Can Intelligent Design make predictions about the mechanism?

[AmerSdlbrd]

Evolution provides several mechanisms by which life has and continues to evolve such as natural selection, random genetic drift, and multiple alleles in genes. It basically predicates that whole lot of cumulative microevolution leads to what a creationist would consider macroevolution. What mechanisms does Intelligent Design offer on how the designer designed or is currently still designing? If there are no determinable mechanisms amd no ways of producing testable hypotheses in regards to those mechanisms, is Intelligent Design still science?

[juliod]

Good questions. I voted neither science nor religion.

As to the questions, there is no reason that ID could not lead to real hypotheses, except for the fact that ID is not about science (nor religion) but a politcal move to get religion into public schools.

There are fields of science were questions of design are relevant. For example, in the deep stone age (say, 750,000 BC to 1,300,000 BC) there is the issue of classifying the earliest stone tools. The problem is determining whether a stone artifact is of natural or artificial origin. To decide that an artifact was a product of manufacture you look for evidence of design. Which is what they do.

DanZ

[AmerSdlbrd]

Finally, a response! I agree most of your points, however I have problems with Design theorists and the tools they use to determine design.

To decide that an artifact was a product of manufacture you look for evidence of design. Which is what they do.

We have all heard the creationist cannards about Mount Rushmore looks designed and we know it had a designer or the one about a watch you find on the beach is obviously designed. My problem with explanations such as Willam Dembski's Explanatory Filter, is that it yields false positives. If you ran the Face on Mars or the Old Man of the Mountain through his criteria, it would detect design (although we know these are not designed.) My other problem with the method by which design theorists detect design, is that they assume design and use deductive reasoning going, Did man make it? If no, proceed. Did nature make it? If no, proceed. Then God made it. You can esentially reshuffle those into any order you please, and create your own results. Such as, did nature make it? If no, proceed. Did God make it? If no proceed. Therefore man made it. The entire premise operates on the assumption that we already know all that we are going to know. I will revise this post soon, but I have to meet some friends for Dinner.[/quote]

[Cathar1950]

juliod wrote:

Good questions. I voted neither science nor religion.

I voted the same way. It seems to be effective politics. Now that is scary.
It would seem that it could backfire. What if they state that it is id and even being wrong it is law then they find out the intelligence behind it is insane?
I think there has been a few insane views of God, so why not?
The sad part is people deciding what they want with out understanding it.

[juliod]

The entire premise operates on the assumption that we already know all that we are going to know.

And that we can forget things we already do know...

I don't see any reason to argue ID here in the science forum. It forms no part of any actual science theory, they don't have any evidence of design to present, and it's well-known that this is just a political machination.

One thing you could say to the IDers is that everything that we know was designed has multiple designers. No one ever makes anything completely by themselves, without any antecedent designs, and including the tools and meterials they make it with. So ID actually rules out monothesim.

DanZ

[mrmufin]

Like juliod and Cathar1950, I voted that ID is neither religion nor science.

What mechanisms does Intelligent Design offer on how the designer designed or is currently still designing?

Not to get too persnickety, but why just a single designer? What about the possibility of a design team, committee, or heirarchy? The fact of the matter is that understanding the mechanical aspects, er, mechanisms, of nature is precisely what science is all about.

If there are no determinable mechanisms amd no ways of producing testable hypotheses in regards to those mechanisms, is Intelligent Design still science?

Nope.

Proponents of ID run and hide when it comes to delivering any testable or falsifiable hypotheses about the ID "theory," especially when it comes to trying to describe the designer (or team, committee, or heirarchy) in some falsifiable, testable, and/or predictable terms. Perhaps this is because observational data of such an entity is in such short supply...

Regards,
mrmufin

[Jose]

It's worth noting that Michael Behe, in the Dover trial, actually admitted that there is no theory of ID. There is only an hypothesis. He admitted that he calls ID science because he uses the term "theory" to describe it, but he uses the conversational English definition: "guess." He also admitted that by his definitions, ID is as much of a science as astrology.

There are valid scientific arguments that can be brought to bear here, that demonstrate that the fundamental basis of ID is wrong. It's not just that "I don't know how it works, so god did it," but that the probability calculations that 'prove' evolution couldn't have done it are based on wrong assumptions. Their "science" isn't really science, and doesn't address evolution...that makes it hard to justify putting it into science classes.