NationStates Jolt Archive

Wish I had thought of this... :)


is ID a valid scientific theory? (http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html)

The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

1. Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4. SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

ID is already used in many areas of science. In archeology, we know that stones don't naturally occur in square shapes piled on top of each other. They show signs of intelligent design (although the designer is not supernatural). A recent example is an underwater rock formation off the coast of Cuba. According to the discoverers, the formation consist of smooth, geometrically shaped, granite-like rocks that are laid out in structures resembling pyramids, roads and other structures at more than 2,000 feet in a 7-3/4 mile-square area. How does it exhibit intelligent design? Natural formations of rocks do not have geometric shapes arranged in recognizable structures.

Likewise, rocks do not naturally have pointed ends with patterns of chips along the sides. This pattern is extremely unlikely through natural processes, so we say that it exhibits intelligent design. In the science of forensics, scientists examine patterns of trauma, for example, to determine if it has a natural or intelligent cause. ID is already used in many areas of science.

Probably the best example is the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Radio waves can be produced by a variety of natural and "intelligent" processes. Naturally-produced radio waves exhibit patterns of changes in wavelength that are due to random or periodic variation over time. There is no pattern that would indicate any kind of intelligence designed the signal. However, over short periods of time, the pattern could occur by chance with the probability inversely related to the length of time that the signal demonstrates a pattern. Therefore, by examining the signal statistically, scientists can determine if its cause is intelligent or natural. Thus far, intelligent design theory has eliminated (falsified) all extraterrestrial examples of radio waves monitored as being the product of intelligent design.

Now for the biblical biological ID model:
A reasonable ID model must possess all of the following characteristics:

1. The intelligent Designer is identified
2. The model is detailed
3. The model can be refined
4. The model is testable and falsifiable
5. The model can make predictions

How does the biblical ID model score on the above characteristics? The intelligent Designer is identified as the Creator God of the Bible. The biblical model of creation is detailed in that the major creation events are listed in a temporal sequence. Dozens of creation passages make specific claims about the nature of the world. The model can be refined by putting together all the biblical creation passages into a coherent, detailed model. Many skeptics claim that ID models cannot be tested, but then go on to state that the biblical descriptions of nature are incorrect. You can't have it both ways! A biblically-based ID model is eminently testable and falsifiable. Contrary to the claims of opponents, the biblical model does make predictions. For example, it claims that all men are descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines (see Genesis 6). One would predict from this claim that males would have lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes, compared to the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed on exclusively through women. Published scientific studies confirm this biblical prediction, since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA (see Evolutionary Descent of Mankind Theory- Disproved by Molecular Biology (http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html) ).

emphasis added by me

I don't agree with all of the conclusions found on the referenced website, but there is some food for thought.

mmm, munch, munch! :)

Good post, but it's not even worth the try. The anti-ID, anti-religion crowd will move in on this quickly.

ID is already used in many areas of science. In archeology, we know that stones don't naturally occur in square shapes piled on top of each other. They show signs of intelligent design

aha! yes, that explains how we know that bunny rabbits are intelligently designed. they look designed, while a rock - which was in fact designed and built by the exact same designer - doesn't. it all makes sense now.

oh, wait...

However none of those disciplines involve what YOU refered to as "supernatural ID."

Many skeptics claim that ID models cannot be tested, but then go on to state that the biblical descriptions of nature are incorrect. You can't have it both ways!

one problem - it isn't us trying to have it both ways. if we take the bible at is word and create testable hypotheses out of the things it says, it has this nasty habit of proving to be completely and utterly falsified on every single count. this is not so good, so creationists immediately begin making up extra-biblical miracles and believing in trickster gods to cover the obvious failure of their hypotheses. which means that they don't really want it to be testable.

so here's your dillema. if it's testable, it's false. if it's not testable, it's not science.

aha! yes, that explains how we know that bunny rabbits are intelligently designed. they look designed, while a rock - which was in fact designed and built by the exact same designer - doesn't. it all makes sense now.

oh, wait...

Silly Soviet. If a rock looked like a bunny, then just imagine the heartbreak and confusion at Easter.

Good post, but it's not even worth the try. The anti-ID, anti-religion crowd will move in on this quickly.
No, it's not such a good post. Here's why. When determining whether a rock is naturally arrowhead shaped or formed by human action one isn't relying on a supernatural explanation. When one claims that all species on earth are created as is, without evolution, one is relying on a supernatural agency. Whether you call it god or intelligence it's still a being that defies natural laws, therefore outside the realm of science.

one problem - it isn't us trying to have it both ways. if we take the bible at is word and create testable hypotheses out of the things it says, it has this nasty habit of proving to be completely and utterly falsified on every single count. this is not so good, so creationists immediately begin making up extra-biblical miracles and believing in trickster gods to cover the obvious failure of their hypotheses. which means that they don't really want it to be testable.

so here's your dillema. if it's testable, it's false. if it's not testable, it's not science.

You know, it would be nice if an ID proponent would give at least one falsifiable, repeatable experiemental design to test an ID hypothesis. I'm not holding by breath, but it would be interesting to see what they consider "science" to be.

Good post, but it's not even worth the try. The anti-ID, anti-religion crowd will move in on this quickly.

One does not have to be anti-religion to be anti-ID. All one has to have is a passing knowledge of science to know that ID is hogwash. It doesn't even require a sophisticated knowledge of science.

God can still love you and you can still love God in a world where plants and animals evolved over time...which is what the gross majority of evidence points to.

You know, it would be nice if an ID proponent would give at least one falsifiable, repeatable experiemental design to test an ID hypothesis. I'm not holding by breath, but it would be interesting to see what they consider "science" to be.

I guess I will have to post more of that article, since no one is following the link and reading it to the end.

The article does make falsifiable claims.

I will probably have to wait till after work to post more of it, however... :gundge:

However none of those disciplines involve what YOU refered to as "supernatural ID."

The article does differentiate between non-supernatural and supernatural ID, but the point, which most anti-ID people seem to miss, is that ID=Intelligent Design, and that ID is used by scientists to do science, contrary to popular attack. :)

The computers you are typing on are evidence of ID, just not the supernatural kind. :D

So just saying ID is wrong/bad/non-scientific, is in fact, an incorrect statement.

No, it's not such a good post. Here's why. When determining whether a rock is naturally arrowhead shaped or formed by human action one isn't relying on a supernatural explanation. When one claims that all species on earth are created as is, without evolution, one is relying on a supernatural agency. Whether you call it god or intelligence it's still a being that defies natural laws, therefore outside the realm of science.

Except that not all IDers even believe that it involves a supernatural entity! You (and the Christian IDers) forget that Raelians, because they believe that man was created by aliens, also can be described as proponents of intelligent design! Once the Christian IDers realize this, perhaps they'll be a bit more skeptical.

I agree with the original poster in one respect: ID is testable. Actually, almost every religious claim is to some degree. And any one of them that actually comes up with a test can win a million dollars from these people (http://www.randi.org) . So far, in the entire existence of this organization, none have. That shows something, n'est pas?

The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

And herein lies the problem that anyone with any knowledge whatsoever of science can recognize. These people are trying to gloss over the very clear difference between a natural designer (ie. a human being) and a supernatural one (ie. God). We don't have to make any untestable assumptions to use the explanation that a human did something. The only assumption is that human beings exist - and we can demonstrate this!

Using a supernatural designer requires that you first assume that such a being exists - an assumption which cannot be tested or backed with evidence.

Natural formations of rocks do not have geometric shapes arranged in recognizable structures.

(a) Any formation of rocks created by human beings is natural - it was formed within the rules of nature.

(b) What a silly thing to say. Natural rock formations can have very clear geometric shapes. It is simply rare.

Now for the biblical biological ID model:
Quote:
A reasonable ID model must possess all of the following characteristics:

1. The intelligent Designer is identified
2. The model is detailed
3. The model can be refined
4. The model is testable and falsifiable
5. The model can make predictions

How does the biblical ID model score on the above characteristics? The intelligent Designer is identified as the Creator God of the Bible.[/qutoe]

An untestable assumption, and therefore unscientific.

[quote]The biblical model of creation is detailed in that the major creation events are listed in a temporal sequence.

Twice. With two different orders. Which to choose?

Many skeptics claim that ID models cannot be tested, but then go on to state that the biblical descriptions of nature are incorrect. You can't have it both ways!

Strawman. Science claims (correctly and logically) that the assertion that there is an intelligent designer cannot be tested. However, when a particular hypothesis about the world is made, it can be falsified. Evidence indicates that certain passages in the Bible, while they may be metaphorically correct, are not literally correct.

A biblically-based ID model is eminently testable and falsifiable.

Show me how you falsify God?

I don't agree with all of the conclusions found on the referenced website, but there is some food for thought.

Not if you already know anything about science. If you understand the scientific method, it is just more BS.

Good post, but it's not even worth the try. The anti-ID, anti-religion crowd will move in on this quickly.


anti-ID doesn't always mean anti-Religion

One of these days I'm going to count how many threads about ID and evolution have been made.

And herein lies the problem*SNIP*

Dang Demp! Leave something for us to respond to! :)

The article does differentiate between non-supernatural and supernatural ID, but the point, which most anti-ID people seem to miss, is that ID=Intelligent Design, and that ID is used by scientists to do science, contrary to popular attack. :)

The computers you are typing on are evidence of ID, just not the supernatural kind. :D

So just saying ID is wrong/bad/non-scientific, is in fact, an incorrect statement.
However these aren't "hard" sciences they are social sciences.

So this is what ID-proponents have sunk to; trying to do an intellectually dishonest bait and switch with the effects that natural animals have on the natural world with those of a supernatural entity, and they expect someone to fall for this ridiculous "logic"?

Oh, wait, that's what ID-proponents have been doing all along.... never mind. Same old silliness.

1. Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4. SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?
----
5. Squirrels: Is the fact they keep getting flattened by cars an accident or due to intelligent design?

I guess I will have to post more of that article, since no one is following the link and reading it to the end.

The article does make falsifiable claims.

I will probably have to wait till after work to post more of it, however... :gundge:

I did follow the link, both of them, and what I found was not a hypothetical model with a proposed repeatable, falsifiable testing method, but an attempt to debunk evolutionary theory using ID principles. This is not an ID theory and experimental set up, though.

Maybe it's somewhere else on the site, but whatever. :rolleyes:

Other problems:

The first table is completely bogus. Much of the so-called "naturalism" explanations are not actual scientific statements. For instance, no one with any knowledge at all of science or mathematics would say that only probable events occur. The inclusion of multiverses is not even a highly accepted theory - it is a philosophical idea. And the laws of physics hardly breakdown at any point. I can only assume that the idiot who wrote this was referring to Newton's Laws, which do break down at certain points, which is why they have been declared disproven and a new theory has been created.

The second table:

Science does not claim that there could not have been a beginning. This is another example of some idiot reading one idea from one scientist and deciding that it describes the whole of science.

It is illogical to say that finding more complication means something was designed from outside. There are all sorts of examples of order arising out of randomness. Meanwhile, science certainly does not claim that more structured "designs" will be developing.

LOL! Where in the Bible does it say that God didn't make any other Earth-like planets? Meanwhile, if you take a literal reading of the Bible, you have to believe that the sun rotates around the Earth, and can be stopped dead in the sky.

Science never claims that anything will be found. Science is an ongoing process that will always be an ongoing process. We will get closer and closer to a true explanation, but will likely never get there.

There is no evidence that life has always been as complex as it now is. In fact, evidence points in the exact opposite direction.

I'm waiting for this new species created from scratch overnight to pop into existence. Show me one, please?


The conclusions:

1) True, which is why it is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one.
2) A prediction made by evolution. Congratulations.
3) Incorrect.
4) So?
5) Incorrect.
6) Biochemical and replicative pathways have not been described? Holy crap! I guess I should throw out my genetics book then! I assume this person meant that process that created life has has not been described - which is irrelevant to ID.
7) False.
8) Again, false.

Dang Demp! Leave something for us to respond to! :)

*sheepish* Sorry.

This thread is ridiculous, it still makes a jump that there it is testable. Intelligent Design is NOT testable. There is no way to prove the existence of a creator. May I direct you to this website:

http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

Intelligent Design is not science. It is not related to science and it has nothing to do with science.

So this is what ID-proponents have sunk to; trying to do an intellectually dishonest bait and switch with the effects that natural animals have on the natural world with those of a supernatural entity, and they expect someone to fall for this ridiculous "logic"?

Oh, wait, that's what ID-proponents have been doing all along.... never mind. Same old silliness.

1. I kinda get the feeling the person who started this thread isn't actually pro-ID. Don't forget, if ID can be tested it can be disproven, which might go a long way to showing people why its wrong.
2. The Christian IDers don't seem to understand that if they do manage to prove a designer they could easily have proven a natural one, such as aliens. If they do actually manage to prove something we can always spring that one on them.

1. I kinda get the feeling the person who started this thread isn't actually pro-ID. Don't forget, if ID can be tested it can be disproven, which might go a long way to showing people why its wrong.
2. The Christian IDers don't seem to understand that if they do manage to prove a designer they could easily have proven a natural one, such as aliens. If they do actually manage to prove something we can always spring that one on them.


If they are using the scientific method, it is impossible to prove anything at all.

This thread is ridiculous, it still makes a jump that there it is testable. Intelligent Design is NOT testable. There is no way to prove the existence of a creator. May I direct you to this website:

http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

My god Mesa, I actually agree with you! :eek:

Though, actually, as good scientists we should admit that we can't say that there is no way to prove the existance of a creator. What we can say is that no one has ever thought of a way to test for the existance or non-existance of a creator.

If anyone can think of a way to test such a conclusion, I'm all ears.

My god Mesa, I actually agree with you! :eek:

Though, actually, as good scientists we should admit that we can't say that there is no way to prove the existance of a creator. What we can say is that no one has ever thought of a way to test for the existance or non-existance of a creator.

If anyone can think of a way to test such a conclusion, I'm all ears.

We can say that there is no way to prove the existence of a creator within science, since the logic of science cannot prove anything. It can only disprove or support a hypothesis.

We can also point out that, a creator (of the universe) being supernatural by definition, it lies outside science, by definition.

Though, actually, as good scientists we should admit that we can't say that there is no way to prove the existance of a creator. What we can say is that no one has ever thought of a way to test for the existance or non-existance of a creator.

Well as the existence of a creator is entirely faith based... it has no bearing in my life or opinions. It isn't scientifically based. I respect people who believe in god(s). But I do not respect people who try to put crap like ID in school.

You know, it would be nice if an ID proponent would give at least one falsifiable, repeatable experiemental design to test an ID hypothesis. I'm not holding by breath, but it would be interesting to see what they consider "science" to be.

well, behe kind of did. he claimed that certain specific structures in biological systems are irreducibly complex and could not in principle have come about through an evolutionary pathway. his specific predictions have been falsified - we have observed some and modelled other possible evolutionary pathways for the things he claimed couldn't be. ic has been falsified. which is why behe is now hiding behind demands to be show a chemical reaction by chemical reaction account of everything, even though that has no bearing on the truth or falsity of his claims.

i personally like generating hypotheses off of the young earther account of the universe. it's just so stupid.

This thread is ridiculous, it still makes a jump that there it is testable. Intelligent Design is NOT testable. There is no way to prove the existence of a creator. May I direct you to this website:

http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

Intelligent Design is not science. It is not related to science and it has nothing to do with science.

At the point where we can goad them into making a unique prediction it is eminently testable, falsifiable, and hopefully on the way out. The problem is not the nature of the "field" of ID, it is in the fact that IDers keep changing their predictions to match the evidence. Because the bible has accounts of creation it should be incredibly easy to disprove at least the Christian sectors of ID once they admit its what they're talking about.

We can say that there is no way to prove the existence of a creator within science, since the logic of science cannot prove anything. It can only disprove or support a hypothesis.

Wrong. There are certain theories and scientific laws. The logic of science most certainly can prove things and it has definitely invented quite a few things. Look at what you are typing on... what does a computer have? Transistors thanks to science (Bell Labs). Science is extremely important and very valuable.

We can also point out that, a creator (of the universe) being supernatural by definition, it lies outside science, by definition.

And thus unprovable and totally based on faith.

well, behe kind of did. he claimed that certain specific structures in biological systems are irreducibly complex and could not in principle have come about through an evolutionary pathway.

...which, if true, would simply disprove evolutionary theory (or at least disprove it in the context of those systems). It would not provide any logical evidence at all for a supernatural designer.

This isn't a testable hypothesis or an experiment for ID, it is an attack on evolutionary theory. The two are not equivalent.

well, behe kind of did. he claimed that certain specific structures in biological systems are irreducibly complex and could not in principle have come about through an evolutionary pathway. his specific predictions have been falsified - we have observed some and modelled other possible evolutionary pathways for the things he claimed couldn't be. ic has been falsified. which is why behe is now hiding behind demands to be show a chemical reaction by chemical reaction account of everything, even though that has no bearing on the truth or falsity of his claims.

i personally like generating hypotheses off of the young earther account of the universe. it's just so stupid.

Meh, I missed it. I'm obviously too tired to be posting today. Not thinking correctly.

At the point where we can goad them into making a unique prediction it is eminently testable, falsifiable, and hopefully on the way out. The problem is not the nature of the "field" of ID, it is in the fact that IDers keep changing their predictions to match the evidence. Because the bible has accounts of creation it should be incredibly easy to disprove at least the Christian sectors of ID once they admit its what they're talking about.

Just because these statements made by ID proponents get proven wrong still does not make it science. For it to be scientific it must also follow the scientific method. It does not. It is simply assumption and skip all the other tests, therefore it still isn't testable in the realms of science.

And if I hear one more thing about irreduceably complexity I'm going to scream. The ID advocates keep harping on about something that isn't even logical, let alone formulated properly.

Wrong. There are certain theories and scientific laws. The logic of science most certainly can prove things and it has definitely invented quite a few things. Look at what you are typing on... what does a computer have? Transistors thanks to science (Bell Labs). Science is extremely important and very valuable.

(a) I never said science wasn't important and valuable. I am a scientist for crying out loud.

(b) The scientific method can never prove anything, it doesn't work that way. It can support something so much that it might as well be proven, but it can never reach the 100% confidence mark. The entire method is based around disproving something. A scientist forms a hypothesis and tests it. If the results of the test contradict the hypothesis, it is disproven. If the results do not contradict the hypothesis, it is supported, but not proven.

(c) Laws = theories. Laws are nothing more than theories that have so much backing that we feel comfortable using them as the basis for further study. However, they are always open to falsification, as are all theories. Newton's laws were held to be absolutely true for a very long time. Then we found out that they actually are incorrect. The reason they seemed to be correct was that, in normal situations (relatively slow speeds and large masses) they provide an incredibly close approximation. However, they were disproven when we began to measure things on the quantum level. ((These types of things are one of the reasons that the science community has shied away from elevating anything to the level of "law" anymore. They don't want to give the impression that they have proven it 100%, which would be false.))

And thus unprovable and totally based on faith.
Everything is unprovable, at least using the logic of science. The problem with the assertion of the existence or non-existence of a God is that it is not falsifiable. It is untestable. Therefore, it cannot be a basis for science.

Intelligent Design is NOT testable.

well, it could be. if we had a specific claim about an action of an intelligent designer that would have specific effects in the universe, we could test for the existence of that designer by looking for those effects. the problem comes from the fact that the people proposing the designer absolutely hate it when we show conclusively that their claim about the designer's physical effects is false. they therefore proceed to make up excuses why those effects can't be found. of course, this is different that the original claim - which has been tested and falsified - but it may still be testable itself. and so we test it again, and find it false again. eventually they retreat behind so many miracles that we can no longer even attempt to find physical evidence for the claims.

the reason why the designer is ultimately untestable is because that is the only safe place to put the designer - safely out of reach from the prying eyes of science. it has to become untestable in order to protect it from being shown to be false.

We can say that there is no way to prove the existence of a creator within science, since the logic of science cannot prove anything. It can only disprove or support a hypothesis.

We can also point out that, a creator (of the universe) being supernatural by definition, it lies outside science, by definition.

But if we find a scientific test to prove (as far as anything in science is provable. The word "prove" is much much shorter to write than the literal scientific approach, so you'll excuse me if I use it for convenience.) God's existance, then God is no longer supernatural.

Look, I'm a staunch supporter of evolution, but by saying that something is entirely impossible, we make the same mistake that most ID'ers do. Look, we haven't found a way to test for gravitons (other than noting the end result...gravity,) but it's silly to say that it's impossible to test for them, merely because we don't have a clue how to do it yet.

If there is a God, one day science will be able to "prove" his/her/its existance.

If something exists, it's no longer supernatural.

Again,let me stress that I am neither religious, nor am I a proponent of ID. In fact, I hold ID in complete scorn.

I'm just asking that we never ever willfully have blind spots.

And herein lies the problem that anyone with any knowledge whatsoever of science can recognize. *snip*

Not if you already know anything about science. If you understand the scientific method, it is just more BS.

As someone who has been interested in rocketry and astronautics since toddling, I might know something about science and the scientific method---but why try to refute ad hominem attacks?

Calling me scientifically ignorant is the same as calling me "four-eyes."
I really should learn not to expect a higher level of discourse than this... :(

Time to leave work, bye for now!

well, it could be. if we had a specific claim about an action of an intelligent designer that would have specific effects in the universe, we could test for the existence of that designer by looking for those effects.

...which still wouldn't test for a designer. It would test for a particular action that a designer may or may not take.

This is part of the problem.

But if we find a scientific test to prove (as far as anything in science is provable. The word "prove" is much much shorter to write than the literal scientific approach, so you'll excuse me if I use it for convenience.) God's existance, then God is no longer supernatural.

That is like saying, "If I could fly, I would be able to fly." If you define things in such a way that they work, then they work.

I'm not saying God is supernatural because we can't test for God. I am saying that we can't test for God because God is supernatural. The two are very different statements.

The God proposed is outside the Universe, and therefore outside the realm in which science can be used. That's just the way it is.

Look, I'm a staunch supporter of evolution, but by saying that something is entirely impossible, we make the same mistake that most ID'ers do. Look, we haven't found a way to test for gravitons (other than noting the end result...gravity,) but it's silly to say that it's impossible to test for them, merely because we don't have a clue how to do it yet.

(a) No scientist, least of all me, has ever made the claim that the existence of an intelligent designer is entirely impossible.

(b) There is a difference between not having yet found a way to test for something, and not being able to test something because it is, by definition, outside that which can be measured and tested.

If there is a God, one day science will be able to "prove" his/her/its existance.

Only if we alter the scientific method so that it can be used outside the Universe and somehow find a way to measure something that is outside the universe.


If something exists, it's no longer supernatural.

Incorrect. If something exists within nature, it is not supernatural.

As someone who has been interested in rocketry and astronautics since toddling, I might know something about science and the scientific method---but why try to refute ad hominem attacks?

Being interested in something hardly means that you understand it. Even many scientists with degrees don't actually understand the philosophy and logic behind the scientific method.

Meanwhile, there is nothing ad hominem about it. I didn't bring up anything about you (or anyone else) that is irrelevant to the debate here.

Calling me scientifically ignorant is the same as calling me "four-eyes."

Hardly. First off, calling someone ignorant, especially when they have demonstrated ignorance of the subject, is not an insult. It is simply pointing something out. Anyone with an understanding of the scientific method and the logic behind it would know that it can only be used to describe that which is natural - that which can be measured. The supernatural is, by definition, outside the realm of science.*

*Note: I am talking about anything that is actually supernatural. That is, it is not part of the universe in which we exist - that which we can measure. Many people delineate ghosts, etc. as supernatural. However, if these exist within our universe, they are governed by the rules of our universe (whatever they may be), and are therefore part of nature.

Wish I had thought of this... :)

No, you don't... trust me.

is ID a valid scientific theory? (http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html)

ID invokes untestable, unfalsifiable, supernatural explanations for observations and as such cannot possibly be considered science in any sense of the word.

The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study.

No, they don't use "ID". They use a known, natural phenomenon the effects of which can be tested for. Namely, human intervention.

Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

No, they can't. Nobody can say what methods would have been employed by a supernatural agent. Nobody can demonstrate what evidence the application of those methods would leave. Nobody can can provide falsification of the claim that they occured whether the claim is true or false.

1. Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?

"Due to 'intelligent design'" meaning "Due to someone taking tools to it, leaving clearly identifiable evidence of the rock having been worked... which looks a lot different than the effects of erosion and can actually be detected"

2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?

See above.

3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?

See above. Substitute "person" for "rock" and "stabbed, shot, strangled, poisoned, etc..." for "worked with tools"."

4. SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

Meaing "do those signals contain complex, meaningful, mathematical structure when they have no reason for doing so if they are from any known naturally occuring transmission source".

and then if the answer is yes, they'll still have to test to make sure it isn't from an unknown natural transmission source!

Now for the biblical biological ID model:

A reasonable ID model must possess all of the following characteristics:

1. The intelligent Designer is identified

Or just claimed and then given a name... which isn't quite the same thing.

2. The model is detailed

Never done.

3. The model can be refined

Of course, if you consider just changing the story to declare it accounts for any new evidence to come along for no particularly compelling reason to be "refinement".

4. The model is testable and falsifiable

And this item is laughable. How exactly would someone propose we test for the activity of a supernatural agent who supposedly possess unlimited means to do whatever it wants in any manner it wants?

5. The model can make predictions

Such as?

How does the biblical ID model score on the above characteristics? The intelligent Designer is identified as the Creator God of the Bible.

See comment on point 1.

The biblical model of creation is detailed in that the major creation events are listed in a temporal sequence. Dozens of creation passages make specific claims about the nature of the world.

Which tend to fail when put to the test, and then have the failurtes hand waved away by invoking the magic wand of "God can do anything any way he wants".

The model can be refined by putting together all the biblical creation passages into a coherent, detailed model.

I'm sorry... please acquaint yourself with what it actually means to refine a theory in a scientific context.

Many skeptics claim that ID models cannot be tested, but then go on to state that the biblical descriptions of nature are incorrect.

Can't be tested and falsified.

As clearly demonstrated by the fact that despite the overwhelming evidence from all manners of different tests against the accuracy of the biblical creation accounts it's adherents can still claim it all works just by invoking God's supernatural abilities to declare that all the evidence that doesn't fit their story is irrelevent, because God can do anything and leave any evidence he wants when he's done. And what exactly can you say to 'reasoning' like that?

...which still wouldn't test for a designer. It would test for a particular action that a designer may or may not take.

This is part of the problem.

only because you've already skipped past the stage of holding naive ideas about the physical effects that would be left behind by the actions of some designer.
you forget that these people actually do hold that they know what actions the designer had to have taken to get to where we are now.

the claims being made are essentially that the actions of entity x would result in physical evidence y. the only way to save entity x in the face of not-y is to change the claim. but this doesn't make the original claim untestable. it makes it false.

I'm not saying God is supernatural because we can't test for God. I am saying that we can't test for God because God is supernatural. The two are very different statements.

That's assuming that God, if he exists, is supernatural. Anything beyond our present understanding is often labeled "supernatural."

The God proposed is outside the Universe, and therefore outside the realm in which science can be used. That's just the way it is.

Where is it said that God is outside the Universe? In fact, the assertion that He is omnipresent directly refutes that. Again, I am not saying this is proof. All I'm saying is that you are using assumptions to make your case.



(a) No scientist, least of all me, has ever made the claim that the existence of an intelligent designer is entirely impossible.

(b) There is a difference between not having yet found a way to test for something, and not being able to test something because it is, by definition, outside that which can be measured and tested.

Why is God, by definition, untestable? Are you saying that you know God's nature? Assumption again.

Only if we alter the scientific method so that it can be used outside the Universe and somehow find a way to measure something that is outside the universe.

The number of things inside the universe that we do not currently have the ability to test for is nearly infinite. Again, you are assuming that God, if he exists, is outside the universe. Perhaps he merely uses forces that we are currently unaware of (electricity, to a hunter-gatherer, must seem like a mystical force.)


Incorrect. If something exists within nature, it is not supernatural.

Have we ever discovered anything that exists outside of nature? You're making an assumption that there is such a thing as "outside of nature."



*Note: I am talking about anything that is actually supernatural. That is, it is not part of the universe in which we exist - that which we can measure. Many people delineate ghosts, etc. as supernatural. However, if these exist within our universe, they are governed by the rules of our universe (whatever they may be), and are therefore part of nature.

Exactly my point...so why did you argue against it earlier?

only because you've already skipped past the stage of holding naive ideas about the physical effects that would be left behind by the actions of some designer.
you forget that these people actually do hold that they know what actions the designer had to have taken to get to where we are now.

I'm not forgetting that at all. I am simply pointing out that, logically, falsification of a particular process claimed to have been carried out by God does not, in any way, disprove God. The same is true of saying that falsification of evolutionary theory, if it is ever done, would not in any way disprove the idea that species have diversified through some sort of natural process. It would simply say that the particular aspect of God claimed, or that the particular process detailed by evolution, was incorrect.

the claims being made are essentially that the actions of entity x would result in physical evidence y. the only way to save entity x in the face of not-y is to change the claim. but this doesn't make the original claim untestable. it makes it false.

You fail to separate the entity (God) which is, by definition, untestable, from the claims of actions within the Universe, which are testable. I have not said that claims about the process used by God within the Universe are untestable - in fact, I have said exactly the opposite. And a specific claim about such a process can be tested, and disproven. It is the simple claim that a God exists (or a similar claim that God does not exist) that cannot be tested/disproven.

That's assuming that God, if he exists, is supernatural.

God, as a creator of the universe, would have to be outside the universe, and therefore supernatural.

Anything beyond our present understanding is often labeled "supernatural."

...which is incorrect usage.

Where is it said that God is outside the Universe? In fact, the assertion that He is omnipresent directly refutes that. Again, I am not saying this is proof. All I'm saying is that you are using assumptions to make your case.

Your logic is flawed here. Any statement that God created the universe automatically makes God outside the universe, as a creator must be outside the created and cannot be subject to its rules.

Meanwhile, omnipresence does not state that God is not outside the Universe, it states that the God is present everywhere within the universe. God being througbhout and outside the universe is a logical possibility, just as I am present within my brain, but also throughout my entire body.

The supernatural would, by definition, exist outside the laws of the universe. A creator must, by definition, exist outside the laws it sets for the universe and be outside the universe itself, even if it chooses to be within it as well.

Why is God, by definition, untestable?

This has already been explained. Anything not subject to the laws of the universe (which a creator would have to be) is untestable. We can only test that which is subject to these laws.

Are you saying that you know God's nature?

Hardly. One can only know God's nature with certainty if one is God.

The number of things inside the universe that we do not currently have the ability to test for is nearly infinite.

Irrelevant. They logically can be tested.

Again, you are assuming that God, if he exists, is outside the universe.

That isn't an assumption. It is logic. A creator must be outside that which is created. It must create the rules that govern that creation, thus meaning that it is not itself subject to those rules and could make them differently.

Perhaps he merely uses forces that we are currently unaware of (electricity, to a hunter-gatherer, must seem like a mystical force.)

Using forces that we are aware of is irrelevant. It simply means that God has chosen to work within the rules set up. This statement is like saying, "Since the computer designer uses the rules under which the computer works, he is not outside the computer."

Have we ever discovered anything that exists outside of nature?

Of course not. We have posited such things, but we cannot test for them, and thus cannot discover them (or disprove them).

You're making an assumption that there is such a thing as "outside of nature."

On the contrary. I am simply pointing out that, if there is an "outside of nature", we cannot use the scientific method to test for it. It is exactly this assumption (or its opposite) which is untestable and therefore cannot be used in science.

Exactly my point...so why did you argue against it earlier?

I never argued against it. I am merely pointing out that some ideas, by their very definition, are placed outside of nature. THese things, if they exist, would be supernatural. If they exist within nature, they are not supernatural, but also cannot have created the natural.

I'm not forgetting that at all. I am simply pointing out that, logically, falsification of a particular process claimed to have been carried out by God does not, in any way, disprove God.

a god who is claimed to have acted in way 1 is a seperate entity from a god who is claimed to have acted in way 2. if the predicted effects of the actions of god1 do not occur, then god1 is falsified. if the predicted effects of god2 do not occur, then god2 is falsified.

what i'm saying is that the only way to save god of any sort is to move god out of the realm of testable consequences. if godx has testable consequences, then godx is testable and can be falsified. these people are holding that god1 exists. not god in general, but a very specific god with empirically testable impacts on the universe.

if they were smart, they would hold only that god exists and we can't draw testable consequences from that fact. but they aren't smart.

Classical switch and bait technique.
Get people to think that you try to prove subject A and then go on about subject B instead.

The ID belief is that (a) God(like being) designed every lifeform on the planet.
Then they try to claim that ID is being used by sciences because those sciences look for signs of humanity.

That bit you put emphasise on should be reread by whoever wrote that piece. If the biblical descriptions are incorrect they have been falsified, being falsified means that ANY theory that uses those descriptions as main support is invalid. Which forces the conclusion that ID belief is an invalid theory.
The only way out of this is to say that God does not have to follow the rules of the universe (being omni potent He doesn't) but the moment that that argument get dragged in you end up with a belief system and not a scientifc theory.

The whole problem with trying to get God into science is that you cannot (At least if you follow the classical God is omnipotent) distinguish anything that God does from natural laws (His will is natural law) as identified by science unless God purposefully breaks them in such a way that the world suddenly is different. And repeatedly doing this same breaking so that scientists can measure what he's doing. But then you get back to the question is what the scientists are measuring something that God is doing or did they find one of those laws?

If I remember correctly Ockham (13th-14th century) build up an entire proof that it is impossible to detect the presence of God through science, the only thing you can do is believe in Him.

The mtDNA Eve theory doesn't prove there was just one man and up to 4 women. All it proves that there was 1 successful line of female descent which managed to remove all competing genetic variation of mtDNA from the human genepool.

I found that point 5 good for a laugh. Until I found out that the author in some of the arguments just lied about what science can(t) do, picked out points that will be very though to impossible to (dis)prove, used weasel wording in others, subtly used different definitions in pro & con arguments and other techniques used in propaganda (occurs throughout that website. It would take another website in space to pick apart the deceptions).

Also I find this ID belief system offensive as a christian (and engineer).
Why? If I'd tried to get away with design flaws, repetive design errors, refusal to reuse things that work, etc. that can be seen in living things I would have lost my job and would have been blacklisted by my former employer as incompetent. That I find offensive about the ID belief, that people are willing to cast God as an incompetent moron so they can say God created life in the way they demand He would have done this. I find it offensive in the way engineers (people who design things) are set down since appearantly we're supposed to be moronically incompetent.

a god who is claimed to have acted in way 1 is a seperate entity from a god who is claimed to have acted in way 2. if the predicted effects of the actions of god1 do not occur, then god1 is falsified. if the predicted effects of god2 do not occur, then god2 is falsified.

So if I predict that you will go to the mall, and you go to the movies instead, I have fallsified your existence?

what i'm saying is that the only way to save god of any sort is to move god out of the realm of testable consequences.

There is no moving involved. If you claim an omnipotent creator, you have defined something that is already untestable. Again, you are trying to make the entity = the entity's actions, which ia an illogical propostition.

f godx has testable consequences, then godx is testable and can be falsified.

Again, this is no different from claiming that I can disprove your existence by proposing that you did something you didn't. Testing and finding that certain consequences did not happen does not disprove godx. It disproves that godx, if godx exists, carried out the proposed actions.

So if I predict that you will go to the mall, and you go to the movies instead, I have fallsified your existence?

no, you have falsified the existence of the entity free-soviets-that-goes-to-the-mall-at-time-t. you have other evidence for the existence of the entity free-soviets-general-principle-thereof.

assume i had a hypothesis about some subatomic particle; let's call it the mattulon. my hypothesis predicts that the mattulon acts in certain ways. we run through the tests and nothing indicates the existence of the mattulon, and much seems to indicate that it doesn't exist at all. but i really like the mattulon. so i change my prediction about how mattulons act. in that case, i am no longer talking about the same subatomic particle as the one i was before. that one is no longer a going concern. if i do wind up finding some subatomic particle and calling it a mattulon, it won't be the same mattulon as the one in my original prediction. it will be a totally different entity.

the god you are talking about is not the same god as the one they believe in.

no, you have falsified the existence of the entity free-soviets-that-goes-to-the-mall-at-time-t. you have other evidence for the existence of the entity free-soviets-general-principle-thereof.

Now this is simply getting silly. You are doing the, "If I could fly, then I would be able to fly thing." - defining things in such a way that you get what you want, instead of going by the general definitions.

I wasn't positing the existence of "the entity free-soviets-that-goes-to-the-mall-at-time-t." I was positing the existence of an entity called Free Soviets that I thought went to the mall at time t. If Free Soviets didn't go to the mall at that time period, that hardly disproves her (?) existence.

assume i had a hypothesis about some subatomic particle; let's call it the mattulon.

Improper analogy. You are discussing something posited to exist within the universe and be testable - thus not a good analogy for the god debate.

You have also made the definition of the particle dependent upon what it does, while the definition of God is not dependent upon any particular action (other than, perhaps, creation).

I wasn't positing the existence of "the entity free-soviets-that-goes-to-the-mall-at-time-t." I was positing the existence of an entity called Free Soviets that I thought went to the mall at time t.

same thing.

there are an infinite number of possible variations for any entity. it's part of why science can't prove things - the 'real' theory of gravity might in fact contain a part that says "these relationships hold at all times and places within the universe except on the northern coast of fiji on the first tuesday after the first monday of june 3016". this theory is exactly as well supported as the current one, and will be until we can do the test that distinguishes the one from the other.

you proposed an entity that is different than the entity that actually existed, therefore your proposed entity has been tested and was falsified.

You have also made the definition of the particle dependent upon what it does, while the definition of God is not dependent upon any particular action (other than, perhaps, creation).

if that is the case, then why do the creationists care so much? they seem to think that it is vitally important that the god that exists actually did do certain actions.

their god is not the same entity as the god you are talking about.

same thing.

Logically, no it isn't. In your case, the entity is defined by when it goes to the mall. In mine, it is not defined by that, but that it an aspect of it. My assertion that you exist and my assertion that you went to the mall are not really linked.

you proposed an entity that is different than the entity that actually existed, therefore your proposed entity has been tested and was falsified.

Wrong. I proposed that the entity that exists did something. It did not. Therefore that action has been falsified. The entity itself has not. Conscious beings are hardly defined simply by their actions.

if that is the case, then why do the creationists care so much?

Generally? A lack of faith. They can't believe in something without physical proof of some sort, so they feel the need to prove that, "I'm right and you're wrong," even on things they cannot objectively examine and measure. People get scared when their faith is based in possible actions instead of in God, and they attack anything that doesn't match their weak faith.

they seem to think that it is vitally important that the god that exists actually did do certain actions.

...which is irrelevant. I might think that it is vitally important that you go to the mall when I say you do, but it doesn't make you exist any less if you don't go.

their god is not the same entity as the god you are talking about.

Actually, it is. I just presume less about the actions that God takes.

I don't agree with all of the conclusions found on the referenced website, but there is some food for thought.

mmm, munch, munch! :)Hm... I doubt most Christians like the idea that God is some physical bio engineer that's been experimenting on us.