Intelligent Design: Confronting Darwin with New Scientific Insights Intelligent Design, Part I

M E R I D I A N M A G A Z I N E ^ | 2002 AD | by Justin Hart

[Junior]

I personally believe it is a faith framework adopted by those who do not wish to believe in God to provide an alternative explanation for the world in which we live.

Then you are mistaken. I'm Roman Catholic. I very much believe in the Almighty. However, regardless of what you wish to believe, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. And, it is quite possible to be devoutly religious and accept the evidence for evolution.

[George W. Bush]

The biggest problem that I have with ID is that no one so far has presented an adequate method for falsifying it. Scientific theories must have falsification criteria or they are worthless.

Same thing applies to evolution. If it can't be falsified, it can't be a science. Philip Johnson's book contains a short treatment of Popper's work on the necessity of falsification in true science and documents the many instances in which the major predictions of evolutionary theory have failed but without any meaningful changes to the theory itself.

By Popper's criteria, ID and creationism and evolution and Marxism all exhibit the characteristics of a religious belief rather than that of a true science. No matter what proof is offered as conclusive, any disproof of it results not in the destruction of the theory but in further self-serving and/or untestable modifications to the theory. In the end, something has to be testable to have real science.

Here is a short piece that introduces Popper's Philosophy of Science for the general reader. It's good reading for creationists, IDers, and evolutionists. Personally, Popper is one of the few philosophers I respect. I think that he'll eventually be considered the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century.

[George W. Bush]

I think that the "Team Socialist" t-shirt should say, "I am not a Communist!"

Is this a cryptic reference to the demonstrable fact that many leading evolutionary theorists have been strident Marxists?

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution simply cannot compare with the levels of proof we have in physics or chemistry or even in medical science.

That's true. And it's typical of the historical sciences, such as evolutionary biology, historical linguistics, textual transmission and stemmatics, historical geology, systematics and phylogeny, archeology, paleontology, historical geography, cosmology, and historical anthropology. In such fields, we can't reproduce events which happened in the past. We can only examine presently-existing evidence, and attempt to devise comprehensible, explanatory models that account for the evidence. In any such field, one can claim that aliens in UFOs are responsible for events in the past, but such claims aren't useful hypotheses, as they aren't testable. But a truly scientific model (such as evolution) can be falsified if data are discovered which are inconsistent with the model.

[VadeRetro]

No, but thank you for playing "Twist and Shout!"

[PatrickHenry]

Patrick, I apologize for any and all boorish behavior exhibited towards you.

Not a problem. I've been participating in these threads for maybe 3 years now. I've experienced far worse.

[George W. Bush]

And it's typical of the historical sciences, such as evolutionary biology, historical linguistics, textual transmission and stemmatics, historical geology, systematics and phylogeny, archeology, paleontology, historical geography, cosmology, and historical anthropology. In such fields, we can't reproduce events which happened in the past.

Well, an honest admission here. However, some of the fields you list have a better history of grappling with theoretical problems. Of course, you are no doubt aware of some of the problems with paleontology, a field I consider distorted by the political necessity to carry evolution on its back.

The entire origins question is fascinating and sheds some light on Popper's work in general. I love this little gem (from the web link I posted above):

For example, a long time ago in a far away land, it was believed that Earth was the center of the universe. That was the accepted theory of the day. With Galileo's theory, the hypothesis that Earth was the center of the universe was falsified; the Sun held that distinction. Newton's theory did not disconfirm this, but made it less tenable. What has happened now that we have relativistic theories? One basic characteristic of general relativity is that the natural laws of the universe look the same to all observers, wherever they may be. There is no way to tell that any place is not the center of the universe! Naturally, that Earth is the center of the universe is no longer falsified. Of course, neither is it corroborated. So, the hypothesis that Earth is the center of the universe was held to be true in early science, 'falsified' in later science, and is now no longer falsified. (Of course, this view is not held by many either.) As a practical matter, Earth is chosen as the center of the spatial coordinate system for many purposes.

Heh-heh. I personally prefer to believe that Earth is the center of the universe. And no one else has a better scientific opinion. Science is really wonderful that way.

I think Popper has a challenge to the thoughful people on all sides of the creationist/ID/evolution debate. We have to keep asking of all contenders: "Is it really science or some variety of religious faith?".

I really like that.

[Physicist]

Seems then we should call it, "not really a vacuum". This is where ID parts with CS, CS needs an origin where there is nothing. ID is perfectly content to conclude there has never been a time when there was nothing. An absolute vacuum has never existed.

I don't know where you get your ideas about what the vacuum "should be", but there's no support for them in physics. In the vacuum, whatever is physically possible is compulsory. I don't know what you mean by "absolute vacuum", but as you use the term, it seems to mean "non-existence". "Non-existence has never existed" is hardly a point of meaningful debate.

But at any rate, standard Big Bang cosmology also does not suppose that there was ever a time when there was nothing. Time and space themselves came into existence at the Big Bang, thus the statement "everything in the universe has existed only for a finite time" is entirely compatible with the statement "there was never a time when there was nothing."

[scottiewottie]

I think you got it!

[donh]

Seems then we should call it, "not really a vacuum". This is where ID parts with CS, CS needs an origin where there is nothing. ID is perfectly content to conclude there has never been a time when there was nothing. An absolute vacuum has never existed.

I don't recall any prominent ID author holding this conviction. Please explain. & I don't see how failure to obtain "absolute vacuum" counteracts his argument. Were it not for matter spontaneously being presently created, as Physicist explained to you, transistors wouldn't work, and you wouldn't have this forum.

[donh]

I think Popper has a challenge to the thoughful people on all sides of the creationist/ID/evolution debate. We have to keep asking of all contenders: "Is it really science or some variety of religious faith?".

Much as I respect Popper, I have to wonder if he would have held to his convictions in the face of modern micro-biology. As it stands a the present day, I'd be more ready to throw out the whole of astronomy on the basis of Popper's analysis than micro-biology.

Telescopes only report on the past, and telescopes do not create predictive experiments, only post-dictive, just like Darwinian biology.

Would that be your choice. Forego astronomy?

[scottiewottie]

Okay, one team shirt for the whole lot, "we are not scientists, though we play them in the laboratory." Now the only fight will be over the numbers on each jersey.

[scottiewottie]

An area of less conductive matter, is not nothing.

[scottiewottie]

Is it not true that with the standard Creationist Big Bang Cosmology that you have time when a bang was created out of nothing, with nothing? ID requires something to design with.

[donh]

There are, of course, absolutely zero demonstrable laboratory examples of Life spontaneously erupting from Non-Life

This is yet another in an endless series of references to cellular life, complete with DNA, leaping spontaneously into existence. This is a strawman. Before this suggestion has to be taken seriously enough to warrant calculating the odds, there must be a proof that that is the only possible way life could have happened. Kindly supply a pointer to that proof, and then we can talk seriously.

[donh]

Nope. Read a biography of Pasteur. His intent was to demonstrate that spontaneous generation was impossible. He showed it.

He showed for a pig pen in france, over the course of a few months. This is not quite a comprehensive refutation, eh?

[George W. Bush]

Okay, one team shirt for the whole lot, "we are not scientists, though we play them in the laboratory." Now the only fight will be over the numbers on each jersey.

Ha! I'm not worried over the team numbers. But I suggest the following team insignia for each:

• Team Evolution: 0
• Team Creation:  1
• Team ID:           n

Fair enough?

[donh]

An area of less conductive matter, is not nothing.

This is a squirm of little merit. If I put two large plates together in a vacuum, a slight pull, unrelated to the local gravity, or the flow of cosmic rays, or the composition of the plates, or the flow of the ether, or any other squirm you think you have, exists because of slight differences in wavelengths of spontaneously created matter inside vs. outside the plate's mutual enclosure.

Your ultimate argument has to be that somehow, matter in the universe, or maybe the space-time continuum as a whole, in general creates the environment for spontaneous matter creation. In this, you may be correct, the cosmology jury is still out.

[scottiewottie]

Good idea, that way I won't put my shirt on upside down or inside out.

[George W. Bush]

Good idea, that way I won't put my shirt on upside down or inside out

Look out. The creationists will claim the same advantage.