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?

[Confused]

Jose:

I think the reason God is usually referred to a male is because the early organized churches were patriarchal. While I doubt I could prove this, it could very well be because the previous existing paganism was usually a matriarchal system. So it could simply be another way to convert the indigent to the power of the church.

I disagree about the comment Jester made about the Fossil record. Setting up a timeline uses the convergence of evidence: paleontology, geology, biology, chemistry, genetics, cosmology, etc... All these combine are what contribute largely to the timeline we have for evolution. The final blow comes from the fact that upon completion of the Human Genome Project, based on all the previous hypotheses that Darwin and others predicted in regards to the timeline of evolution, we find that Collins was able to look at these predictions and find the mutations in the exact areas we would expect to find them along the timeline of evolution.

In regards to the catapillar, I think this case would be more along the lines of macroevolution, though it is a fine line to draw.

In regards to the "we will look into that" making Jester suspicious, I think it is better than assuming immediately that because science can't explain it at this exact moment, interjecting a supernatural influence is a much greater leap into insanity than stating "we don't know yet". This is why ID fails on so many levels. With each case of "irreducible complexity" and ID changes to have as poster child: starting with the bacterial flagellum and moving forward, science has eventually found how it evolved or at least offered plausible causation from a simple to a complex.

Jose: Yes, many get rich on sci-fi: Terry Brooks, Margaret Weis, Laurell K Hamilton, etc... Most of these authors have several trilogies or series out that remain on the best seller lists.

Jester: One can have faith in ID as a religious foundation and it works for them. But per this OP: ID is not now, nor has it ever been a form of science. If you look at how the 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 state acedemies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations defined science in their amicus curiae brief to the Louisianas "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" it is obvious that creationism/ID doesn't fit the criteria for science. The following 2005 ruling in Dover where several parents filed a suit with the backing of the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State to prevent a previous ruling enforcing creationism be given the same time to be taught in high school science as the evolutionary theory put the final nail in the coffin as ID being considered a science. Fact is that it isn't. It fails to meet any criteria set forth in teh amicus curiae and even moreso it seeks to offer an alternative theory to evolution without following the scientific method to establish an alternative theory that addresses the current theory and some of its flaws.

[Jester]

Pardon me if I get back to the topic at hand. I'll respond to Jester's comments of some pages back...

Forgive me, I don't have time to give you a full response for the time being, but wanted to at least thank you for the thoughts and information. Its given me a good starting point for several issues.

[Jester]

Jester: One can have faith in ID as a religious foundation and it works for them. But per this OP: ID is not now, nor has it ever been a form of science. If you look at how the 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 state acedemies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations defined science in their amicus curiae brief to the Louisianas "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" it is obvious that creationism/ID doesn't fit the criteria for science. The following 2005 ruling in Dover where several parents filed a suit with the backing of the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State to prevent a previous ruling enforcing creationism be given the same time to be taught in high school science as the evolutionary theory put the final nail in the coffin as ID being considered a science. Fact is that it isn't. It fails to meet any criteria set forth in teh amicus curiae and even moreso it seeks to offer an alternative theory to evolution without following the scientific method to establish an alternative theory that addresses the current theory and some of its flaws.

I had questions earlier, but Jose and yourself have convinced me. I personally belive that the future may reveal a few points where science and theology touch, but now believe that ID is definitely not one of them.
So, thanks.

[trillian]

note: going back to the start of the post

Some people say that initially God created everything, and then it evolved from there. Personally I think it is because they cannot deny what is right in front of their face (evolution) and yet they still want to hold onto their faith (creation). Some say that the flood formed the mountains, and that it would be considered science. There's the debate on if radiometric dating is an accurate way to date fossils and how old the earth is. I think that creationists trying to prove that the earth is "young" is their scientific basis. But I think you pretty much summed it up when you said that the law of physics state that matter cannot be created or destroyed so therefore creation can't happen. And you mentioned that science means you can predict what an outcome will be, and with evolution you can do that, and with creation you cannot. Those in themselves proves that creation is not scientific.

I agree there is evidence for evolution but yes, God created everything initially and everything evolved from there. Evolution requires an initial population to evolve and evolution does not explain how this initial population came about. Your statement of the physics laws of constant mass in the universe and hence creation cannot happen, is still an assumption and also is superceded by asking about how the laws came into function in the first place. Black holes also have the potential to destroy matter which leaves energy preservation in-balanced.

The 2006 nobel prizes winners John C. Mather and George F Smoot have essentially proved that there was a beginning to the universe (although have fell short of explaining how it came about).

Darwin's Evolution Theory considers only biological matter but it is important to question whether the very laws of the universe must also have an origin. The literal physics laws of the universe cannot be seen or touched by we know it is there.

[Confused]

note: going back to the start of the post

Some people say that initially God created everything, and then it evolved from there. Personally I think it is because they cannot deny what is right in front of their face (evolution) and yet they still want to hold onto their faith (creation). Some say that the flood formed the mountains, and that it would be considered science. There's the debate on if radiometric dating is an accurate way to date fossils and how old the earth is. I think that creationists trying to prove that the earth is "young" is their scientific basis. But I think you pretty much summed it up when you said that the law of physics state that matter cannot be created or destroyed so therefore creation can't happen. And you mentioned that science means you can predict what an outcome will be, and with evolution you can do that, and with creation you cannot. Those in themselves proves that creation is not scientific.

I agree there is evidence for evolution but yes, God created everything initially and everything evolved from there. Evolution requires an initial population to evolve and evolution does not explain how this initial population came about. Your statement of the physics laws of constant mass in the universe and hence creation cannot happen, is still an assumption and also is superceded by asking about how the laws came into function in the first place. Black holes also have the potential to destroy matter which leaves energy preservation in-balanced.

The 2006 nobel prizes winners John C. Mather and George F Smoot have essentially proved that there was a beginning to the universe (although have fell short of explaining how it came about).

Darwin's Evolution Theory considers only biological matter but it is important to question whether the very laws of the universe must also have an origin. The literal physics laws of the universe cannot be seen or touched by we know it is there.

You are confusing religion with science. You yourself said the Nobel winners of 2006 proved there was a beginning to the universe. To do this, they must have used some method of science: cosmology, physics, archaelogy, paleontology, chemistry, biology, etc..... Great. But then never asserted what initiated the beginning because based on the scientific method, we cannot currently test such a hypothesis. That doesn't mean future technology won't be able to.

Now, that being said, read over all the posts in this thread and learn that what you postulate: God created the means for evolution and show me where you can provide scientific proof for this. If you cannot, then intelligent design isn't a theory. It is nothing more than dogma. For it to even be considered a hypothesis you need to first find facts from observations. Where are the direct observations to the witness of God? (not some mythical story in a book that cannot be correlated with validity or reliabilty using the scientific method). Where can I go to visually observe this God?

You are confusing science with theology. For ID to be considered science, it must adhere to the scientific method and meet the criteria set forth in the amicus curiae. It fails.

[QED]

I agree there is evidence for evolution but yes, God created everything initially and everything evolved from there. Evolution requires an initial population to evolve and evolution does not explain how this initial population came about. Your statement of the physics laws of constant mass in the universe and hence creation cannot happen, is still an assumption and also is superceded by asking about how the laws came into function in the first place. Black holes also have the potential to destroy matter which leaves energy preservation in-balanced.

The 2006 nobel prizes winners John C. Mather and George F Smoot have essentially proved that there was a beginning to the universe (although have fell short of explaining how it came about).

Darwin's Evolution Theory considers only biological matter but it is important to question whether the very laws of the universe must also have an origin. The literal physics laws of the universe cannot be seen or touched by we know it is there.

However, since the 1950's, these so called "Laws" have been identified as the result of spontaneous symmetry breaking. As a consequence all the "forces of nature" have come to be understood as originating from the primordial conditions of the early universe -- meaning that the inception of these laws can be traced back in time and even to a time before they existed. Everything, including the standard model of elementary particles and forces is built from these broken symmetries. This is like the crystallization process. We can perhaps think of everything we experience as crystallizing out from the homogeneous content of the initial hot universe into the heterogeneous forms we have now.

The upshot of this is that things could easily have been very different, like the differences between every snowflake. So why does our particular snowflake look the way it does? It's a very "special" shape in that its constitution would appear to be critical in permitting our existence. A tiny deviation from the value of many of its properties would draw a close to the evolution of stars planets and "life as we know it".

I hope I'll be forgiven for keeping up the poetry here -- perhaps there is just this one "magical snowflake", carefully fashioned by some steady, divine, hand. But then again, the "ground" may be covered in a thick layer of snow -- somewhere within which lies the odd special flake like ours. OK, so it's a flaky way of putting it, but there's nothing new in the principle concepts it draws upon and it has very deep explanatory power. It's known as the Weak Anthropic Principle and it presents any ensemble of universes (or perhaps distinct regions of spacetime in just one universe) as a direct equivalent of an inexplicably intelligent designer.

The point that can't be emphasized enough in my opinion is that you can't tell them apart. Now if that doesn't lead to a degree of caution on both sides of the argument, then someone isn't listening.

[Confused]

I agree there is evidence for evolution but yes, God created everything initially and everything evolved from there. Evolution requires an initial population to evolve and evolution does not explain how this initial population came about. Your statement of the physics laws of constant mass in the universe and hence creation cannot happen, is still an assumption and also is superceded by asking about how the laws came into function in the first place. Black holes also have the potential to destroy matter which leaves energy preservation in-balanced.

The 2006 nobel prizes winners John C. Mather and George F Smoot have essentially proved that there was a beginning to the universe (although have fell short of explaining how it came about).

Darwin's Evolution Theory considers only biological matter but it is important to question whether the very laws of the universe must also have an origin. The literal physics laws of the universe cannot be seen or touched by we know it is there.

However, since the 1950's, these so called "Laws" have been identified as the result of spontaneous symmetry breaking. As a consequence all the "forces of nature" have come to be understood as originating from the primordial conditions of the early universe -- meaning that the inception of these laws can be traced back in time and even to a time before they existed. Everything, including the standard model of elementary particles and forces is built from these broken symmetries. This is like the crystallization process. We can perhaps think of everything we experience as crystallizing out from the homogeneous content of the initial hot universe into the heterogeneous forms we have now.

The upshot of this is that things could easily have been very different, like the differences between every snowflake. So why does our particular snowflake look the way it does? It's a very "special" shape in that its constitution would appear to be critical in permitting our existence. A tiny deviation from the value of many of its properties would draw a close to the evolution of stars planets and "life as we know it".

I hope I'll be forgiven for keeping up the poetry here -- perhaps there is just this one "magical snowflake", carefully fashioned by some steady, divine, hand. But then again, the "ground" may be covered in a thick layer of snow -- somewhere within which lies the odd special flake like ours. OK, so it's a flaky way of putting it, but there's nothing new in the principle concepts it draws upon and it has very deep explanatory power. It's known as the Weak Anthropic Principle and it presents any ensemble of universes (or perhaps distinct regions of spacetime in just one universe) as a direct equivalent of an inexplicably intelligent designer.

The point that can't be emphasized enough in my opinion is that you can't tell them apart. Now if that doesn't lead to a degree of caution on both sides of the argument, then someone isn't listening.

Your snowflake analogy actually does a great job of putting it into perspective. Of all the snowflakes out there, this one snowflake has the perfect properties. The point of focus here is "of all the snowflakes out there". It stands to reason that with enough snowflakes, one is bound to have that property. Susskind talks a lot about this. The fact that each universe (snowflake) has its own weather, elementary particles, laws etc... (properties). Some may support life (silicon etc) with these differences in laws (though unlikely), but the more universes, the more likely one has the properties for life to adapt to.

[trillian]

You are confusing religion with science. You yourself said the Nobel winners of 2006 proved there was a beginning to the universe. To do this, they must have used some method of science: cosmology, physics, archaelogy, paleontology, chemistry, biology, etc..... Great. But then never asserted what initiated the beginning because based on the scientific method, we cannot currently test such a hypothesis. That doesn't mean future technology won't be able to.

Now, that being said, read over all the posts in this thread and learn that what you postulate: God created the means for evolution and show me where you can provide scientific proof for this. If you cannot, then intelligent design isn't a theory. It is nothing more than dogma. For it to even be considered a hypothesis you need to first find facts from observations. Where are the direct observations to the witness of God? (not some mythical story in a book that cannot be correlated with validity or reliabilty using the scientific method). Where can I go to visually observe this God?

You are confusing science with theology. For ID to be considered science, it must adhere to the scientific method and meet the criteria set forth in the amicus curiae. It fails.

I'm not confusing science and religion at all, they are inherently related and inseperable. Yes, my assertion that God created everything has no material proof whatsoever in the context of modern science and it would be considered illogical or lunacy. But what I am trying to get at for the post I was replying to is that evolution cannot be used to explain creation - even when I was atheist - I knew evolution did not suffice for creation. As to you, my belief in God is an assumption but so is anyone else's theory about the big bang or other explanation. like yourself - there was a time when I was not willing to accept the God answer even if it meant that i would leave it unexplained. Because essentially, both sides of the argument are assumptions we can never get anywhere unless there is scientific proof. As far as scientific methods go today - the answer is that we don't know and there should be an extremely large consensus here within the atheist community. Will it be a matter of time/tech advancement before there will be a proof /disproof?

I'll leave it there and I concede at this level that we won't get anywhere in terms of proving anything. But I personally think you need to be atheist for a bit longer to believe in God - sounds like an irony but it's not, that's what happened to me. I use to think exactly like you did, I had the same arguments, same tone, same scientific reasoning (i'm a programmer), same everything except there came a day when my atheist beliefs collapsed before me and what was illogical became logical. What was logical became illogical. According to Richard Dawkins, a virus has plagued my brain and I'm a lunatic but I'm as healthy as ever.

I hope it happens to you as well and you will fully understand what I just said. I'm happy to leave it at that.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hello trillian,

I'm not confusing science and religion at all, they are inherently related and inseperable.

I thought this question deserved a separate thread. So I have posed the question Here

[QED]

Yes, my assertion that God created everything has no material proof whatsoever in the context of modern science and it would be considered illogical or lunacy. But what I am trying to get at for the post I was replying to is that evolution cannot be used to explain creation - even when I was atheist - I knew evolution did not suffice for creation.

Sure, but it tends to raise people's awareness of the fact that observations of apparent providence easily fool us into thinking there's a wilful intelligence behind it all. Evolution by natural selection leaves all the design-work at the drawing board to the individual organisms themselves in a free-market economy of life and death. Both wonderful and awful (terrifying) "designs" emerge from this process which clearly has no guiding scruples other than those created on the ground as it goes along.

As I replied in my previous post, the origin of the dynamics of the universe that permit all this busy evolution on the ground is something that evidently arises from Spontaneous Symmetry breaking -- a process that couldn't be more removed from the careful manipulation of some divine hand. The merging of electromagnetism and weak nuclear forces into the electroweak force already represents a successful restoration of one primitive symmetry, and the merging of the electroweak with quantum chromodynamics will make the restoration complete -- a goal otherwise known as "grand unification" which, if it can be made to include gravity, will represent a "theory of everything". Note however that we don't have to wait for all that to happen as it's the identification of an arbitrary process (spontaneous symmetry breaking) that argues strongly against a concerted attempt to engineer a particular set of particles and forces.

Stepping outside of our apparently Intelligently Designed universe we might see one of two things which both have an identical array of powers to create all that we see around us today: one is the hyper-intelligent designer-creator God (with no origin of his own) the other is a landscape of other kinds of universe that have crystallized out of some pure form (perfect vacuum perhaps)

In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe.

The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum." As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself.

As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang.

The forces and particles that appear are more-or-less random, governed only by symmetry principles (like the conservation principles of energy and momentum) that are also not the product of design but exactly what one has in the absence of design.

The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms.

Why postulate a difficult concept like an intelligent designer when so many well-understood principles of self-organization are known about today? Surely the excuse was only valid prior to the physics of the 20th century?