Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory?

God and Science ^ | Sept 2002 | Richard Deem

[Ahban]

This is not just a test of ID, but of a specific model of ID, old earth bibical creationism. I suppose the more specific the model, the easier it would be to test. While "ID" as a fuzzy concept may be too vauge to test, not so bibical creationism.

[donh]

It isn't vagueness that counts, per se, it is refutability. If you can't test for something in a manner likely to refute it, if it's wrong, it isn't generally considered a scientific thesis, as per Carl Popper, which is good enough for me.

Strict creationism qualifies, I guess, and is refuted in innumerable ways. ID is, at best, a coin flip to my mind, as is SETI.

[APBaer]

"Why didn't God create this perfect universe in the first place?"

Maybe because He knew there would be people who wouldn't post religion articles in the Religion Forum, and they would be out of place in a perfect universe?

[Ahban]

You sure are a fast reader. In less than nine minutes you found my post, read the long technical article, and composed your reply. That's real good don.

Or maybe you just saw the words "testable creation model" and gave a knee-jerk response with a fluffy quote right out of the Naturalists Handbook.

Tell the truth, did you even read this article before posting your 'reply'?

[Ahban]

An article which discusses a test of 'bibical creationism' belongs in the religion section too, IMHO.

If you meant that first question seriously, I could give you my long winded theological answer- tomorrow.

[Dajjal]

The answer is "No. A mathematical formula cannot be a 'testable, scientific theory.'"

[LiteKeeper]

later read

[Looking for Diogenes]

...a specific model of ID...

It is still 'fuzzy.'

The author denigrates evolution/science because "Neither the biochemical nor replicative pathways have been described."

Yet he makes no attempts to describe the analogous physical agency of creation by Intelligent Design. This physical agency is likeliest to be revealed deep in the genetic makeup of living creatures. Given the increasing sophistication of genetic research that is an excellent area for research and theory about ID. In the meantime, it isn't fair to criticize evolution/science for not having a precise answer.

[donh]

You sure are a fast reader. In less than nine minutes you found my post, read the long technical article, and composed your reply. That's real good don.

Don't get too mesmerized by your own creative acts. I read about 1/3 of this text--I scan for new arguments. If I detect an old argument, I don't feel obligated to chew up every bit of it.

Or maybe you just saw the words "testable creation model" and gave a knee-jerk response with a fluffy quote right out of the Naturalists Handbook.

Kindly indicate which part of my rather informally worded post strikes you as a "quote right out of the Naturalists Handbook".

Tell the truth, did you even read this article before posting your 'reply'?

Tell the truth--it makes you feel awfully special when you make a thread, doesn't it?

Let's just run a test here. Is my response relevant to the subject matter of the thread-----um, yes, by some incredible accident, so it seems. Does my post reference specific points in the article in context-----um, yes, by some incredible accident, the SETI response questions your assertion that it's a science.

Having completed the test, I now believe I have found the bug in the system. It seems to be your lack of mannerly restraint. If you have a response to the meat of my post, I will return, otherwise, I will take this as an implied request to withdraw from your thread which I will be more than happy to honor.

[scripter]

Ping

[PatrickHenry]

A very few links from the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.

The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 19].

[Tribune7]

placemaker

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Varda]

bump for later

[Aric2000]

Thank you sir for the heads up, watch for the blue man.

ID and Creationism are neither provable nor scientific, but it sure is fun when they claim to be.

[Junior]

A "fresh meat" bump...

[Gumlegs]

Interesting assertion in the "Probability" column of the Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism box. It states that the Anti-Supernaturalists believe "only likely events will occur." That's simply wrong.

[VadeRetro]

No other rocky planets have been found. Most planets found are large gas giants orbiting very close to their stars.

No mention of observational bias. What's easier to detect from twenty thousand light years distance? The gravitational wobble induced by a Jupiter or the gravitational wobble induced by an Earth?

We've seen what we can see. I hate it when I catch you guys just saying what helps you.

[VadeRetro]

It is impossible to chemically produce many basic molecules required for any living system.

For "it is impossible" substitute, "no one has yet demonstrated how." This guy is a charlatan.