, you should explain the scientific reasons why it's so great. Specifically, how can an ID theorist conclusively demonstrate (not merely claim) that something could not have evolved naturally?
It is unsatisfactory to state your opinion that a natural event is highly improbable. You and I are improbable too, yet we are here, despite the enormous odds against it. ID claims that evolution of various organs is literally not possible. How can that be demonstrated?
2. If something can be explained without the necessity of a designer, why is ID a better explanation? Or even a competing explanation?
Reason for the question -- The Discovery Institute's definition: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Please don't respond merely to claim that ID simply is the best answer. If that's what you think, you should explain why it's best.
3. If the intelligent designer designed everything, then what are the distinguishing characteristics of design?
Follow-up question for those who would claim that a thing with a "purpose" demonstrates design: What distinguishes a design that has "purpose" from something that has no purpose? How does one see "purpose" in a duck, or an ape, or a rock? If everything has a purpose, how is design different from mere existence?
Another follow-up question for those who claim that "complexity and specificity" are the answer. First, everything is something specific, so that is no answer at all. As for complexity, is everything the designer designed complex? If not, why not? And if so, then how do we know, in the absence of complexity, that non-complex things are designed?
4. Is there any possible observation that could falsify ID?
A rational, coherent, responsive reply should identify something that, if found, would be a contradiction of ID theory (like the proverbial Precambrian rabbit would be for evolution). It's no answer to say that I should make my own flagellum (or whatever) in the lab. Why? Because it could always be said by ID advocates that such results, being designed by humans, are (somehow) confirmation of ID. And it could certainly be claimed that regardless of lab work, ID is still the best answer. We want to learn of something -- anything! -- that would definitely contradict ID.
5. If an intelligent designer is responsible for the variety of life on earth, then why are over 90% of all species now extinct? (And no, the Fall doesn't explain it, because ID is supposed to be science, not theology.)
6. If complex organisms demand an ID explanation, why doesn't the designer (obviously a complex entity) require an even more intelligent designer who created it, and so on, ad infinitum?
It's no answer to raise the theologian's argument that God is exempt from the normal demands of scientific explanation. Also, it is no answer that the designer's designer is beyond our comprehension. If ID is an idea that belongs in the science classroom, it must submit to scientific discipline.
7. The rapidly-growing biotech industry, which is profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, employs thousands of scientists. Why don't they employ "creation scientists" or ID theorists to exploit their unique insights? If they did, the creationist websites would surely mention it. (Note: We are asking for scientific work that specifically employs the doctrines of creationism or ID.)

2. "it's NOT a genuine scientific controversy ..."

Well, I guess you aren't aware of the numerous public debates that have been taking place on the issue.

The debates and controversy are not between/among evolutionary scientists, but between religious believers and scientists, with the former seeking to overthrow the latter.

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.
Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Source: The Wedge Strategy

In other words, it's NOT a genuine scientific controversy.

Amazing...ID is provable...evolution is only a theory and is pretty much worthless.

Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.

Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.

Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

[Last revised 7/16/06]

You use the word theory, yet you appear to not know what it means.

Since the correct definition of theory has been posted repeatedly by others I will not post it again as I am sure you just missed it in your haste to post. I suggest you read the rest of the thread so you can gain the knowledge to correct your mistake.

There is no scientific argument against intelligent design as a theoretical explanation for the presence of organized matter that peforms specific functions. Only pundits, philsophers, and devotees of a current mysticism that either ignores the subject or has no better explanation for the same.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

Wow. Big words. Lotsa words. From both sides.

In the beginning God created the universe.

Everything from that moment on was evolution.

Made possible by God giving every living cell the will to live .

Some ocean creatures evolve from plant to animal(fish/snake) at will.