Why Intelligent Design Isn't a Scientific Theory

[Jacurutu]

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory for several reasons.

1) Any scientific theory must falsifiable. This means that it has to be something that can be tested and proven wrong if it is indeed wrong. There is no means of doing this with the "theory" of intelligent design.
2) Any scientific theory must be parsimonious, in the sense that it must be the simplest and most realistic explanation. Now, I know that many people might say that it doesn't get more simple than saying "God created everything." However, based on scientific observation, does it seem more probable that the universe and all living things were spontaneously generated at once or that modern life is the result of the processes of natural selection and random mutation over the last three billion years? We can rule out the first simply by the chemical law that mass and energy are neither created nor destroyed (although they may be interchanged). The second possibility is supported by mounds of empirical evidence.
3) Any scientific theory should allow you to make predictions. With evolution, you can do this; with intelligent design, you cannot.
4) Any evidence must be reproduceable. There are countless experiments testing the tenets of evolutionary theory; for example, you could test random mutation by inducing mutation in yeast with UV radiation (the same radiation that comes from our sun) and observing the phenotypic variation after plating these samples and allowing colonies to grow. Likewise, you can induce mutation in more advanced animals and observing the phenotypic effects of those mutations. The results of these tests will be consistent over time. The other bases of evolution are quite testable and reproducable as well.

Anyway, I've seen plenty of people claim that evolution and intelligent design are equally viable scientific theories, but intelligent design does not meet the qualifications to be considered a scientific theory.

My question is: how do people still want to call ID a scientific theory and teach it alongside evolution when one is faith and the other is a true scientific theory?

[Goat]

Please explain to me what is logical about this...
you have matter(don't know where it came from)it mingles with other matter,it blows up,(biggest explosion of time and space) and then primordial soup happens.,we crawl out of the ocean...What are the chances
How do you get such order and form out of absolute chaos?
What is so logical about how the earth began? I wonder what a mathmatition
would say. What is more probable a big bang or an Itelligent designer.
I wonder what the numbers would say?

We have evidence that leads us to the "Big Bang". We have no evidence that can lead us to an 'intelligent designer'. You are mixing up a bunch of different scientific disciplines though. Cosmology/Astrophysics deals with the Big Bang (not ID or evolution).. Abiogenesis deals with the formation of life (id might get involved here), and Evolution describes how life changes once it is formed.

The way you get 'order and form' out of 'chaos' is via filters. In the case of evolution, one of the main filters is 'natural selection'. Random variation plus a filter gives a non-random result, and often provides higher 'complexity'.

[QED]

Please explain to me what is logical about this...

Are you really interested in logic? Even if we apply it with the utmost care it doesn't always provide satisfying or conclusive answers.

you have matter(don't know where it came from)

Slight correction, prior to matter there was only really energy. Matter is something that can't exist at the very high temperatures detected in the big bang. But once it has "condensed":

then primordial soup happens.,we crawl out of the ocean...What are the chances

If we look at the physics of Quantum Electrodynamics, we see that atoms at particular energy levels will combine with other atoms (by sharing electrons) and due to the versatility of the Periodic table, will form a wide variety of compounds. The chances of this much happening are a certainty given the particular handful of critical numeric ratios characterizing the "physical constants". A proper audit of life and the chances of it arising can start from here.

How do you get such order and form out of absolute chaos?

As goat mentioned, that can come through "selection". Take a sieve and throw in a load of random sized grains and out the other side you get an ordered selection of sizes. They're still random to a degree, but a lot less random than what you started with. Selection can be natural as well as by design.

What is so logical about how the earth began? I wonder what a mathmatition
would say. What is more probable a big bang or an Intelligent designer.
I wonder what the numbers would say?

If you think that there can be no other "sources of design" other than "intelligence" (sentience) then you are mistaken. How much you rely on this for the rest of the way you see the world will only serve to undermine that view.

[Jacurutu]

"All theorys are scientific, if they are made by scientist."

Um . . . are you joking? That's like saying anything a French chef makes is French or anything a guy who works for Ford makes is a car. What makes a theory scientific is laying with foundation on observable data collected and replicated many many times. The scientific method means following a number of steps to lead to a conclusion, not having people with the title of scientist claiming random things.

[RoyWilliams]

Hi, I've been following the discussion a bit and I thought I'd drop in, if you permit me.
I live in The Netherlands, and actually just recently converted from being an agnostic to a Christian. I'm not an experienced debater but I did spend a measure of thought on my choice to become a Christian. Most of my friends and relatives are agnostic or atheist, so I didn't do it to be social. I'll dive right in.


ID is not a predominantly Christian position. It just fits the Judeo-Christian account, and you can't blame Christians for using the argument to counter the attacks made by many evolutionists towards their so-called "silly beliefs”.
The same was true for the discovery that the Universe has a beginning. Creationists may argue against the Big Bang theory, but the discovery of an expanding Universe fit the Judeo-Christian account over the view that prevailed in the scientific community up to that point; an infinite, eternal, static of even shrinking Universe. Even so, a Christian need not entirely agree with the ID position.


ID is in principle a falsification, or at the very least a critical exposé of evolutionary claims. As a result, by elimination, it produced conclusions of a metaphysical nature, i.e. "God". It does not "prove" the God of Genesis, just as the account of Josephus does not "prove" the resurrection of Jesus Christ. ID concludes that an intelligent "causer" is required, and then attempts to fortify that position with (in my opinion respectable) scientific logic.

To say "God did it" is likened to attributing events to leprechauns or magic, or "giving up" because we're not smart enough to explain something. Yet its relevance depends entirely on the questions you ask: How, or Why? Method? Reason?
At minimum, the Naturalist position requires an absent or uninvolved deity, whilst the ID position requires an initiating "Creator". In the Naturalist position for example, "Time and chance did it". What's the difference?


The definition of a theory states "[…] especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted". I think it's fair to state that the theory of evolution is - undoubtedly due to its complexity - dependent on many theories, which each in turn serve as corroborating evidence for the general theory. The field of genetics for example serves as such evidence, and counts as a theory that has been both repeatedly tested and is widely accepted. Others may be subject of disagreement among scientists, and therefore can be less depended upon by the general theory.
There are however some theories that serve as fundamental assumptions; if they could be falsified, it would send the entire rational structure tumbling. One of those is the age of the earth; for if the Earth is not millions of years old, this would immediately become an insurmountable obstacle for the theory. A typical ID proponent however does not necessarily believe in a young earth. Irreducible complexity is just one of the more elegant concepts that challenge biological evolution.

I believe that irreducible complexity is in principle a falsifiable proposition. It uses clear illustrations and claims that all point towards the conclusion that an intelligent designer is required. If one would be able to disprove irreducible complexity, the designer-argument breaks down. It does not disprove a designer, but weakens the scientific argument for it.

Jacurutu, you argue that the fact that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed" makes the Christian/Creationist position implausible, but that argument is not conclusive. Creationists believe that all matter, energy and space-time was created by God, who is outside his creation - outside space-time. He made the rule. They believe this because the bible says so, not because they did the science.
Cosmological evolution states, in the Big Bang theory, that "an infinitesimally small dot that contained all the matter of the universe exploded" - some say "'nothing' exploded". It might be true I don't know - I wasn't there - but the latter lacks a cause. Where did that "dot" come from? (See the similarity in the question "where did God come from")


Niels Bohr (on the subject of Quantum Theory and his discussions with Einstein) said: "Evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects." In short: you never can know for certain if you've completed the puzzle, or if there's a piece missing that changes the picture in its entirety. That is the safe, "always doubt to keep an open mind" scientific position (concurring with the 'there is no absolute fact in honest science' comment in an earlier post).

In the end, your world view has deciding influence on what you believe: God or no God. Science in my opinion serves as a set of rules suited to enable a "fair fight" between world views. Both still need to play fair. Sadly, in reality both "sides" employ propaganda and even lies to maintain their position. We're all mere men after all.
Both sides make honest mistakes in their enthusiasm to build their cases. And if two parties debate each other, both are tempted to point out the earlier mistakes of the other party. (And if you have admitted your mistakes and the other party still tries to attack it, you are in a position to question the fairness of the opposing argument... These are all tactics that have nothing to do with science)

Scientific argumentation is not a weapon common to the arsenal of the average Christian, who lives in faith and tries to live his life with unconditional love for his neighbour. Please understand that the debate is ultimately not won on the basis of eloquent argumentation, but on conviction of the heart and mind.

[Goat]

Hi, I've been following the discussion a bit and I thought I'd drop in, if you permit me.
I live in The Netherlands, and actually just recently converted from being an agnostic to a Christian. I'm not an experienced debater but I did spend a measure of thought on my choice to become a Christian. Most of my friends and relatives are agnostic or atheist, so I didn't do it to be social. I'll dive right in.


ID is not a predominantly Christian position. It just fits the Judeo-Christian account, and you can't blame Christians for using the argument to counter the attacks made by many evolutionists towards their so-called "silly beliefs”.
The same was true for the discovery that the Universe has a beginning. Creationists may argue against the Big Bang theory, but the discovery of an expanding Universe fit the Judeo-Christian account over the view that prevailed in the scientific community up to that point; an infinite, eternal, static of even shrinking Universe. Even so, a Christian need not entirely agree with the ID position.

While ID is not a predominately Christian position, it is not science. The ones that try to promote it do admit they think the 'intelligent designer' is God. That is why, rather than trying to come up with a way to test for their claim, they resort to the political arena to try to get it taught in schools. Until such time as there is positive evidence for it, and it can be tested, it is not science.

ID is in principle a falsification, or at the very least a critical exposé of evolutionary claims. As a result, by elimination, it produced conclusions of a metaphysical nature, i.e. "God". It does not "prove" the God of Genesis, just as the account of Josephus does not "prove" the resurrection of Jesus Christ. ID concludes that an intelligent "causer" is required, and then attempts to fortify that position with (in my opinion respectable) scientific logic.

And, what is the principle for falsification? The only think that 'ID' proponents have done is use quote mining, and pointing to puzzles in
evolution that were being currently worked on. The initial problems that
were proposed by Behe as 'evidence' of ID have been solved without needing an 'intelligent designer'. When will ID come up with evidence on it's own, rather than an attack on evolution? Even if evolution goes out the window, that does not demonstrate 'intelligent design'.

[quote[
To say "God did it" is likened to attributing events to leprechauns or magic, or "giving up" because we're not smart enough to explain something. Yet its relevance depends entirely on the questions you ask: How, or Why? Method? Reason?
At minimum, the Naturalist position requires an absent or uninvolved deity, whilst the ID position requires an initiating "Creator". In the Naturalist position for example, "Time and chance did it". What's the difference?
[/quote]
The ID proponent fails to come up with a mechanism, and have admited
in courts (see the Dover case in Penn), that they 'think god did it'. You are also misreprenting the natualist position. The different between your strawman of the naturalistic position is that included in there is the 'filter' of Natural selection, which elminates the 'chance' to a large degree.


[quote[
The definition of a theory states "[…] especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted". I think it's fair to state that the theory of evolution is - undoubtedly due to its complexity - dependent on many theories, which each in turn serve as corroborating evidence for the general theory. The field of genetics for example serves as such evidence, and counts as a theory that has been both repeatedly tested and is widely accepted. Others may be subject of disagreement among scientists, and therefore can be less depended upon by the general theory.
[/quote]

It has been repeatedly tested. It has made predictions about what will happen, what will be found, and those predictions have been verfiied.

here are however some theories that serve as fundamental assumptions; if they could be falsified, it would send the entire rational structure tumbling. One of those is the age of the earth; for if the Earth is not millions of years old, this would immediately become an insurmountable obstacle for the theory. A typical ID proponent however does not necessarily believe in a young earth. Irreducible complexity is just one of the more elegant concepts that challenge biological evolution.

Yes, there are some fundamental assumptions that , if proven false, would also falsify evolution. That has not happened. However, it has been
shown in a testable, repeatable experiment that 'irreducibly complex' systems can evolve naturally.

I believe that irreducible complexity is in principle a falsifiable proposition. It uses clear illustrations and claims that all point towards the conclusion that an intelligent designer is required. If one would be able to disprove irreducible complexity, the designer-argument breaks down. It does not disprove a designer, but weakens the scientific argument for it.

Since it can be shown that IC systems can evolve naturally, I guess it weakens the scientific arguement against it. Example are the repeatable experiemtn to develop a lactose disgesting system in bacteria, after the gene was deleted. Another example is the evolution of the inner ear, for which we have fossil evidence on how that occured. The IC arguement fails to take into account the use of preexisting structures being modified for a new purpose, and for the concept of scaffolding, where the 'supporting structure' is later deleted.

[QED]

Welcome to the DC&R forums Roy I see that you've noted the "dirty tricks" involved in the global discussion about ID versus evolution. We often see straw-man arguments (e.g. men evolved from apes, or random assemblies of atoms can't produce a living organism) coming out time after time on these forums -- but I can't think of any such blatant mischaracterizations being directed at creationists. I'm not saying that there aren't any, it's just that you seem to have a very different mental picture of this to mine and I'd like to increase my level of awareness if I've been missing out on something important.

[McCulloch]

Hi, I've been following the discussion a bit and I thought I'd drop in, if you permit me.

Welcome

ID is not a predominantly Christian position.

You might forgive us for getting the other impression. Perhaps you could list some of the non-Christian vocal advocates of ID.

The same was true for the discovery that the Universe has a beginning. Creationists may argue against the Big Bang theory, but the discovery of an expanding Universe fit the Judeo-Christian account over the view that prevailed in the scientific community up to that point; an infinite, eternal, static of even shrinking Universe. Even so, a Christian need not entirely agree with the ID position.

Science is self correcting, divinely revealed religion is not.

A typical ID proponent however does not necessarily believe in a young earth.

True, to a point. Theistic evolution could possibly be cast as a form of ID. Perhaps you could list a few of the active ID proponents that deny the young earth idea.

In the end, your world view has deciding influence on what you believe: God or no God.

Yes, but in my experience (which may be skewed) the proponents of ID do not stop at an amorphous God that they think they have proven the existence of. Once the Creator God exists, they jump to the God of Genesis.

[Goat]

ID is not a predominantly Christian position.

You might forgive us for getting the other impression. Perhaps you could list some of the non-Christian vocal advocates of ID.

There are a few Islamic advocates.

Mustafa Akyol


Akbarally Meherally

[McCulloch]

ID is not a predominantly Christian position.

You might forgive us for getting the other impression. Perhaps you could list some of the non-Christian vocal advocates of ID.

There are a few Islamic advocates.

Mustafa Akyol

That is a start. Now we have proven that ID is not an entirely Christian position. Next step, show that ID is not a predominantly Christian position, to use the word RoyWilliams chose.

List a sample of the publications, institutes and public advocates of ID who are Christian in three columns of a large sheet of paper. Then list a sample of the publications, institutes and public advocates of ID who are not Christian on a Post-it® note. Then repeat the assertion that, "ID is not a predominantly Christian position."

[RoyWilliams]

Thanks for the Welcome. You got me working for it already!

While ID is not a predominately Christian position, it is not science. The ones that try to promote it do admit they think the 'intelligent designer' is God. That is why, rather than trying to come up with a way to test for their claim, they resort to the political arena to try to get it taught in schools. Until such time as there is positive evidence for it, and it can be tested, it is not science.

I’m aware of the controversies in the US. It’s a bit different here in The Netherlands. I have no interest in the political side of these matters. All I can offer is an opinion.

And, what is the principle for falsification? The only think that 'ID' proponents have done is use quote mining, and pointing to puzzles in evolution that were being currently worked on. The initial problems that were proposed by Behe as 'evidence' of ID have been solved without needing an 'intelligent designer'. When will ID come up with evidence on it's own, rather than an attack on evolution? Even if evolution goes out the window, that does not demonstrate 'intelligent design'.

First of all the evolution theory could use a little critical scepticism here and there. That leads to better science, so there’s merit in that. You call it an attack, fair enough, but this particular battle between “science and religion” has raged to-and-fro since George Lyell published his book on geology. ID just hit quite a bit closer to home.

If evolution goes out the window, the question is what will replace it? It is widely agreed that, apart from specific details, either naturalism is true, or creationism is true. The only other views I’m aware of are of the “everything is an illusion” sort. So discounting the latter, if one is disproved, the other must be true.

The ID proponent fails to come up with a mechanism, and have admited in courts (see the Dover case in Penn), that they 'think god did it'. You are also misreprenting the natualist position. The different between your strawman of the naturalistic position is that included in there is the 'filter' of Natural selection, which elminates the 'chance' to a large degree.

Yes, I too believe God did it. My point was that this claim is often interpreted as a “here’s where the magic happens” explanation, quoting Arthur C. Clarke’s “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. It’s not scientific laziness to infer God as cause. Perhaps in the past it was but certainly not today. You make us work for it.

It has been repeatedly tested. It has made predictions about what will happen, what will be found, and those predictions have been verified.

And there is where the contention is. I would ask what, which and how, but I fear that would bring us off-topic.

Yes, there are some fundamental assumptions that , if proven false, would also falsify evolution. That has not happened. However, it has been shown in a testable, repeatable experiment that 'irreducibly complex' systems can evolve naturally.

Since it can be shown that IC systems can evolve naturally, I guess it weakens the scientific arguement against it. Example are the repeatable experiemtn to develop a lactose disgesting system in bacteria, after the gene was deleted. Another example is the evolution of the inner ear, for which we have fossil evidence on how that occured. The IC arguement fails to take into account the use of preexisting structures being modified for a new purpose, and for the concept of scaffolding, where the 'supporting structure' is later deleted.

Interesting. I will research the examples you gave and come back to them later. Does this apply to the bacterial flagellum? I was told that pre-existing, functional structures could not account for it. There are too many “parts” involved in-between.

Welcome to the DC&R forums Roy I see that you've noted the "dirty tricks" involved in the global discussion about ID versus evolution.

Hi! I am aware of some of them, and I’ll try to avoid them. You’d see me coming a mile away probably, so what’s the point really. Being an inexperienced debater might actually serve me in this matter.

We often see straw-man arguments (e.g. men evolved from apes, or random assemblies of atoms can't produce a living organism) coming out time after time on these forums -- but I can't think of any such blatant mischaracterizations being directed at creationists. I'm not saying that there aren't any, it's just that you seem to have a very different mental picture of this to mine and I'd like to increase my level of awareness if I've been missing out on something important.

Well, for one, the idea that anything that is remotely connected to religion or supernatural phenomena is automatically regarded as pseudoscience. God is mentioned and the crowd goes “Aha! This can not be scientific!” Religion and science are not by definition incompatible. Certain scientific disciplines are incompatible with certain beliefs, yes. That’s why I see it as a conflict between naturalism and creationism, rather than “science versus religion”, which is an inappropriate rendering of the situation.

That is a start. Now we have proven that ID is not an entirely Christian position. Next step, show that ID is not a predominantly Christian position, to use the word RoyWilliams chose.

List a sample of the publications, institutes and public advocates of ID who are Christian in three columns of a large sheet of paper. Then list a sample of the publications, institutes and public advocates of ID who are not Christian on a Post-it® note. Then repeat the assertion that, "ID is not a predominantly Christian position."

McCulloch, my apologies, the word I should have used is ‘exclusively’. My point being that once you investigate ID, the next question is: “which God is it”, or “did aliens do it?” Creationism (which in a sense is a super-set of ID) is a belief shared by both Judaic, Islamic and Christian traditions. It is without question that the minute ID hit mainstream most creationist-minded immediately and fervently embraced it, making it “their” theory/position in the process, which I think antagonized the scientific community and ear-marked all adherents as “religious zealots”. I’m not surprised about that; the implications of it being true are of such monumental proportions.

Science is self correcting, divinely revealed religion is not.

Divine revelation should not be self correcting; that would defy the point. Any divine revelation that requires correction only suggests that its origin was not divine. In the past, many things believers had to accept in faith in direct contrast to contemporary scientific dogma, is now accepted science. In a way you might say “we hold our breath until science catches up”. The Catholic Church accepted the idea of Theistic evolution in an effort to “get along”, but I think this is a move bound to be reversed at some point in the future.

True, to a point. Theistic evolution could possibly be cast as a form of ID. Perhaps you could list a few of the active ID proponents that deny the young earth idea.

I could name quite a few creationists which are “old earthers”, if you accept that as an answer. I am myself inclined to the young earth idea you should know (but it’s probably better to discuss that in another thread). Behe himself is noted to accept common descent, which I do not consider a biblical creationist view.

Yes, but in my experience (which may be skewed) the proponents of ID do not stop at an amorphous God that they think they have proven the existence of. Once the Creator God exists, they jump to the God of Genesis.

This is my opinion; I would say that it would take an enormous effort on anyone’s part not to make that jump; it is to be expected. I have very specific reasons why I believe in the God of Genesis over any other god, and none of them have to do with ID.

I’ll be away for the weekend so I can not reply before next Monday. Cheers.