Intelligent Design is Falsifiable

Discovery Institute ^ | 8/26/05 | Staff

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

There is a belief among media commentators that intelligent design is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable or untestable: no empirical evidence can count against it. Though common, this charge is demonstrably false. Of course there’s no way to falsify a mere assertion that a cosmic designer exists. This much we are agreed on. But contemporary design arguments focus not on such vague claims, but on detectible evidence for design in the natural world. Therefore, the design arguments currently in play are falsifiable.

[Dimensio]

Macro evolution has not, nor can it, ever be observed or tested. I will not debate this any further.

IOW, "don't confuse me with facts, I don't want to do any more research, I've already decided that I already know everything."

[Dark Knight]

Play nice. Other wise it will be a pasta fight.

Natural Selection is a crappy theory because:

They know mergers occur but have no way of accounting for them, especially in the fossil record.

They use changeable definition for their terms, like the basic term "species".

They use evolution as a fact interchangeably with the Theories of Evolution, obfuscating their own arguments and then blaming others for their own poor arguments.

NS has been around for a LONG TIME. They have FEW practical applications compared with other theories that have around a LONG TIME.

ID exists. We are doing it currently. How well? We'll get better. But we KNOW ID exists.

DK

[Dimensio]

Natural Selection is a crappy theory because:

Natural selection isn't a theory, it's a process.

They know mergers occur but have no way of accounting for them, especially in the fossil record.

Example of a merger with no accounting?

They use changeable definition for their terms, like the basic term "species".

It's not our fault that in reality the division between the properties of populations of life forms is sometimes so blurred that it's impossible to make exact specifications of terms.

They use evolution as a fact interchangeably with the Theories of Evolution, obfuscating their own arguments and then blaming others for their own poor arguments.

This is a semantic argument. I agree that sometimes people are ambiguous when saying that "evolution is a fact" by not clarifying that they're referring to the specific event called "evolution" and not the theory, but this in no way weaknes the theory of evolution or natural selection.

NS has been around for a LONG TIME. They have FEW practical applications compared with other theories that have around a LONG TIME.

1) Natural Selection is not a "theory", it is a process.

2) Natural selection does have useful application in the biotech industry.

ID exists. We are doing it currently. How well? We'll get better. But we KNOW ID exists.

Which is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the claim that ID is responsible for life or the universe itself. Gravity exists, but that's not evidence that gravity is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth.

[Dark Knight]

2) Natural selection does have useful application in the biotech industry. <<

Yes, NS does have some useful applications in biotech, as we are intelligently designing things.

>>Natural selection isn't a theory, it's a process.<<

So Darwin didn't assert NS as the mechanism for his theory of evolution?

Crappy terminology, crappy logic, and crappy science.

Evolutionists do this all the time. When in doubt obfuscate, change the meaning of words, and overstate the usefulness of a ToE. If this wasn't done, Creationists or IDers would not have a chance.

And I am not a creationist. Go figure.

DK

[Clump]

Thanks for the advice. I forgot that I was arguing with a stump. It is pointless, just like the debate. People that are convinced will not be swayed in either direction. If I am right then it will not be pleasant for them. If they are right, then we are all dead and nothing more. I am extremely doubtful of the latter.

[blowfish]

ID exists. We are doing it currently. How well? We'll get better. But we KNOW ID exists.

Sure, and tiddlywinks exists as well. It doesn't prove that tiddlywinks has anything to do with the way the world works.

[Dark Knight]

My theory of evolution (of evolution threads)

Someone posts an article referencing either ID or ToE.

People argue the merits for a few posts.

The hardcore devotees arrive.

Humor is lost. Note the deterioration of the FSM threads.

Name calling starts.

Posters start getting petty.

Eventually only the hardcore devotees remain.

The final posts are hilarious to any outside observer.

The thread dies.


Maybe it is not evolution, but devolution.

DK

Rotini rules!

[Dark Knight]

Sure, and tiddlywinks exists as well. It doesn't prove that tiddlywinks has anything to do with the way the world works.<<

Tiddly winks teach youngsters eye hand coordination and adherence to game rules. Of course as a tiddly winks denier, your world view is surely limited.

Be pasta my friend!

DK

[Mr. Lucky]

Prescient observation.

[blowfish]

It's difficult to take these threads seriously, because it's difficult to take the topic seriously.

[Kevin OMalley]

read later bump

[Dimensio]

If I am right then it will not be pleasant for them. If they are right, then we are all dead and nothing more.

Pascal's Wager is a false dichotomy, as is the notion of a choice between your version of Christianity and outright atheism.

[Dimensio]

Yes, NS does have some useful applications in biotech, as we are intelligently designing things.

Or as we are dealing with bacteria, which we're not designing.

So Darwin didn't assert NS as the mechanism for his theory of evolution?

Yes. NS itself is not the theory.

Crappy terminology, crappy logic, and crappy science.

It's not my fault that your understanding of terminology, logic and science are so crappy.

[Dark Knight]

I know, NS (as an ill defined term) has nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution is a fact, and a theory. Talkorigins says so.

Evolution, it's a fact and a theory...it is two taste treats in one!

Pasta as usual.

DK

You cured HIV and influenza...I know.

[Dimensio]

I know, NS (as an ill defined term) has nothing to do with Evolution.

I did not say this. You do not make a good case when you deliberately lie about things that I have said.

Natural Selection is a mechanism. It is an event. It is one of the things that drives the theory of evolution, but it is not itself a "theory". It's just a simple description for a process.

You whine about those on the evolution side playing semantic games, yet the only one playing with words here is you.

[Dark Knight]

Here's the rub. NS as the mechanism for Evolution is the theory. Duh. You want to elevate the theory to a process that is unquestioned. It makes NS truer in your mind.

You are the reason for IDer's being around.

You expound some pretty strange stuff. Like claims of unquestionable truth that are more related to tautology than expansion of knowledge.

Study some epistemology.

Let the self serving bovine excremental replies begin.

DK

[Dimensio]

NS as the mechanism for Evolution is the theory.

NS is a definition of a process. It's something that happens. It's something that we can observe happening. It's not a theory. It is not an underlying general explanation for a phenomenon.

You're trying to play a semantic game. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

You want to elevate the theory to a process that is unquestioned.

Are you suggesting that NS may not occur? Then what are the observations that have been labelled natural selection?

[Kevin OMalley]

"I am also curious about the linked article's claim that finding life on another planet would falsify intelligent design."
***So am I. I recently joined my first crevo thread, and I find that the evo/abio folks are reluctant to provide numbers to plug into the Drake Equation. I would guess that George Bush ran into the same reluctance when he was trying to make sense out of this issue for reasons of social policy. Now that this is becoming a social policy discussion, the issue becomes less "what does one know about protein resequencing" and becomes more "what is better for our society".


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1468059/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1321053/posts?page=158#158



To: Ichneumon
To: Kevin OMalley; ConservativeDude; PatrickHenry; Zon
No... What is "acknowledged" is that anti-evolutionists keep posting these bogus calculations, and then many Freepers point out where they're flawed.
***Cool, thanks for responding. That reinforces one of my positions, which is that big science is becoming a necessarily highly inductive and specialized pursuit more along the lines of a religion. Our society is becoming more like Persia under the Stargazers with each passing year. What you should know is that I am not a biologist/geneticist, but I invite their comments. My comments would be limited to pointers on inductive reasoning. Please, by all means, feel free to take on the study that was mentioned and tell us all why SETI is worthy of our tax dollars in light of the Drake Equation modifications. This is not a creationist thread. Please give us the actual figures that are pertinent here. What I note from the differing views on what should go into the Drake equation is that it stops becoming a deductive pursuit and becomes more inductive because all the data are not in. When scientists argue with scientists over what the data really means, usually there are some baseline data that both sides rely on. I’m not interested in debating the creationist/evolutionist issues on this particular thread.


It's also acknowledged that this doesn't stop the anti-evolutionists from posting the same crap again next week as if no objections had ever been raised before...
***As I noted, this is not a creationist thread, so feel free to tell us what the pertinent figures should be and why the esteemed scientists who are spending our tax dollars are not wasting them.

And what in the hell is a "lower amino acid" -- you're not even making sense here.
***Sorry about that, I was proceeding from memory and I am not a biologist/geneticist. You seem to have figured out what the gist of the controversy was.

The chances of getting accidentally synthesized left amino acids for one small protein molecule is one chance in 10^210. That is a number with 210 zeros after it! Such probabilities are indeed impossibilities. The number is so vast as to be totally out of the question.
Nice straw man you've got there. You're calculating something that most likely is "impossible" in a statistical sense (even though you're garbling it when you try to say it -- "accidentally synthesized left amino acids" are the *easy* part...), but it's a bait-and-switch since that "something" you're calculating is *not* among the many scenarios being considered for abiogenesis.
***I pulled if from the www as a representation of the controversy. Thanks for setting us all straight. As I noted, I’m not a biologist/geneticist. There is a triangulation going on here. Many people will read through threads like this and decide for themselves. I notice that evolutionists seem to have a lot of scorn for people who aren’t experts in their particular field, but when they run up against folks who are experts, the dialog tends to evolve into one of those finer point discussions similar to theologists who discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Such digressive discussion furthers my point that science is becoming a religion. That’s the first part of this inductive triangle. The second part is the science that was relied upon for getting federal dollars so that we could do the SETI program. When renowned scientists such as Stephen Hawking start acknowledging that the odds against abiogenesis are astronomical, it makes your average conservative look askance at the money being spent on SETI. The third part of this triangle is in the evolution/creation debate, which is full of acrimony. I don’t have time to get into it for now, just lurking on that one for the time being, but I do think that eventually some baseline data will be agreed to by both sides. It’s the baseline data inside the inductive triangle that I’m interested in.

You're modeling the wrong process, and then dishonestly using it to declare *any* kind of abiogenesis beyond possibility. Nice try.
***It’s not dishonesty, it’s more like… someone who isn’t a biologist trying to explain biology. But I welcome your inputs, and please take your scorn elsewhere or you will be operating outside of that inductive triangle.

For example, you've completely failed to take into account RNA-bootstrapping of protein formation via ribozymes, among many other alternative routes to protein formation.
***As I stated, I’m not a biologist. But your comments towards the record are welcome. It may take me awhile to chase down what it is you’re saying but eventually I should be able to figure it out or someone else might take you on.

Here's a less simplified overview of a workable abiogenesis scenario, based on recent research in biochemistry and reverse-engineered processes in living organisms:

Note that protein synthesis doesn't come into it until much later -- it doesn't spring forth from full-blown prebiotic chemistry, as your calculations simplistically (and incorrectly) presume.
***Please provide the new factors which would be input into the Drake equation.

So please -- go learn actually something about the subject before you attempt to critique it. You really, *really* don't know what you're talking about, and I (and others) have better things to do than keep correcting this sort of comic-book "analysis" that creationists and other anti-evolutionsts are so fond of using as a substitute for actually knowing something about the subject.
***Perhaps you need to take that up with the author who was arguing against SETI funding, which is my position. If you really, really think they don’t know what they’re talking about, tell us where they're wrong. Tell us where Stephen Hawking is wrong. Tell us what numbers should be put into the Drake Equation.

To begin your education on this one topic, start here:
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions
Then be sure to read the primary references, followed by becoming conversant with the current research on the matter. If I can do it, you can too.
***Cool. Just need the time, that’s all.


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html
ROFL!!!!!! Do you even *read* your own citations? That link explains in detail how *faulty* are all the common "probability calculations" that anti-evolutionists wave around to "prove" the "impossibility" of natural abiogenesis.
***What can I say other than THANK YOU for going on the record. As I said earlier, that reinforces one of my positions, which is that big science is becoming a necessarily highly inductive and specialized pursuit more along the lines of a religion. Our society is becoming more like Persia under the Stargazers with each passing year. But what you should know is that I am not a biologist/geneticist, but I invite their comments. My comments would be limited to pointers on inductive reasoning. Please, by all means, feel free to take on the study that was mentioned and tell us all why SETI is worthy of our tax dollars in light of the Drake Equation modifications. This is not a creationist thread. Please give us the actual figures that are pertinent here. I may not be a biologist today, but eventually someone will take on this issue which strikes average readers as a bit of gobbledegook.


Even your own excerpt which you provided in your own post disagrees with the assertion you made in that post and your prior one. Here it is again with the significant parts highlighted:
***Please address the Drake Equation, the inductive points being brought up, my contentions and the MAIN POINT of this article. I’m fascinated by the fact that scientists can argue for and against both sides on these points. I just need it on the record, one way or another and I can chase it down eventually. For your benefit I have preserved it:

The objective of his paper is not to prove special creation… but to argue that alien life is so improbable that we ought to shift science to draw talent and funding away from projects like SETI and into "research on the origin of life." In his own abstract, he presents his conclusion as "belief in little green men in outer space is purely religious not scientific."

Though he does not state this explicitly, this means the odds against life starting, if it had to start with just such a protein, would be 1 in 10^125.
And you sort of "forgot" to quote
***I didn’t forget anything, this isn’t a creationist thread, it’s a SETI thread. But you gave me a good start. Note that I did use the 10^125 figure, so please address that issue. If you continue to utilize scorn, you push the debate outside of the inductive triangle and you end up feeding the general impression that science is becoming a religion.

the NEXT HALF OF THE SAME PARAGRAPH, which immediately goes on to say:
Though this is not his argument, creationists have tried to spin it that way.
***Well, as I have stated, this isn’t a creationist thread, so please take your creation/evolution arguments elsewhere if you are not going to give us the figures to insert into the Drake equation and waste all of our time. For the benefit of others, I will excerpt what I perceive to be the crux of the matter:

“… might be possible … life could have been … “
This cagey language is more suitable to a religion and suggests that both sides are simply postulating.

Later, your same link writes…
***by all means, please explain this tetrahymena discovery, why the 20^6 figure isn’t what we insert into the Drake equation, and, while you’re at it, why some of the Creation science literature is worth considering when tax dollars are at stake but it isn’t worth considering when something else is at stake. I won’t be able to comment on your position because, as I stated, I’m not a biologist/geneticist, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t get someone who knows what they’re talking about. So, by all means, please comment for the record for the benefit of the gallery.

So hey, thanks for providing material that torpedoes your own position, and supports mine.
***By all means. Thanks for going on record.

145 posted on 01/14/2005 9:00:40 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]







158 posted on 01/15/2005 9:13:59 AM PST by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[rkhampton]

For every question answered by science, ten more questions are revealed.

I would like some proof of that statement.

[William Tell]

Kevin OMalley posted the following: "When renowned scientists such as Stephen Hawking start acknowledging that the odds against abiogenesis are astronomical, it makes your average conservative look askance at the money being spent on SETI. "

I am still puzzled why, for example, an "average conservative" would decide that Hawking's estimate of the the odds against abiogenesis translate into lessened expectations for SETI. If an intelligent designer created all life on earth, how does this create a low probability for that same inteligent designer having created life on some other planet?