• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is ID unscientific?

stealpick

Student
S
Joined
Jun 14, 2004
Messages
33
I've been following the discussion a few threads down concerning Intelligent Design being taught in PA schools, but I thought I'd start a different thread here to go off in a slightly different direction.

If we take the definition of Intelligent Design as it's presented at intelligentdesignnetwork.org, (forgetting for the moment that it may just be a shrewdly-worded statement intended to hide a religious agenda) is it really an unscientific theory that does not merit being discussed in a science class? The main complaint seems to be that ID is a dressed-up version of creationism, but is it really?

Is it possible to discuss ID without mentioning God? Suggesting intelligent design as an explanation of the origin of the species is not the same as discussing the nature of any designer other than to say that there is evidence of intelligence. Could ID work within the boundaries of science by being thought of as a description of the fabric of the universe which seems to have a nature of intelligently self-organizing and improving? The designer implied by the theory of ID must be assumed to be an immutable impersonal force for the purposes of scientific research; if the designer being suggested is supposed to be supernatural then those sorts of ID folks are stepping outside of anything that could be called science. But does ID necessarily require anything supernatural?

Even though ID has been embraced by the religious fundies, I wonder whether it can stand on its own scientific merit. Or am I instantly considered religious if it occurs to me that hands are so useful for picking stuff up that they appear to be designed for that purpose? Is it unscientific to explore that possibility?
 
It's unscientific because it's based on Zero empirical evidence, no? To me it seems more strongly a matter of philosophy at that point.
 
stealpick said:
...it occurs to me that hands are so useful for picking stuff up that they appear to be designed for that purpose? Is it unscientific to explore that possibility?
Click to expand...

No, but it is unscientific if one concludes at that point that this is the case. Which is what ID does. In order to be scientific, it has to be tested and the results repeatable by anyone that does the same test. How would you propose testing this hypothesis?
 
As I see it, the problem with ID as a science is that it doesn't really seem to put forward any kind of hypothesis as to how species arise apart from "well, someone must have done it." One of the main ideas in ID relies on a non-sequitur: saying that living systems as they currently exist are "irreducibly complex" (i.e. if you remove a single component from, say, a metabolic pathway the whole thing can cease to work) and then making the leap to saying that this must mean it was designed. Another is the old argument from ignorance: saying that if we can't currently explain how a structure evolved it must have been designed.
There's also the problem of "conservation of information" or whatever they call it (I think Dembski is a proponent of this idea), the idea that genetic information cannot spontaneously become more complex without outside intervention. This begs the question "how did the designer arise?" If they can't produce a convincing explanation for this, then we're really just looking at a form of old-earth creationism.
 
Mojo said:
As I see it, the problem with ID as a science is that it doesn't really seem to put forward any kind of hypothesis as to how species arise apart from "well, someone must have done it." One of the main ideas in ID relies on a non-sequitur: saying that living systems as they currently exist are "irreducibly complex" (i.e. if you remove a single component from, say, a metabolic pathway the whole thing can cease to work) and then making the leap to saying that this must mean it was designed. Another is the old argument from ignorance: saying that if we can't currently explain how a structure evolved it must have been designed.
There's also the problem of "conservation of information" or whatever they call it (I think Dembski is a proponent of this idea), the idea that genetic information cannot spontaneously become more complex without outside intervention. This begs the question "how did the designer arise?" If they can't produce a convincing explanation for this, then we're really just looking at a form of old-earth creationism.
Click to expand...

Exactly, not only is there no evidence, but what does it add to the discussion?

Say it isn't God, but some highly advanced ET species that created this universe, unless their sense of time is radically different than ours the adds are they have passed into the detrius of the universe a long time ago.

Even if they still exist, do they exist inside this universe? Odds are they do not as they created it and thus must at some point have been outside this universe so they could be detectable, but they also might not be until we learn to detect things outside the universe which near as we can tell, goes on forever.

It's going to be one tough nut to crack and again, it doesn't add much to the conversation unless we can actually gain something from it like the knowledge of a civilization well over 15B years older than ours.

But that really doesn't seem to be the simplest explanation...
 
I think it's unscientific from the epistomological sense --- it does not appear to predict anything. If anyone knows better, let me know.

In so far as it conflicts with real scientific knowledge (i.e. when it is not just a vacous hypothesis, but a veil over fundie gibberish) it is also unscientific in the factual sense --- i.e. just plain wrong.
 
Dr Adequate said:
I think it's unscientific from the epistomological sense --- it does not appear to predict anything. If anyone knows better, let me know.

In so far as it conflicts with real scientific knowledge (i.e. when it is not just a vacous hypothesis, but a veil over fundie gibberish) it is also unscientific in the factual sense --- i.e. just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

I think it is scientific in the sense that it is both possible, and to a limited extent, demonstratable.

ID is really not a theory, in and of itself. It may be a theory -- poorly constructed and unsupported, that we -- all of 'nature's glory' -- origininated by ID, but is there really any doubt whatsoever that ID is possible now to a very limited extent and will be possible in the future to a far larger extent?

I don't think so.

Did Little God-Like Green Men design us and place us here?

Doesn't seem likely and doesn't answer the question of who designed them. Step beyond the Little Green Men and go straight to God and you have the same problem -- who designed it?

ID is scientific in terms of a hypothosis.

As is evolution.

The difference is, of course, that evolution requires no further generations of explainations, it is eloquent, and is, to a good degree, supported by emperical research. I personally don't think it is yet proven, or for that matter even provable, but that may be because I went to the wrong college.
 
So intelligent design not as an explanatory theory for origin of species, but as future technology? I can buy that.

In fact, we already have - genetically-engineered spider-goats, glowing fish, veggies, etc...
 
It is not intelligent

ID is not science because it filters every fact with ID colored glasses. It does not have merit but the IDers refuse to fall in the face of facts.

Stephen Gould had a book called (I am going to guess because it has been so long) "The Panda's Thumb; Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes" - I will see if I can get the actual title. In this book he explains the fallacy intelligent design - that is, that it is not intelligent.

In the world of evolution, which is real and observable, there is not perfection, not intelligence behind the design- evolution tends to take things to the point of survival - and it is rarely perfect - you don't have to be perfect for survival. One can observe this "non perfection principle" time and time again. The IDers do not address it.

Tha panda's thumb is a good example. The Panda has an appendage that has evolved so that it can scrape eucalyptus leaves off branches. It is terribly inadequate and many intelligent biologists, like Gould, could see that. It works however. Not intelligent design - crude workable, survivable design.

Human child birth - hardly perfect - frought with risk without the advent of technology (that would be intelligence). Walking upright is great for hominids to survive but it screwed up birth considerably. Not intelligent design

The list continues and Gould created a book full of them. Example after example of non perfect structures. To be sure, nature is quite amazing and wonderful things happen but anyone who sees only perfection in the natural world isn't looking. That isn't science.

I don't think that even the IDers deny evolution. Things evolve and you cannot deny that. It can be seen in species in real time like the moths of London. But why, pray tell, would anything evolve if it was intelligently designed to perfectly fit its environment.

There is not intelligent design and that is why it is not science.

When there are facts that deny the truth of your theory you have to modify or abandon. Observations come first, theories formulated then tested and modified or abandoned if testing fails.

That isn't going to happen with IDers. Inherently IDers formulated the theory, then went to find observations - no testing and they ain't gonna give up the theory

after all that would be denying god and well you can't do that!!!

Bentspoon
 
stealpick said:
If we take the definition of Intelligent Design as it's presented at intelligentdesignnetwork.org, (forgetting for the moment that it may just be a shrewdly-worded statement intended to hide a religious agenda) is it really an unscientific theory that does not merit being discussed in a science class? The main complaint seems to be that ID is a dressed-up version of creationism, but is it really?

Is it possible to discuss ID without mentioning God? Suggesting intelligent design as an explanation of the origin of the species is not the same as discussing the nature of any designer other than to say that there is evidence of intelligence. Could ID work within the boundaries of science by being thought of as a description of the fabric of the universe which seems to have a nature of intelligently self-organizing and improving? The designer implied by the theory of ID must be assumed to be an immutable impersonal force for the purposes of scientific research; if the designer being suggested is supposed to be supernatural then those sorts of ID folks are stepping outside of anything that could be called science. But does ID necessarily require anything supernatural?
Click to expand...
You spent an entire paragraph about how the designer might not need to be supernatural,while skirting around the issue. Suppose ID is right, and somebody (aliens, a god, whatever) designed us, and other life forms on Earth. That does not remove the problem of who designed them. ID requires a complex, original designer, who came about without being designed.
 
zaayrdragon said:
So intelligent design not as an explanatory theory for origin of species, but as future technology? I can buy that.

In fact, we already have - genetically-engineered spider-goats, glowing fish, veggies, etc...
Click to expand...

Which is what I was eluding to. Give us a couple of hundred years and we may be doing on other planets what the Little God-Like Green Men did here. When they become smart enough they may ask, "Were we designed?" And like us, they ill have to reject the hypothosis, even though correct, in order to advance.
 
ID is not scientific for a number of reasons.

The hypothesis is based on purely subjective criteria. "too complex" Too complex for who? by what standard? what wouldn't be considered too complex to have evolved naturally?

The hypothesis is non-falsifiable. There's no condition you can set that can't be answered with "Maybe the designer wanted it that way."

You can't make any predictions based on the hypothesis.

It doesn't permit experimentation.
 
Dogwood said:
ID is not scientific for a number of reasons.

The hypothesis is based on purely subjective criteria. "too complex" Too complex for who? by what standard? what wouldn't be considered too complex to have evolved naturally?

The hypothesis is non-falsifiable. There's no condition you can set that can't be answered with "Maybe the designer wanted it that way."

You can't make any predictions based on the hypothesis.

It doesn't permit experimentation.
Click to expand...

As I said, ID is not necessarily the product of that particular set of frames of thought. It needn't be based on "too complex", for example.

It can also, if true (and no, I don't think it is) be proven to some degree. For example (silly as it may well be): we have a sense of humor, it is reasonable that our 'designers' also had a sense of humor. Look for the obvious joke in the DNA.
 
ID avoids the questions about who the designer is, how he works, where he is, whether he is supernatural or natural, and so forth, by simply refusing to address the issue. Of course, the primary reason for refusing to address the issue is to hide the agenda of wedging God into schools. But the refusal also finesses those difficult questions. This is one reason I would say that ID is not science.

Another problem with ID as a science is that it has no empirical component. The "design inference" is purely mathematical, and the mathematics has been trashed by many reviewers. In particular, inferring design requires that we rule out all possible naturalistic explanations for a particular biological feature. This is perhaps possible in principle, but certainly not in practice. So not a single biological feature has been demonstrated to be designed.

ID theorists claim that ID makes predictions:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156

I'm not impressed.

~~ Paul
 
ID surporters really can't prove their ideas. All they can do is take cheap shots at the current scientific theories and insist that since evolution is wrong ID must be right. That's not how science works. If you have a hypothesis, its up to you to PROVE that theory, not just knock down the prevailing one.

Of course, ID'ers haven't even come close to disproving natural selection, so its really a moot point I guess.
 
cbish said:
Rob Lister wrote:
Umm!.....No. Evolution has advanced a little farther than a hypothesis. .. What level of evidence would be satisfactory to you?
Click to expand...

Again, another excellent point. There isn't a single fact that disproves evolution in all the time people have been looking. Not one. In fact, the more we learn, the stronger the TOETNS becomes.

It would take a monumental find to overturn it at this point in time. It's really note even open for debate if you actually understand the way scientific inquiry works.

There are missing pieces, but then again, we are looking for evidence that has been buried for millions of years on planet with how much surface area? With many different ways of destroying said evidence through storms, continental drift, erosion, heat, lava, etc. Not to mention that which is there is generally buried under a lot of soil, rocks,.etc.

It isn't easy to find and when it is found, it always supports evolution.

If religious foks would stop trying to force religion into science, they would have a lot more understanding from the skeptics of this world - or at least this skeptic. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a damn sight easier to accept their beliefs.
 
Re: It is not intelligent

Bentspoon said:
ID is not science because it filters every fact with ID colored glasses. It does not have merit but the IDers refuse to fall in the face of facts.

Stephen Gould had a book called (I am going to guess because it has been so long) "The Panda's Thumb; Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes"
Click to expand...

The panda's thumb: more reflections in natural history. ISBN 0-14-013480-8

also

Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes ISBN 0-14-013481-6


Tha panda's thumb is a good example. The Panda has an appendage that has evolved so that it can scrape eucalyptus leaves off branches.[...]
Click to expand...

Bamboo, I'd have thought?

The story of the panda's thumb in the book of the same name is a very interesting one, and I recommend it to all.


--Terry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom