Intelligent Design is not Science (Kenneth Miller Speaks at Lehigh)

Lehigh University News ^ | 10/12/2005 | Kurt Pfitzer

[curiosity]

"Behe...was not present at Miller’s speech." Gee, I wonder why?

[curiosity]

Faith and Science Ping.

[PatrickHenry]

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 310 names. See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped. See what's new in The List-O-Links.

[westmichman]

Probably because, he debated him several times and knew all his arguments.

[VadeRetro]

He told those groups, and he told his evening audience, that intelligent design proponents have undermined the American public’s sometimes shaky understanding of science by claiming that the unanswered questions raised by scientific theories amount to evidence against those theories and for intelligent design.

"Gaps in our knowledge are proof of my theory!" Yes. This turns into "rooting for the ignorance" on the part of the creation/ID crowd. You only have to see sites like the creo favorite "Creation-Evolution Headlines" to realize that all of modern science could fall and this crowd would be cheering and jeering. Nevertheless, they bristle when we call them "Luddites." Go figure!

[King Prout]

minion of the devil, obviously
>/brainlessness<

[js1138]

This is an amazing piece of journalism, assuming it is done from notes.

[RightWhale]

Behe defined design as “the purposeful arrangement of parts”

Somewhat, but purpose is what we supply. If anybody has discovered God's purpose, they should enlighten us.

[PatrickHenry]

minion of the devil, obviously

Obviously.

But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore.
Source: Martin Luther.

[Liberal Classic]

Science gives us mechanisms and processes. It is faith to which we turn for purpose and meaning. There is no "gap" to bridge, because this falsely sets science and religion as being opposed.

[EagleUSA]

The liberal Thugocrats are living proof that intelligent design is a false concept.

[ml/nj]

"Intelligent Design" is entirely based upon inference, and so is "Evolution." Physics and Chemistry are primarily based upon experimentaion.

Hmmm.   Let's see.   Which ones might be real sciences?

ML/NJ

[ml/nj]

beyond the laws of science

Just wondering ... Is the Big Bang within, or beyond, the laws of science?

ML/NJ

[King Prout]

whoof...

[Coyoteman]

Still another I'm catching up as fast as I can Placemarker

[troublesome creek]

quite the insightful whoof.

[FairWitness]

Miller, professor of cell biology at Brown University and co-author of three popular biology textbooks, said intelligent design, unlike natural selection and other scientific theories, cannot be tested or falsified because it invokes supranatural explanations for natural phenomena.

I am somewhat puzzled by the dogmatic assertion that ID cannot be falsified; while it is true that new "unsolved" cases can continually be found, if evolution is so clearly true, individual problems of complexity should be falsifiable by evidence (if it is actually findable) of how structures such as the eye evolved. Is it, or is it not doable? If it is just do it. A clear explanation of how a particular structure/function evolved amounts to falsification of the hypothesis that it illustrates irreducible complexity. A sufficient number of such refutations will convince the public. Or is it too complex for the public to understand?

[Right Wing Professor]

I am somewhat puzzled by the dogmatic assertion that ID cannot be falsified; while it is true that new "unsolved" cases can continually be found, if evolution is so clearly true, individual problems of complexity should be falsifiable by evidence (if it is actually findable) of how structures such as the eye evolved

Well, there you have it in a nutshell. Individual cases of 'irreducible complexity' can be falsified, but ID can't, because, as you say, ' new "unsolved" cases can continually be found'.

It's the old transition fossil paradox. If we find a form C intermediate between A and B, we've replaced one gap (between A and B) with two (between A and C, and C and B). So, Dembski argued, when we found that the flagellum wasn't irreducibly complex because parts of it are homologous to the type three secretory system, then the TTSS is irreducibly complex.

Infinite regress.

[js1138]

Falsification of specific ID claims is tricky because the goalposts move. When the flagellum was proposed, the goalpost was that no part of it could have a complete function. When that was falsified, some new definition sprang up. I'm sure the same thing applies to blood clotting.

This is a slow process, and the biology community is not holding its breath until Behe's challenges are met. If he were intellectually honest, he would be working to disprove his own claims. That's what scientists do. You don't say that something can't be done and then sit on your thumbs waiting for someone else to show that it can be done.

[megatherium]

"Intelligent Design" is entirely based upon inference, and so is "Evolution."

No, evolution is based on testable predictions. For instance, if two species appear to be closely related (having a recent common ancestor), do their genomes when compared share more "spelling errors" (such as endogenous retroviruses) than do species that are less closely related?