What is scientific about ID?

Post Reply New Topic

Intelligent Design theory is portrayed by its proponent as a scientific theory, and they object when that claim is doubted. If it is acceptable to quote from other threads, I can offer examples from Ragtime and iamnotaparakeet.

Despite those protests, I have never yet heard from any ID proponent what is supposed to make ID scientific. But it is possible that I have not searched hard enough, and that the ID proponent I asked before was not competent enough. So I would like to ask Ragtime, iamnotaparakeet and anyone else who argues that ID is a scientific theory to explain to me what makes it scientific.

Please tell me what must be true if ID is true. "Must be true" means that if these predictions are not true, that would convince you that ID is false. Please concentrate on predictions that other theories don't make.

Please tell me what can't be true if ID is true. "Can't be true" means that if you do find what ID says should not happen, that would convince you that ID is false. Please concentrate on predictions that other theories don't make.

Finally, please tell me how these predictions can be tested, and whether they have been tested.

Edit: If you don't think ID is scientific, please read my second post in this thread, the 12th overall, before replying. Thanks

Last edited by Gromit on 27 Apr 2008, 4:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

There is nothing scientific about ID, it is sophistry of the worst kind.

They're not scientific, they're just accepted by a portion who belive ID to be true. Whether it is true or not is a whole different matter.

Science says otherwise. The Bibles says it is so.

I don't remember the last time I heard anyone mention Intelligent Design besides liberals wanting to complain about a non-existent Christian Theocracy. A few evangelists had a great idea, pushed it, got noticed, and it got thrown back in their faces.

It's over, and now, no one gives a damn about Intelligent Design besides the fringe nitwits.

Mc_Jeff, Seattle, WA plays host to a group billing itself as the Discovery Institute, which is devoted to getting ID pushed as an "alternative" to evolution in biology classrooms everywhere. They even have a museum, with dioramas portraying cavemen living alongside dinosaurs (apparently, they believe the decay rate of carbon-14 is variable). Any time there's anything about evolutionary links between species, or between different ethnic groups of humans, they can be counted on to write letters to the editors of every available paper on at least the West Coast (haven't sampled papers from other parts of the US), protesting the "one-sided" portrayal of evolution as "fact" (they also fail to understand the distinctions among the scientific terms "fact", "theory", and "hypothesis").

Sadly, ID proponents do exist, and at least the vocal ones want to use it as a way of back-dooring Judeo-Christian creationism into US schools. Oddly, one never hears about equal time for Odin and the giant cow, or Gaea birthing Uranous and the two of them parenting the Titans, or any other alternatives - they only seem to want Genesis presented in classrooms...

ID isn't scientific. ID starts with an assumption that there's some sort of higher power that created the world or caused it to happen and then looks for evidence to fit that mold. From a scientific perspective you should start with a question about why something happens and then conduct experiments to see if your assumption is valid. Hypotheses have to be testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. ID doesn't have a single hypothesis that's testable, repeatable, or falsifiable.

Most IDers have a fundamental misunderstanding of science and the scientific method.

The idea of a thing's complexity implying an intelligent designer is logical, but perhaps not "scientific."

A Sony Walkman lying in the wilderness doesn't resemble its surroundings nor does it suggest any kind of relationship with its surroundings. Its components alone, not wood, stone, water, or earth like eveyrthing around it, do suggest a mysterious origin. Is the Sony Walkman a product of the processes that created the forest? At first inspection, this looks doubtful.

But if I accept that everything came from one single source, I can accept that whatever gave rise to the Walkman also gave rise to the wilderness. That alone is clear.

The Source of Everything has so many names, and needs only one: I Don't Know

ID is bending and manipulating and contorting scientific facts to mold them to Christian beliefs. There is nothing scientific about it.
But I do still think some things considered "super natural" (within reasonable bounds) by mainstream science could possibly still be very real scientifically. Or that's my theory here. I don't really believe in religion or science 100% though.... If I believe in anything it's the power of the mind.
Intelligent design destroys all credibility for any exploration into a scientific median between the natural and the super natural. Notice I stated "(within reasonable bounds)" above, ID takes everything written in the bible literally. There is no possible scientific explanation behind a man walking on water or parting an ocean.

Sony Wilderness??

My question is, is the evidence such that even if someone was not familiar with the Genesis account, he or she would come up with a similar explanation? I don't think so. What it sounds like is that the proponents of Genesis-based ID are trying to go back in time, to the kind of "science" that was practiced before geologists, naturalists, biologists, astronomers, etc. began questioning the Biblical account. And why would they even question it, unless it was that the evidence did not fit the narrative?

And if we allow Genesis to be taught as science, why not the Koran, the Bagavad Ghita or other sacred writings? The Book of Mormon gives a history of the Americas that is contrary to what most historians and archeologists believe happened. Should that be given equal time in the schools? There was a group in Florida that believed that the earth was hollow and that we were living on the inside. And what about all these UFO cults? Where does it all end?

Yes, scientists don't always agree with each other, new theories arise all the time, and what was ridiculed at one time may end up being vindicated later on, as in the case of continental drift. It is not always easy to tell what is legitimate science and what is not. That is why there is so much emphasis on evidence and falsifiablity.

Frankly, I am not impressed with the stuff I have seen coming from the ID people, it seems they spend more time attacking rival theories and explaining why they are no good than to presenting their own case. If the case for ID was so strong, why did it start to be abandoned in the 19th century?

Nothing is scientific about ID.... next question.

You don't need to tell me this. No one has yet persuaded me that ID is scientific, but Ragtime and iamnotaparakeet recently objected when someone said that ID is not scientific. They are probably no the only ID proponents on WP. And perhaps they can turn it into a scientific theory, even though the original motivation is religious. So let them put forward their best arguments. Wait with counterarguments until there is an argument. Please give the ID proponents a chance. If they have nothing at all to say, and they later object again about calling ID non-scientific, you can refer them to their silence in this thread where they had a chance to put their argument. You can do that only if they do have that chance. So please let's have respectful silence while we wait for the arguments.

If they have nothing to say, I'll revive the thread every two or three days with a count of how long there's been silence. If there's still nothing after three weeks, I think it will be fair to say that even they don't believe they have an argument, which would mean that their belief in the scientific status of ID is itself a matter of faith alone, and nothing else. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Miracles. Miracles of the Lord. Not scientific, but possible. These miracle things can't be weighed, measured, or studied in any way. They're beyond science.

it's no more scientific than phrenology

ID shouldn't be compared to phrenology. I've always thought of ID as a theory, a theory which doesn't really have cred in the scientific community. ID shouldn't pretend to be scientific fact. ID should admit it's true nature as Creationism and stay within its bounds.

And who is to judge what 'argument' is?
You perhaps?




No,that would most likely mean that there are no active proponents of ID on Wrongplanet,or simply that they feel to be not qualified for discussion...



As I observed Ragtime and iamnotparakeet are young earth creationists(Biblical)...

So,I'm not sure if they are qualified to represent ID in general.




You're barking at the wrong tree.

Why don't you contact scientists that are proponents of intelligent design,instead of demanding 'scientific conditions' from Aspie laymen on this forum...


Let me help you:

Michael Behe,biochemist,ID advocate:

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html

You can e-mail him from above site.

William Dembski,mathematician and theologian,ID proponent

His CV and E-mail:

http://www.designinference.com/document ... embski.pdf

Alvin Platinga,philosopher and logician:
You can contact him here:

http://philosophy.nd.edu/people/all/pro ... nga-alvin/

Siegfried Scherer,German biochemist:

You can contact him here(I'm sure he speaks English):

http://www.wzw.tum.de/micbio/kontakt_e.php

I believe that many of scientists below are ID proponents,and if you really care about this topic,perhaps you will check this further:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660


P.S


So,if you are really interested in arguments about ID,perhaps its better to demand them from activists of ID movement,instead of demanding it from ordinary people like Ragtime and iamnotparakeet.