What is wrong with intelligent design?

[Lumpen Prole]

I thought I'd post this here so it would be more widely read. I'm too busy to check WS daily, so I will probably just lurk and drop in from time to time to check up on the mess of a thread that will likely develop. :)

In a thought-provoking paper from the March issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology , Elliott Sober (University of Wisconsin) clearly discusses the problems with two standard criticisms of intelligent design: that it is unfalsifiable and that the many imperfect adaptations found in nature refute the hypothesis of intelligent design.

Biologists from Charles Darwin to Stephen Jay Gould have advanced this second type of argument. Stephen Jay Gould's well-known example of a trait of this type is the panda's thumb. If a truly intelligent designer were responsible for the panda, Gould argues, it would have provided a more useful tool than the stubby proto-thumb that pandas use to laboriously strip bamboo in order to eat it.

ID proponents have a ready reply to this objection. We do not know whether an intelligent designer intended for pandas to be able to efficiently strip bamboo. The "no designer worth his salt" argument assumes the designer would want pandas to have better eating implements, but the objection has no justification for this assumption. In addition, Sober points out, this criticism of ID also concedes that creationism is testable.

A second common criticism of ID is that it is untestable. To develop this point, scientists often turn to the philosopher Karl Popper's idea of falsifiability. According to Popper, a scientific statement must allow the possibility of an observation that would disprove it. For example, the statement "all swans are white" is falsifiable, since observing even one swan that isn't white would disprove it. Sober points out that this criterion entails that many ID statements are falsifiable; for example, the statement that an intelligent designer created the vertebrate eye entails that vertebrates have eyes, which is an observation.

This leads Sober to jettison the concept of falsifiability and to provide a different account of testability. "If ID is to be tested," he says, "it must be tested against one or more competing hypotheses." If the ID claim about the vertebrate eye is to be tested against the hypothesis that the vertebrate eye evolved by Darwinian processes, the question is whether there is an observation that can discriminate between the two. The observation that vertebrates have eyes cannot do this.

Sober also points out that criticism of a competing theory, such as evolution, is not in-and-of-itself a test of ID. Proponents of ID must construct a theory that makes its own predictions in order for the theory to be testable. To contend that evolutionary processes cannot produce "irreducibly complex" adaptations merely changes the subject, Sober argues.

"When scientific theories compete with each other, the usual pattern is that independently attested auxiliary propositions allow the theories to make predictions that disagree with each other," Sober writes. "No such auxiliary propositions allow ... ID to do this." In developing this idea, Sober makes use of ideas that the French philosopher Pierre Duhem developed in connection with physical theories -- theories usually do not, all by themselves, make testable predictions. Rather, they do so only when supplemented with auxiliary information. For example, the laws of optics do not, by themselves, predict when eclipses will occur; they do so when independently justified claims about the positions of the earth, moon, and sun are taken into account.

Similarly, ID claims make predictions when they are supplemented by auxiliary claims. The problem is that these auxiliary assumptions about the putative designer's goals and abilities are not independently justified. Surprisingly, this is a point that several ID proponents concede.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070222155420.htm

I suppose the general focus of the thread should be whether or not "Intelligent Design" qualifies as science.

[wal]

I thought I'd post this here so it would be more widely read. I'm too busy to check WS daily, so I will probably just lurk and drop in from time to time to check up on the mess of a thread that will likely develop. :)



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070222155420.htm

I suppose the general focus of the thread should be whether or not "Intelligent Design" qualifies as science.

I see nothing wrong with the idea of intelligent design as a philosophical or metaphysical concept. But it is not science, because it deals with the question of who or what created science.

[wal]

As for this gentleman's arguments, they sound semantic to me. It still seems to be the case that intelligent design has no scientific evidence. I believe in a variation of ID based on my one metaphysical beliefs.

The second argument about flawed design was a poor one in the first place, because there is nothing to say an intelligent designer has to be a perfect designer of even a kind designer. Perhaps he or she takes pleasure in seeing Pandas laboriously strip bamboo.

So, ID should not be taught as science, and should only be taught as Philosophy if no reference is made to religion. Even if ID is true (and it seems to me science alone falls short in explaining how a big bang even happened or how the material or energy needed for it came to exist), it would no more point to the existence of God or Jesus or validate the Bible than it would the theory that the world was created by a committe of Gods.

[Ethos]

ID is not science in any traditional sense, nor it is a "theory". It employs scientific concepts (irreducible complexity, for instance) as an attempt at gaining legitimacy - primarily within the context of being added to public school biology curricula. Really this is beside the point, since ID relies more on faith than science - in the sense that the "designer" represents a specific religious entity over any other (religious and otherwise).

The primary issue with ID isn't that it fails as science, but that it isn't developed as an independent theory of species development and differentiation, but as a direct response to evolution.

Truthfully, if Darwinian evolution were not seen in some quarters as being antithetical to religion, I believe the necessity for - and thus the propagation of - Intelligent Design would be non-existent.

Ethos

[pelkgator]

I do not believe in intelligent design or evolution but rather in the flying spaghetti monster as being the creator of the universe.

[Politicks]

Do you have any pictures of said deity? That admittedly would lend a great deal of credence to your theory. Otherwise, it sounds as though one could get quite entangled in the cosmic noodles of your proposed originator of the universe.

[Camera I]

Ramen.

[bowerbird]

I do not believe in intelligent design or evolution but rather in the flying spaghetti monster as being the creator of the universe.

Oh! A pastafarian!! How is his high noodliness? The Great Carbohydrate Creator:p

[mataj]

I suppose the general focus of the thread should be whether or not "Intelligent Design" qualifies as science.It doesn't. Among others, it's unfalsifiable. It makes no empirically verifiable predictions.

[steveksux]

Quite a conundrum. Trying to promote an idea that some supernatural being was the driving force in a (psuedo)"scientific"(ish) theory, yet being forced to lie about who you think it is to avoid admitting that the whole sad excuse for a theory is in fact nothing more than creationism under false pretenses.

Catch 22. Having supernatural beings disqualifies it as science right off the bat. But promoting their supernatural being is the entire raison d' etre of the intelligent design theery. Quite a difficult needle to thread.

Randy

[Lumpen Prole]

The domain of science is indeed limited to the natural world. However, if some deity did in fact create the universe (provide the "spark" for the big bang or some such thing) then the supernatural is a part of the chain of causality in the history of the universe. In other words, there was supernatural interaction within the universe at at least one point in time. The question would then be whether or not scientific inquiry can detect that interaction between the supernatural and natural. ID proponents would obviously say we can.

Also, regarding the comment on Sober's argument being merely "semantic" I would like to know exactly why. I will attach a couple of related papers. There is more than enough room for discussion and disagreement, but I don't think his ideas can be tossed aside so effortlessly.

EDIT: Couldn't get my attachments to work. Below is the relevant link. Go to "Publications," and the first two from the top were the ones I had in mind.

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/

[serenity]

Just to add to what seems to me really good arguments here against ID as science—if we are going to posit the idea of an intelligent designer, we have to assume the possibility of some sort of multitude or pantheon; I don’t see how a single designer (which is perfectly implicit in the singular construction of the word itself) is in any way evident. Not even philosophically.

Also, room needs to be made for the possibility of malevolent design, an idea for which there seems to be some evidence.

[Dangerrmouse]

Those who posit ID also postulate that said designer is perfect in nature. Nature is replete with examples of imperfect "design", which in turn precludes the perfection of their "designer".

[Sgt Schultz]

Just to add to what seems to me really good arguments here against ID as science—if we are going to posit the idea of an intelligent designer, we have to assume the possibility of some sort of multitude or pantheon; I don’t see how a single designer (which is perfectly implicit in the singular construction of the word itself) is in any way evident. Not even philosophically.

Also, room needs to be made for the possibility of malevolent design, an idea for which there seems to be some evidence.

Not only that, but say we were designed. Why does that make the designer a god, or even to bestow that status upon the designer? Seems to me he/she is just more advanced than us, nothing more.

[halfamind]

Seems to me that if we were all capable of reigning in our hubris to the degree we realized the vastness of what we do not know as well as eliminating our propensity for thinking in binary, then perhaps we could navigate our way through those boundaries between philosophy and science. When we presuppose there IS a creator and then form rigid arguments that ignore scientific method, far from revealing God's workings, we only reveal our own blinders. Similarly, when we presuppose there is NO creator,and then formulate opinions that deny the possibility, then we are likewise only revealing our own assumptions -- even IF we are engaging in otherwise correctly applied scientific method. In either case, we are indulging in hubris by claiming to know that which we cannot and creating false dichotomies where none such really needs to exist.

From the religious side of the equation, what better way to reveal God's workings than through true science? From the scientific, why not revel in the sublimity of the workings of the physical universe and marvel at the vastness of such in ways that allow for possibilities as yet unrevealed?

[Groucho]

The main problem with ID is that, unlike science, it starts with the conclusion.

I can think of 100 different explanations just as probable as an intelligent god creating us, but that doesn't make them any more likely.

When I debate with religious people, quite often the problem is this: They will not accept "I don't know" as an answer. The main difference between us is that I don't make up an answer to make me feel better.

[steveksux]

From the religious side of the equation, what better way to reveal God's workings than through true science? From the scientific, why not revel in the sublimity of the workings of the physical universe and marvel at the vastness of such in ways that allow for possibilities as yet unrevealed?Indeed.

Anybody remember Heathkit televisions? You could buy a kit and build your own tv, right down to soldering every transistor and resistor. Imagine yourself as a 5 year old kid. Wow! Daddy built my tv! All you know is it has knobs and it works. This is the state of the findamentalists literal version of Genesis.

When you grow up and realize the actual complexity involved, are you more impressed or less impressed with your dad for building a television? The more complicated and amazing science proves the world to be, it should be encouraging to those that feel God was the driving force behind it. The more complex the world is, the more amazing the creator.

Knowlege and science are not at odds with religion, save the fundamentalists narrow version of it.

Randy

[O'Grouchy]

The main problem with ID is that, unlike science, it starts with the conclusion.

I can think of 100 different explanations just as probable as an intelligent god creating us, but that doesn't make them any more likely.

When I debate with religious people, quite often the problem is this: They will not accept "I don't know" as an answer. The main difference between us is that I don't make up an answer to make me feel better.

Mostly I agree with you here. But that first sentence is somewhat in error. Science often "sees" an outcome (a conclusion) and then seeks to satisfy what variables, values, and interactions cause the outcome. Hence science does work from conclusion backward to the answer. However, it isn't science until relationships regarding variables, values, and interactions are "seen".

[ProfessorBobo]

Mostly I agree with you here. But that first sentence is somewhat in error. Science often "sees" an outcome (a conclusion) and then seeks to satisfy what variables, values, and interactions cause the outcome. Hence science does work from conclusion backward to the answer. However, it isn't science until relationships regarding variables, values, and interactions are "seen".

This is probably splitting hairs, but in science, the goal is the verification of a hypothesis, which then becomes your conclusion if it is correct. You start with what you can observe, form a hypothesis based on observation, and then test the hypothesis to see if it is correct. If not, you make a new hypothesis and start over. For ID, their hypothesis is that there is a creator. Despite meeting with evidence to the contrary (i.e. irreducible complexity is completely invalid), they continue to push the hypothesis. A good scientist doesn't continue with the same hypothesis over and over again, hoping each time that the evidence will somehow change to support it, but that's exactly what "Design Theorists" do.

In that light, I think Groucho was trying to say that science looks for conclusions by hypothesizing and testing. ID already has it's conclusion, and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to change that view.

[ProfessorBobo]

In addition to the points others made, I personally feel that Design Theory is dangerous to science. ID is a dead end for science. Whereas the scientist says "keep looking, there is an explanation," the design theorist says "stop looking, God did it." That lone makes the science classroom a completely inappropriate place for Intelligent Design.

[steveksux]

This is probably splitting hairs, but in science, the goal is the verification of a hypothesis, which then becomes your conclusion if it is correct. You start with what you can observe, form a hypothesis based on observation, and then test the hypothesis to see if it is correct. If not, you make a new hypothesis and start over. For ID, their hypothesis is that there is a creator. Despite meeting with evidence to the contrary (i.e. irreducible complexity is completely invalid), they continue to push the hypothesis. A good scientist doesn't continue with the same hypothesis over and over again, hoping each time that the evidence will somehow change to support it, but that's exactly what "Design Theorists" do.

In that light, I think Groucho was trying to say that science looks for conclusions by hypothesizing and testing. ID already has it's conclusion, and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to change that view.

I think what O'grouchy was referring to was something like Einstein, where he had the idea or conclusion first, then worked out the mathematics to justify it later. The intuitive leap. Experimental confirmation didn't come for years before they could devise tests to verify it. So sometimes scientists work backwards too. Still different from the ID psuedo-scientists though, because the scientist's conclusion is not sacrosanct, it can be abandoned, and frequently is, when the evidence does not support it. Without their whole worldview collapsing. ID proponents and regular creationists are literally wedded to their conclusions, to be protected at all costs, irregardless of where the evidence points. Not only not science, it doesn't even bear a passing resemblance to science.

Randy

[O'Grouchy]

I was actually thinking more along the lines of concluding that an apple, once released from its limb will fall to the ground. Must happen, will happen, concluded. Then we back up and learn the science behind the conclusion.

In this scenario ID would be excluded simply because the apple "falling" to the ground cannot be sensed with any of our five objective senses. They can try to spin an outcome suggesting it must be a designer, but we can not watch (or sense in any way) the event as it occurs. This also precludes any possibility of it becoming something study-able, hence it cannot be an emerging science. It may be more than "religion" but it will never raise to the level of science. If it happened that way it was too long ago, it isn't still happening in a way that can be sensed (the five senses; 6th sense and intuition are philosophical, not scientific imo), so it cannot be evaluated. All science whether hypothetical, emerging, proven, disproven, or whatever, is going or has gone through rigorous tests that were available at the time, and then are re-tested as new relevant tests and the related equipment is created.

ID cannot be tested, much less re-tested.

[Ethos]

ID is in no way dangerous to science. The scientific process cannot be threatened by a false notion. It is, in fact, the process by which we verify the validity of a concept.

ID is a threat to religious faith, however. What proponents fail to recognize is that ID, if properly tested and verified, may actually reveal a "designer" that is in no way related to the entity they have come to expect.

Ethos

[dittohead not!]

I thought I'd post this here so it would be more widely read. I'm too busy to check WS daily, so I will probably just lurk and drop in from time to time to check up on the mess of a thread that will likely develop. :)



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070222155420.htm

I suppose the general focus of the thread should be whether or not "Intelligent Design" qualifies as science.

Intelligent design is not science. That doesn't mean it is wrong or that it is right, just that it is not science, but more in the realm of religion or philosophy.

This struck my attention:

Biologists from Charles Darwin to Stephen Jay Gould have advanced this second type of argument. Stephen Jay Gould's well-known example of a trait of this type is the panda's thumb. If a truly intelligent designer were responsible for the panda, Gould argues, it would have provided a more useful tool than the stubby proto-thumb that pandas use to laboriously strip bamboo in order to eat it.

Does that mean that Windows ME must have evolved on its own, since no intelligent designer would have created such a piece of crap? How about that '00 Chevy Impala I had that was in the shop on a monthly basis, did it evolve on its own?

The idea that a creature has to be perfect if it was designed by a creator doesn't hold up. Even if the creator is perfect, the creation won't necessarily be. If the creator (read, designer of Windows ME) is imperfect, it still doesn't mean that the creation simply evolved on its own with no intelligent guidance.

[Dangerrmouse]

But the "Creator" is held to be perfect, and a perfect "creator" can not produce imperfect creations, and be perfect. QED.

[Groucho]

Intelligent design is not science. That doesn't mean it is wrong or that it is right, just that it is not science, but more in the realm of religion or philosophy.

This struck my attention:



Does that mean that Windows ME must have evolved on its own, since no intelligent designer would have created such a piece of crap? How about that '00 Chevy Impala I had that was in the shop on a monthly basis, did it evolve on its own?

The idea that a creature has to be perfect if it was designed by a creator doesn't hold up. Even if the creator is perfect, the creation won't necessarily be. If the creator (read, designer of Windows ME) is imperfect, it still doesn't mean that the creation simply evolved on its own with no intelligent guidance.

OK, so if the end result is perfect, that is evidence of God's design, and if the end result is NOT perfect, then that is also evidence of God's design?

Man! You can't lose with an argument like that!

[dittohead not!]

But the "Creator" is held to be perfect, and a perfect "creator" can not produce imperfect creations, and be perfect. QED.

Why would a perfect creator have to create perfect creations? Christians believe that humans are imperfect, yet were created by a perfect god.

Not only that, but creationism doesn't necessarily mean that the creator is the Christian god. It could have been any intelligent being, perfect or not.

OK, so if the end result is perfect, that is evidence of God's design, and if the end result is NOT perfect, then that is also evidence of God's design?

Man! You can't lose with an argument like that!

My point was not that the imperfect nature of creation means that there has to be a creator, just that it doesn't prove that there is no creator.

We know that the examples I gave had a creator: Humans. The fact that neither the creator nor the creation was perfect doesn't prove that there was no creator.

Keep trying. See if you can prove that there is no creator.

[Groucho]

You can never prove a negative like that.

I dare you to prove to me that there is no flying spaghetti monster.

[Izdaari]

......

[Izdaari]

Indeed.

Anybody remember Heathkit televisions? You could buy a kit and build your own tv, right down to soldering every transistor and resistor. Imagine yourself as a 5 year old kid. Wow! Daddy built my tv! All you know is it has knobs and it works. This is the state of the findamentalists literal version of Genesis.

When you grow up and realize the actual complexity involved, are you more impressed or less impressed with your dad for building a television? The more complicated and amazing science proves the world to be, it should be encouraging to those that feel God was the driving force behind it. The more complex the world is, the more amazing the creator.

Knowlege and science are not at odds with religion, save the fundamentalists narrow version of it.

Randy
That totally works for this Christ-follower! :angel:

:flowers:

[Izdaari]

You can never prove a negative like that.

I dare you to prove to me that there is no flying spaghetti monster.
I don't disbelieve in the FSM. But, being unaware of any evidence for the FSM's existence I lack any positive belief in it. Of course, that's exactly the way many atheists feel about God, and that's perfectly fair. There is no conclusive proof, though IMO there is more than enough evidence to make believing in Him a reasonable proposition. But no amount of evidence will convince a determined skeptic, and I have better ways to waste my time.

[Izdaari]

......

[Dangerrmouse]

The rationalisations in both cases are precisely concordant.

[Groucho]

I don't disbelieve in the FSM. But, being unaware of any evidence for the FSM's existence I lack any positive belief in it. Of course, that's exactly the way many atheists feel about God, and that's perfectly fair. There is no conclusive proof, though IMO there is more than enough evidence to make believing in Him a reasonable proposition. But no amount of evidence will convince a determined skeptic, and I have better ways to waste my time.

No, we agree a bit here. There is no real evidence for either the Spaghetti Monster or God. To me, they both seem just as unlikely and just as far-fetched.

Still, my point was merely that you can't prove a negative, which is what was asked of me.

[Lumpen Prole]

Intelligent design is not science. That doesn't mean it is wrong or that it is right, just that it is not science, but more in the realm of religion or philosophy.

This struck my attention:



Does that mean that Windows ME must have evolved on its own, since no intelligent designer would have created such a piece of crap? How about that '00 Chevy Impala I had that was in the shop on a monthly basis, did it evolve on its own?

The idea that a creature has to be perfect if it was designed by a creator doesn't hold up. Even if the creator is perfect, the creation won't necessarily be. If the creator (read, designer of Windows ME) is imperfect, it still doesn't mean that the creation simply evolved on its own with no intelligent guidance.

Sober argues against using that argument against ID, actually.

[dittohead not!]

You can never prove a negative like that.

I dare you to prove to me that there is no flying spaghetti monster.

That is correct, of course. You can't prove a negative. My original purpose was simply to show that an imperfect creation does not mean that there is no creator.

I can't prove that there is a creator any more than you can prove that there isn't, but I can show that the imperfect creation doesn't disprove the creator. That was my original argument.

[heel31ok]

I do not believe in ID. It is a watered down version of creationism in an attempt to gain some sort of concession from those in opposition.Either creationism is all the way true or it is not.It is more of a sell out attitude from those who cannot make up their minds.

[dittohead not!]

I do not believe in ID. It is a watered down version of creationism in an attempt to gain some sort of concession from those in opposition.Either creationism is all the way true or it is not.It is more of a sell out attitude from those who cannot make up their minds.

Does that mean you believe that evolution started with abiogenesis, and then proceeded with no intelligent guidance, or that God simply made life the way it is described in Genesis?

Can there be no middle ground?

[Izdaari]

Does that mean you believe that evolution started with abiogenesis, and then proceeded with no intelligent guidance, or that God simply made life the way it is described in Genesis?

Can there be no middle ground?
I am the middle ground. :D

I know, as a matter of faith, that God created the cosmos. I know, as a matter of science, that the Big Bang and evolution were his tools. I can neither prove nor disprove the faith by science, nor conversely the science by faith. I don't qualify as an ID proponent because I don't think it's science, but still I think ID is essentially how it happened.

:flowers:

Knowlege and science are not at odds with religion, save the fundamentalists narrow version of it.

[dittohead not!]

I am the middle ground. :D

I know, as a matter of faith, that God created the cosmos. I know, as a matter of science, that the Big Bang and evolution were his tools. I can neither prove nor disprove the faith by science, nor conversely the science by faith. I don't qualify as an ID proponent because I don't think it's science, but still I think ID is essentially how it happened.

:flowers:

Do you have to believe that ID is scientific in order to be an ID proponent? If so, then I guess I'm not one either.

It does seem most likely that the creator used evolution as a tool to create the life we know on this pretty little blue and green planet we all share, but there is no scientific way to prove or to disprove that idea.

[Izdaari]

Do you have to believe that ID is scientific in order to be an ID proponent? If so, then I guess I'm not one either.
Well, when anyone is trying to debate ID as a scientific theory, I stay completely away from the discussion. While I think ID is a pretty accurate description of how it happened, I want nothing to do with anyone trying to push it as science... or diss it as science either. I think both sides are silly, because it has nothing to do with science one way or the other. :p

It does seem most likely that the creator used evolution as a tool to create the life we know on this pretty little blue and green planet we all share, but there is no scientific way to prove or to disprove that idea.
I totally agree. It would seem both of us are proponents of this proposition:

ID is science = 0
ID is true = 1

:flowers:

[serenity]

I totally agree. It would seem both of us are proponents of this proposition:

ID is science = 0
ID is true = 1


Which sets you two quite apart from ID proponents as are usually discussed. ID--as "science"--is a politicized movement, part of the so-called culture wars, and actually pretty sneaky and underhanded, in my view (and so in opposition to clear Christian principles).

Having said that, I certainly wouldn't (not to mention couldn't) argue with it as you have put it.

[Izdaari]

Which sets you two quite apart from ID proponents as are usually discussed. ID--as "science"--is a politicized movement, part of the so-called culture wars, and actually pretty sneaky and underhanded, in my view (and so in opposition to clear Christian principles).

Having said that, I certainly wouldn't (not to mention couldn't) argue with it as you have put it.
Exactly, serenity! I don't call myself an ID proponent because I don't want to be identified as part of that politicized movement.

Same reason I don't get involved in global warming discussions: I see that too as highly politicized and dishonest, driven by a radical leftist agenda cloaked in environmentalism, and I don't know enough science to argue the scientific merits of it, so there's not much I can usefully say. Which is not to say that environmentalists are all lefties, or that global warming isn't real or that humans don't contribute to it, only that political agendas dominate the subject.

:cool:

[serenity]

Exactly, serenity! I don't call myself an ID proponent because I don't want to be identified as part of that politicized movement.


Just so. I'm a non-believer myself, but as I don't "know" that there is no God, I can't say that the very notion of an intelligent designer is plainly wrong. It doesn't interfere in the least with what we DO in fact know...so, there's no issue, in my view.


Same reason I don't get involved in global warming discussions: I see that too as highly politicized and dishonest, driven by a radical leftist agenda cloaked in environmentalism, and I don't know enough science to argue the scientific merits of it, so there's not much I can usefully say. Which is not to say that environmentalists are all lefties, or that global warming isn't real or that humans don't contribute to it, only that political agendas dominate the subject.

I donj't know about the radical left, but I agree with you in general anyway. There are competing interests at stake, and yes, competing ideologies are bound to play into it. And I too know way too little about the subject to debate it intelligently. So, I leave it alone.

[Lumpen Prole]

EDIT: replied to this thread by mistake.