Plaque--evidence for Design!

While the sheer number of different organisms a biofilm may contain makes it a challenge to study, I personally relish that challenge, and would much rather tackle it than throw my hands in the air and say it's "too complex" to have come about naturally.

— Tara Smith

Let's differentiate between religious faith not interfering with science and ID arguing from an argument from ignorance. ID does not provide any scientifically relevant hypothesis that outlines biologically complex systems, how they came about, when, where, etc.

This is a common error ingrained in the naturalist mindset. Were it actually the case that belief in a designer thwarted the desire to study nature and discover its secrets, e.g., Newton would never have written Principia. There are many serious complaints that can be lodged against design arguments - this isn't one of them.

This seems a bit simplistic. Had western civilization not been dominated by the Cosmic Watchmaker mindset, who's to say we wouldn't have had 10 Newton-like geniuses?

It seems to me it IS valid to ask how Behe-like defeatism ("couldn't have happened naturally - had to be the work of something beyond human understanding") could fail to dampen one's enthusiasm for asking questions like "How could this have come to be?"

Let's differentiate between religious faith not interfering with science and ID arguing from an argument from ignorance.

— PvM

ID does not provide any scientifically relevant hypothesis that outlines biologically complex systems, how they came about, when, where, etc.

This seems a bit simplistic. Had western civilization not been dominated by the Cosmic Watchmaker mindset, who's to say we wouldn't have had 10 Newton-like geniuses?

— Russell

Aah, nothing like talk of oral biofilms to get everyone to brush their teeth a lot! That is a great schematic, I'll have to er, use it, for my biofilm lecture. In the second week of micro lab, we have the students scrape the base of their teeth, and look at it under the darkfield 'scope to see Treponema, They usually can find some...even if they brush a lot!

Who is to say? Who's to say we wouldn't have had any?

Were it actually the case that belief in a designer thwarted the desire to study nature and discover its secrets, e.g., Newton would never have written Principia.

Russell:

How is it false? If belief in a designer thwarts scientific inquiry, and, e.g., Newton believed in a designer, wouldn't it follow that Newton's scientific inquiry would have been thwarted?

Doesn't the fact that Newton had the drive to write Principia provide a counter-example to the above antecedent?

What kinds of explanation (as oppossed to particular explanations) can Darwinism supply that design theory cannot?

Let's also differentiate between an investigation of biological systems and an investigation of their origins.

— Michael Finley

The implication of Tara Smith's comment was that a belief in a designer has adverse effects on the scientist's desire to investigate biological systems per se: "Why should I study nature? I believe it was designed."

How is it false? If belief in a designer thwarts scientific inquiry, and, e.g., Newton believed in a designer, wouldn't it follow that Newton's scientific inquiry would have been thwarted?

Doesn't the fact that Newton had the drive to write Principia provide a counter-example to the above antecedent?

See, that's where my "simplistic" description comes in. Does "thwart" mean "to absolutely prevent" or does it mean "inhibit"? Clearly the sense in Ms. Smith's post was "inhibit" - so that's what I'm going with. The fact that there was an Isaac Newton does not prove that those other 9 potential Newtons were not discouraged by the design paradigm. I'm not saying they were; I'm just saying your example doesn't provide any evidence one way or the other.

Why is the hypothesis of a designer not scientifically relevant? The biological phenomena are consistent with the hypothesis of a designer. There are predictions that follow from such a hypothesis, e.g., similarities in structure (cf. similarities between different paintings and sculptures of the same artist).

What kinds of explanation (as oppossed to particular explanations) can Darwinism supply that design theory cannot?

All kinds of explanations except the universal blanket "he wanted it so" which is the empty explanation intelligent design theory can give. ... ID is an empty theory that explains everything with that one answer and, by extension doesn't explain anything, because if the sky happened to be green or we happened to be the only species in the planet, they would still be valid answers.

— Grey Wolf

ID claims that such "designs" could not have happened without interference --- as such, why bother investigating them at all, if they're too hopelessly complex for we mere mortals to understand?

— Tara Smith

First of all, it isn't "Darwinism". Evolution was expanded upon with the re-discovery of Mendel's work.

— Prince Vegita

Secondly, evolution can provide us with mechanisms. ID can't. It can't even identify the designer, so it isn't anything more than metaphysics.

This the sentiment I object to. The ID claim is not that some biological systems are too complex to understand, but that the complexity that is understood is too complicated to arise without design.

— Michael Finley

Sigh. "Neo-Darwinism" if you insist. Might I suggest a principle of charity instead of rhetorical nit-picking.

Your correct if you restrict "mechanisms" to "natural mechanisms," i.e., if you assume naturalism. That may be your preference, but understand that's all it is, a philosophical preference.

This is a common error ingrained in the naturalist mindset. Were it actually the case that belief in a designer thwarted the desire to study nature and discover its secrets, e.g., Newton would never have written Principia.

This the sentiment I object to. The ID claim is not that some biological systems are too complex to understand, but that the complexity that is understood is too complicated to arise without design.

But any philospher or 3-year-old could follow up with the question "But why are strings the way they are, and why do they vibrate in these ways, and . . . ?"

— Michael

I must say, you're a fancier sort of ID troll than most, but troll you be nonetheless. The charter here is "The patrons gather to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation."

— ts

Doesn't the fact that Newton had the drive to write Principia provide a counter-example to the above antecedent?

— Michael Finley

Inspired by Russell, I rechrisen ID Ineffective Defeatism.

Please give an example of a supernatural mechanism. This should be good.

Though I disagree with Michael, he's been quite polite in his discussion.

I confess to a philosophical preference for arguments backed by evidence. I understand that I'm probably very much in the minority in this preference, for whatever reasons. I also understand that this minority carries an ungrateful, ignorant, and superstitious majority on its shoulders. And that majority uses the very products of the 'worldview' they despise (which would never have come to pass without that worldview) to do their jobs, provide themselves with food clothing and shelter, and even write to blogs and bulletin boards to deny the validity of what produces their lifestyle.

It's kind of a shame that we can't let those with a philosophical preference for evidence live in one world, and let those with a philosphical preference for magic live in another. I wonder if the lesson would ever penetrate?

Just for completeness, the explanation of Rayleigh scattering (preferential scattering of lower wavelengths) for why the sky is blue is incomplete. Otherwise, the wise student should ask "why isn't the sky purple?" The complete answer is the convolution of Rayleigh scattering and the frequency dependent sensitivity of our eyes.

Our eyes are most sensitive to yellow, of course.

The general idea that ID thwarts science is belied by those of us who are IDers and who, in fact, do science.

One obvious problem with this discussion is this assumption that belief in intelligent design causes a person to have no curiousity about nature and how things work. I believe in intelligent design, yet I am quite curious to dig down and understand how things work. I would call it simple arrogance to say "I don't believe in intelligent design, and therefore I have greater curiosity than those who believe in intelliegent design."

The biological phenomena are consistent with the hypothesis of a designer. There are predictions that follow from such a hypothesis, e.g., similarities in structure (cf. similarities between different paintings and sculptures of the same artist).

Why is the hypothesis of a designer not scientifically relevant? The biological phenomena are consistent with the hypothesis of a designer.

There are predictions that follow from such a hypothesis, e.g., similarities in structure (cf. similarities between different paintings and sculptures of the same artist).

What kinds of explanation (as oppossed to particular explanations) can Darwinism supply that design theory cannot?

Re "Perhaps each species [...] was designed by a different designer?"
Perhaps each species was "designed" by the gene pools of its ancestors? ;)

Re "and let those with a philosphical preference for magic live in another"
Abracadabra! (Heh heh)

Henry

The general idea that ID thwarts science is belied by those of us who are IDers and who, in fact, do science.

Michael Finley wrote: To borrow a phrase from Wittgenstein: "Explanations come to an end somewhere." Every series of explanations, whether theistic or naturalistic, begins from first principles that cannot themselves be explained. Why all the fuss?

This is a common error ingrained in the naturalist mindset. Were it actually the case that belief in a designer thwarted the desire to study nature and discover its secrets, e.g., Newton would never have written Principia. There are many serious complaints that can be lodged against design arguments - this isn't one of them.

Jeff,

As ts pointed out above, the issue isn't about curiosity it's about the limiting perspective of ID - the refusal to look for certain explanatory variables due to their interpretive framework. The crucial difference between science and ID is that the former seeks to explain while the latter seeks to interpret. The presuppositions between these two modes of inquiry are miles apart.

My comment was directed toward Jeff Mauldin (to avoid any confusion)

One obvious problem with this discussion is this assumption that belief in intelligent design causes a person to have no curiousity about nature and how things work.

I would call it simple arrogance to say "I don't believe in intelligent design, and therefore I have greater curiosity than those who believe in intelliegent design."

To borrow a phrase from Wittgenstein: "Explanations come to an end somewhere." Every series of explanations, whether theistic or naturalistic, begins from first principles that cannot themselves be explained.

— Michael Finley

The problem is fairly simple. When arguments for design rest upon the ignorance of a natural explanation, there is a tendency to then avoid finding a natural explanation. Some ID arguments flatly rest on natural explanations being eliminated from the field of explanadum.

No one disputes the capacity for IDists to do science. What is disputed is the capacity for IDists offer scientific explanations for phenomena they've already labeled "designed" via a baroque argument from ignorance.

There are no selective hypotheses that flow from the theory of "designer" because that theory is general enough to allow for any observation simply by tweeking the motives and abilities of said mysterious designer. Simply defining one's designer to have the goals and abilities that obtain the observations in question results in a empty tailor-made hypothesis.

Elliott Sober very effectively argues this in his essay, Intelligent Design and Probability Reasoning

"Intelligent design theorists may feel that they have already stated their theory. If the existence of the vertebrate eye is what one wishes to explain, their hypothesis is that an intelligent designer constructed the vertebrate eye. If it is the characteristics of the vertebrate eye (the fact that it has features F1, F2, ..., Fn), rather than its mere existence, that one wants to explain, their hypothesis is that an intelligent designer constructed the vertebrate eye with the intention that it have features F1, F2, ..., Fn and that this designer had the ability to bring his plan to fruition. Notice that both of these formulations of the hypothesis of intelligent design simply build into that hypothesis the observations whose explanation we seek. The problem with this strategy is that the same game can be played by the other side. If the evolutionary hypothesis is formulated by saying "evolution by natural selection produced the vertebrate eye" or by saying that "evolution by natural selection endowed the eye with features F1, F2, ..., Fn ," then it too entails the observations.

To avoid trivializing the problem in this way, we should formulate the observations so that they are not built into the hypotheses we want to test..."

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/ID&PRword.PDF#search='Elliot%20Sober%20intelligent%20design'

These type of radically tailor-made explanations are scientifically worthless. The hypothesis yeilds no independent prediction, nor does it yeild any insight into the phenomena. The only evidence for a designer existing having the motive and ability to obtain some feature of reality is the mere existence of that feature. This can be done with literally everything from volcanoes to plaque to weather, which should clue you into why it doesn't work.

I believe in intelligent design, yet I am quite curious to dig down and understand how things work.

If there ever was a philosopher who argued against first principles, it was Wittgenstein.

The Creation Hypothesis says: Physical space-time and its contents were created by beings outside physical space-time. This is a familiar hypothesis. A version of it is believed by many people in our society, and perhaps by the majority of the people in the world. If one believes that God created the world, and if one believes that God is outside physical space-time, then one believes the Creation Hypothesis. One needn't believe in God to believe the Creation Hypothesis, though. Perhaps our world was created by a relatively ordinary being in the "next universe up", using the latest world-making technology in that universe. If so, the Creation Hypothesis is true. I don't know whether the Creation Hypothesis is true. But I don't know for certain that it is false. The hypothesis is clearly coherent, and I cannot conclusively rule it out. The Creation Hypothesis is not a skeptical hypothesis. Even if it is true, most of my ordinary beliefs are still true. I still have hands, I am still in Tucson, and so on. Perhaps a few of my beliefs will turn out false: if I am an atheist, for example, or if I believe all reality started with the Big Bang. But most of my everyday beliefs about the external world will remain intact.

[author=TS]One of the fundamental tools of science is Occam's Razor, and it mandates against introduction of such "entities" as "miracle" or "designer" --- violations of Occam's Razor are worthy of a very big fuss indeed. For centuries, Occam's Razor was considered to be an effective methodological tool, but not a fact or truism. But information theorists have recently proven that Occam's Razor is a theorem, when expressed in the form "the predictions of simpler (in an information theoretic sense) explanations are more likely to be correct".

Anything is consistent with the hypothesis of a designer, making the hypothesis scientifically irrelevant --- it is unfalsifiable, and is the grossest possible violation of Ockham's Razor, since it is consistent with, and adds nothing to, any set of hypotheses.

As a doctoral student in the philosophy of language and science, I find your recommendation of more philosophy of science education somewhat humorous. Ockham's razor is an aesthetic concern with no logical force whatsoever. Given two theories that explain the phenomena (say, the Einsteinian and quantum mechanical explanations of gravity), on being simpler than the other, there is not a non-aesthetic reason to prefer one to the other.

Coincidentally, my dissertation is on the continuity of Wittgenstein's philosophy. Forget the fact that I was merely appropriating a quote of LW's for my own purposes; the claim that Wittgenstein was not the man for first principles is ridiculous - what do you call the simple objects of the Tractatus.

I would love to digress into a discussion of Wittgenstein, but I have already been asked to take my ball and go home with respect to criticizing Darwin. Perhaps those among you who don't want to discuss such matters, should simply ignore me.

David Heddle wrote: The general idea that ID thwarts science is belied by those of us who are IDers and who, in fact, do science.

David Heddle wrote:
"Just for completeness, the explanation of Rayleigh scattering (preferential scattering of lower wavelengths) for why the sky is blue is incomplete. Otherwise, the wise student should ask "why isn't the sky purple?" The complete answer is the convolution of Rayleigh scattering and the frequency dependent sensitivity of our eyes.

"Our eyes are most sensitive to yellow, of course.

"The general idea that ID thwarts science is belied by those of us who are IDers and who, in fact, do science."

I would be interested to know just how you use ID in your work, how it generates hypotheses, how it leads to discoveries. And how it applies to the case of blue sky.

I'm not talking about ID as a harmless philosphico-religious diversion that is external to science, but as a positive aid in doing scientific research.

(BTW, any graduate of high school physics knows that our eyes are most sensitive to yellow-green, not pure yellow. I hope you're more precise in your professional work.)

This is a common error ingrained in the naturalist mindset. Were it actually the case that belief in a designer thwarted the desire to study nature and discover its secrets, e.g., Newton would never have written Principia. There are many serious complaints that can be lodged against design arguments - this isn't one of them.

The biological phenomena are consistent with the hypothesis of a designer. There are predictions that follow from such a hypothesis, e.g., similarities in structure (cf. similarities between different paintings and sculptures of the same artist).

The general idea that ID thwarts science is belied by those of us who are IDers and who, in fact, do science.

From www.evolvefish.com - it really sums it all up for me:

"The Heretical Rod
The first major blow against these biblical superstitions about storms and lightning [that they were caused by demons/spirits] was struck in 1752 when Benjamin Franklin made his famous electrical experiments with a kite. The second and fatal blow was struck later in the same year when he invented the lightning rod. With Franklin's scientific explanations of lightning, the question that had so long taxed the minds of the world's leading theologians-"Why should the Almighty strike his own consecrated temples, or suffer Satan to strike them"-could finally be answered rationally.

Thunder and lightning were considered tokens of God's displeasure. It was considered impious to prevent their doing damage. This was despite the fact that in Germany, within a span of 33 years, nearly 400 towers were damaged and 120 bell ringers were killed.

In Switzerland, France and Italy, popular prejudice against the lightning rod was ignited and fueled by the churches and resulted in the tearing down of lightning rods from many homes and buildings, including one from the Institute of Bologna, the leading scientific institution in Italy. The Swiss chemist, M. de Saussure, removed a rod he had erected on his house in Geneva in 1771 when it caused his neighbors so much anxiety that he feared a riot.

In 1780-1784, a lawsuit about lightning rods gave M. de St. Omer the right to have a lightning rod on top of his house despite the religious objections of his neighbors. This victory established the fame of the lawyer in the case, young Robespierre.

In America, Rev. Thomas Prince, pastor of Old South Church, blamed Franklin's invention of the lightning rod for causing the Massachusetts earthquake of 1755.

In Prince's sermon on the topic, he expressed the opinion that the frequency of earthquakes may be due to the erection of "points invented by the sagacious Mr. Franklin." He goes on to argue that "in Boston more are erected than anywhere else in New England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully shaken. Oh! There is no getting out of the mighty hand of God."
. . .
A typical case was the tower of St. Mark's in Venice. In spite of the angel at its summit, the bells consecrated to ward off devils and witches in the air, the holy relics in the church below, and the Processions in the adjacent square, the tower was frequently damaged or destroyed by lightning. It was not until 1766 that a lightning rod was placed upon it-and the tower has never been struck since.
. . .
The Rod Spared
Such examples as these, in all parts of Europe, had their effect. The ecclesiastical formulas for preventing storms and consecrating bells to protect against lightning and tempests were still practiced in the Churches, but the lightning rod carried the day. Christian Churches were finally obliged to confess its practicality. The few theologians who stuck to the old theories and fumed against Franklin's attempts to "control the artillery of heaven" were finally silenced, like the lightning, by Franklin's lighting rod and the supremacy of the scientific method. "

It may also be the case that differences in design argue for different designers. Perhaps the squid has an eye superior to mammals because the squid has a different designer. Where is the intelligent design lab that is working on any of that?

Great post Tara. Thanks for the information.

I was once told that there were forams that lived in human mouths, is that true?

As a doctoral student in the philosophy of language and science, I find your recommendation of more philosophy of science education somewhat humorous. Ockham's razor is an aesthetic concern with no logical force whatsoever.

— Michael Finley

We provide a new representation-independent formulation of Occam's razor theorem, based on Kolmogorov complexity. This new formulation allows us to: (i) Obtain better sample complexity than both length-based \cite{blumer1} and VC-based \cite{blumer} versions of Occam's razor theorem, in many applications; and (ii) Achieve a sharper reverse of Occam's razor theorem than that of \cite{board}. Specifically, we weaken the assumptions made in \cite{board} and extend the reverse to superpolynomial running times.

Given two theories that explain the phenomena (say, the Einsteinian and quantum mechanical explanations of gravity), on being simpler than the other, there is not a non-aesthetic reason to prefer one to the other.

http://www.ukpoliticsmisc.org.uk/usenet_evidence/argument.html ... The Rebuttal Principle One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or the position it supports and to the strongest argument on the other side of the issue.

the claim that Wittgenstein was not the man for first principles is ridiculous - what do you call the simple objects of the Tractatus.

I have already been asked to take my ball and go home with respect to criticizing Darwin.

Perhaps those among you who don't want to discuss such matters, should simply ignore me.

this designer can just jump in and poke around with stuff willy-nilly, why bother investigating at all?

— Tara

the claim that Wittgenstein was not the man for first principles is ridiculous - what do you call the simple objects of the Tractatus.

— Michael Finley

If there ever was a philosopher who argued against first principles, it was Wittgenstein.

Ockham's Razor has been proven as a theorem in information theory, so either your education or your ability to absorb it are lacking. Since your education has not only left you with the absurd

— ts

all of the Wells's, Behes, Dembskis, and those "Darwin-doubting" signers of petitions who unreasonhably cling to a single-designer conjecture

— RBH

Who's to say that we understand the "complex" systems well enough to be able to claim that they had to be designed?

— Tara

One obvious problem with this discussion is this assumption that belief in intelligent design causes a person to have no curiousity about nature and how things work. I believe in intelligent design, yet I am quite curious to dig down and understand how things work. I would call it simple arrogance to say "I don't believe in intelligent design, and therefore I have greater curiosity than those who believe in intelliegent design."

— Jeff Mauldin

Despite claims to the contrary, design theory is not "simpler" in an Occam's Razor sense than evolution. Evolution assumes that simple processes we have already seen work in the lab can have a cumulative effect over time to create the diversity of life we see today. Design assumes that diversity has to be designed, and that there exists a designer. That's the thing: In order for design "theory" to have any remote validity, you must first prove the existence of a designer without using the "designed" things as evidence! Why? Because otherwise, your argument looks like this: How do we know this cell was designed? Its intricate parts bear the signature of the designer. How do we know the designer exists and what his/her signature looks like? Because we know this cell was designed. Do you see why that argument is circular? Does design "theory" make any actual testable claims that aren't question-begging?

Clearly you'd expect based on common design that the similarities should be closer between whale and shark

— Dave S.

the most complex machine ever observed happened by a long series of random chance defeating virtually impossible odds

Ockham's Razor has been proven as a theorem in information theory, so either your education or your ability to absorb it are lacking. Since your education has not only left you with the absurd Where on earth did you come up with that nonsense?

— DaveScot

Evolution assumes that simple processes we have already seen work in the lab can have a cumulative effect over time to create the diversity of life we see today.

— Randall

From the fact that there's considerable literature on the subject, including published proofs, like the one I actually cited in the post you're responding to, you imbecile.

— ts

The minor changes we've seen show that organisms adapt to their environments. Whether or not major changes happen over geologically long or geologically short time periods is predicted to depend on whether the environments have changed over geologically long or short time periods. Lab results can give us a rough idea of the maximum rate of evolution, but also predict that if the environment is constant, evolution will asymtotically approach a well-suited organism and then stop making major changes. So any questions about the pace of evolution cannot be answered in the lab; rather, they'll have to be answered in the field (since we can't, y'know, figure out what environmental conditions were based on some lab tests).

Oh, and you're right about Occam's Razor; the article ts linked to talked about how it's applied to science. This link shows how it's a proven theorm of information theory. Hope that helps.

that is not what evolution states

— Grey Wolf

Randall

I suggest you read the article you linked to. Pay particular attention to "the one generating the shortest overall message is more likely to be correct".

So it's been proven to be likely.

Thanks. Statements like that are proven likely to provoke laughter.

The overwhelming appearance of design is not an illusion. It's real. It's the only explanation which perfectly fits the facts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

In science

Ockham's Razor has become a basic perspective for those who follow the scientific method. It is important to note that it is a heuristic argument that does not necessarily give correct answers; it is a loose guide to choosing the scientific hypothesis which (currently) contains the least number of unproven assumptions. Often, several hypotheses are equally "simple" and Ockham's Razor does not express any preference in such cases.

Now STOP this nonsense about Occam's Razor being a proven theorum RIGHT NOW. It's not a theorum. Period. End of story.

DaveScot said: "just like the hundreds of scientists that had the courage to sign a statement saying they question mutation/selection's ability to explain the diversity of life"

How many Steves in that list, DaveScot?

And I was refering to evolution theory. Sorry for not being more clear. My fault.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

For centuries, Occam's Razor was considered to be an effective methodological tool, but not a fact or truism. But information theorists have recently proven that Occam's Razor is a theorem, when expressed in the form "the predictions of simpler (in an information theoretic sense) explanations are more likely to be correct". (Bold added)

— ts

your explanaition fits the facts. It fits all the facts - all imaginable facts

— Grey Wolf

DaveScot, please state what kind of proof I could dig up or observe that would show that the Designer does not exist

GW

So you claim design does not fit all imaginable facts? Give us an example of evidence which, if found, would disprove design. If you want design called a hypothesis (we can talk about being a theory later), it'll need to be falsifiable.

Well no sh@t simpler explanations are more likely to be correct. Duh. That's why Occam's Razor is an enduring, guiding principle in science and engineering. It's still a principle, by the way, not a theory.

There's an information science theory which states "the predictions of simpler (in an information theoretic sense) explanations are more likely to be correct." I mean, I posted a link to an article saying just that. And since the theory specifically uses the phrase "more likely," I don't see your problem with it. Is it just that you creationists get really hung up on the word "theory"?

When asked what ID has to say about the nature of the Designer, IDolators claim that ID doesn't address that question, but, rather, that ID merely confirms that some things were Designed. Very well: taking the IDolators at their word that ID is indeed utterly silent on the question of who/what/when/where/why the Designer was, the core premise of ID works out to be, "Somewhere, sometime, somehow, somebody intelligent did something." Any ID partisan who disagrees with me is welcome to explain what else -- if anything -- ID does have to say about the Designer, over and above "he was intelligent" and "he existed". And if, in fact, ID doesn't have anything to say about the Designer, over and above "he existed and was intelligent", how do you suggest we go about testing the proposition that "somewhere, sometime, somehow, somebody intelligent did something"?
If "somebody intelligent did something" is all ID 'theory' can bring to the table, exactly what good is ID 'theory'? What benefits can ID 'theory' offer science?

So you claim design does not fit all imaginable facts? Give us an example of evidence which, if found, would disprove design. If you want design called a hypothesis (we can talk about being a theory later), it'll need to be falsifiable.

— Randall

The salient question is what evidence can disprove mutation/selection since that's already being peddled as a well tested theory.

— DaveScot

The salient question is what evidence can disprove mutation/selection since that's already being peddled as a well tested theory.

— DaveScot

No one is arguing that someone who believes in god or aliens or Elvis can't do science.

Most here would argue, however, that one cannot do science using "Intelligent Design" philosophy

I would be interested to know just how you use ID in your work, how it generates hypotheses, how it leads to discoveries. And how it applies to the case of blue sky. I'm not talking about ID as a harmless philosphico-religious diversion that is external to science, but as a positive aid in doing scientific research. (BTW, any graduate of high school physics knows that our eyes are most sensitive to yellow-green, not pure yellow. I hope you're more precise in your professional work.)

Stupid Refresh not showing me my new comment.

Give us an example of evidence which, if found, would disprove design. If you want design called a hypothesis (we can talk about being a theory later), it'll need to be falsifiable.

David Heddle, while I might agree that in your private version of ID those might be possible falsifications (I won't try to attack your version of ID), the general ID hypothesis could simply state that the Designer had created a universe without a beginning or that he had created multiple parallel universes. After all, it is an all powerful Designer.

So those aren't good enough answer to the question I gave DaveScot, sorry. Please note that I am not, at this time, dealing with your version of ID (which I hope you admit is different from the one used by most IDers).

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

You're making the same mistake that Kent Hovind makes in his $250,000 offer: You're conflating cosmology, astronomy, geology, abiogenesis, and evolution into one large straw-man theory you call evolution. Let's say I believed in deism, that is, that God created the universe but hasn't done anything else in ~13.5 billion years. Would that make me a believer of design theory? Or would that just mean I had let the God of the Gaps handle the biggest gap of them all and let science do the rest? The point is, if design "theory" claims to explain the diversity of life on earth, I want to see an example of something that, if found on earth, would demonstrate that design had nothing to do with the diversity of life. Even if God started the universe, evolution still explains life on earth, and design still explains nothing and is unfalsifiable with respect to the diversity of life.

You linked to a wikipedia article that properly calls Occams's Razor a "principle". That does not support your position that it's a proven theorum.

Neither does some obscure paper submitted to Information Processing Letters.

A formal proof of Occam's Razor and the formula 1 - c1^(|p|-|x|+c2) that gives the probability of the regularity/predictive power of a model p to explain data x, can be found in Li & Vitanyi, _An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity_, Springer & Verlag 1993

Now STOP this nonsense about Occam's Razor being a proven theorum RIGHT NOW. It's not a theorum. Period. End of story.

I suggest you read the article you linked to. Pay particular attention to "the one generating the shortest overall message is more likely to be correct". So it's been proven to be likely.

There's an information science theory which states "the predictions of simpler (in an information theoretic sense) explanations are more likely to be correct." I mean, I posted a link to an article saying just that. And since the theory specifically uses the phrase "more likely," I don't see your problem with it. Is it just that you creationists get really hung up on the word "theory"?

Falsifiability is tied to verifiability.

Design can, in principle, be verified by locating a designer.

What can, in principle, verify mutation/selection acting in distant past to accomplish the diversity we see today?

I've seen no documented observations of mutation/selection having the ability to change one closely related group of organisms into something different. Mutated insects remain insects, mutated mammals remain mammals, mutated bacteria remain bacteria, even mutated viruses remain viruses. Mutation has not been observed to make the kind of changes required to turn a bacteria into a bird. It's a huge extrapolation. That's not a well tested theory, it's an educated guess. Design is on equal footing except I'd say it's a more rational guess since intelligent tinkering with genomes is something we're already doing today and all the machines where the origin is known are of intelligent design.

So I offer legitimate ways to falsify ID, but those don't count. And no matter what I or anyone else provides, you can always say "that doesn't count, because IDers will just say God did it that way."

That is an over simplification. If you chip away at what IDers see as evidence, which for me is the fine tuning universe at large-- not the diversity of life-- then at least the scientic-IDers will withdraw support. Sure, people who do not know science and support ID purely for (as opposed to in conjunction with) religious reasons will never give up. But scientists who are IDers will. And I gave some examples that would falsify it for me.

I could make the same argument about evolution falsifiability. When that question comes up, and after you weed out the absurd ("sure, just find a 200 million year old human fossil") you get things like the discovery of species with no common DNA would falsify evolution. Would it? Or would people just say that life originated more than once? My point is, can you come up with a non absurd finding that would falsify evolution for everybody? Or would would some zealots hang on?

So when you ask for falsifiability of ID, I think you should ask: would a scientific minded ID proponent accept something as falsifying, and forget about those who are just religiously motivated.

Um, DaveScot, you continue to assert that you can distinguish designed things from non-designed things, and do so reliably. Kindly distinguish the designed portions of the British landscape from the undesigned. When you've completed that, we will discuss various Japanese gardens and natural sites -- you will need to reliably distinguish the designed from the natural.
As you yourself noted, albeit without sufficient strength to the claim, design can be verified by locating a designer.
In fact, this is the ONLY way in which design can be verified. There are no other marks/signs/attributes/features which distinguish the designed from the undesigned.
And you should know that by now. But if you acknowleged and accepted that, you'd have to abandon dembskiism.
All of ID depends on the notion that any given item can be accurately determined to be designed or not without recourse to the designer. This cannot be done, and the myriad false positives that any algorithmic approach to determination of design produces is in and of itself sufficent warrant to dispose of dembskiism on the trash-heap of pseudo-intellectual bs.

regards,
Shirley Knott

proving :
(1) the universe had no beginning or
(2) there are an infinite number of parallel universes

... are practicable experimental proposals for disproving ID, but finding out-of-place fossils is absurd?

OK.

proving : (1) the universe had no beginning or (2) there are an infinite number of parallel universes . . . are practicable experimental proposals for disproving ID, but finding out-of-place fossils is absurd? OK.

Mutated insects remain insects, mutated mammals remain mammals, mutated bacteria remain bacteria, even mutated viruses remain viruses.

Because we can assume that the designer of biological systems is working within the constraints of physical laws just like the designer of the computer you used to write your little missive.

Oops, it appears I meant to say that I agree with Grey Wolf (GW) not GWW.

Falsifiability is tied to verifiability.

— troll DaveScot

Give us an example of evidence which, if found, would disprove design. If you want design called a hypothesis (we can talk about being a theory later), it'll need to be falsifiable. Well, for me, proof that either (1) the universe had no beginning or (2) there are an infinite number of parallel universes

— troll David Heddle

I could make the same argument about evolution falsifiability. When that question comes up, and after you weed out the absurd ("sure, just find a 200 million year old human fossil") you get things like the discovery of species with no common DNA would falsify evolution.

Shirley Knott

"As you yourself noted, albeit without sufficient strength to the claim, design can be verified by locating a designer.
In fact, this is the ONLY way in which design can be verified. There are no other marks/signs/attributes/features which distinguish the designed from the undesigned."

Actually, I don't think that's the case, though the reality doesn't bode well for IDers.

It is quite an easy thing to distinguish design in non self-replicating CSI exhibiting manufactured objects. Moreover, in every instance where the identity of the designer is known, that designer is known to have been a human. The logic of ID would draw an inference from that knowledge, and claim it proves that biological organisms were designed by humans. ;>)

Because we can assume that the designer of biological systems is working within the constraints of physical laws just like the designer of the computer you used to write your little missive.

— DaveScot

I have designed enough complex computer hardware to recognize design when I see it. I may not know the design team but the design is apparent nonetheless.

— DaveScot

Wow! Nice post, ts. Someone should turn it into a main page post or even a TO FAQ. I'm always at a loss when I try to think of predictions of evolution. I should at least jot down the post, so I can use it for future reference.

Kudos!

Grey Wolf who is not, indeed, GWW

TS: My exchange with you has long-since passed the "pearl before swine" threshold. I suggest you read more books (say, on the logic of scientific inquiry and the sense/reference distinction).

Until the next thread, farewell.

I couldn't resist one parting shot: Curious that the disagreement between the Einsteinian and quantum mechanical explanations of gravity (the warping of space and the exchange of gravitons respectively) wasn't solved simply by an appeal to Ockham's Razor. Someone should tell the physicists their wasting a lot of time over something that could be decided by appealing to a simple principle.

Why couldn't the designer have created infinite universes? Why couldn't the designer have operated in a universe without a beginning? Besides, the IDist could easily say, "The designer stepped in and made all of our observations make it appear as if the universe had no beginning or that there are parallel universes, but that's really not the case and ID is still valid." The whole point to the exercise is that explaining things by a supernatural cause is really no explanation at all because you can not prove nor disprove the supernatural.

For falsifiability to obtain, the empirical predictions must be testable in practice so as to produce the observations that might falsify the hypothesis. "the universe had a beginning" and "there are not an infinite number of parallel universes" are neither predictions of design nor are they empirical, and proofs for or against these propositions are neither empirical nor contradict design, nor are they obtainable. You might as well say that a proof that no more than 27 angels can dance on the tip of a pin would falsify design, thereby relieving yourself of any burden of validating your hypothesis through testing.

Parting shot #2: An even more curious fact is that physicists are now devising an absurdly complicated theory, string theory, to replace quantum mechanics and general relativity. It posits many more entities than either, e.g., 7 extra dimensions, strings, etc. And that with all of the experimental success of the two preceeding theories. Ockham must be rolling in his grave.

An even more curious fact is that physicists are now devising an absurdly complicated theory, string theory, to replace quantum mechanics and general relativity. It posits many more entities than either, e.g., 7 extra dimensions, strings, etc. And that with all of the experimental success of the two preceeding theories. Ockham must be rolling in his grave

An even more curious fact is that physicists are now devising an absurdly complicated theory, string theory, to replace quantum mechanics and general relativity. It posits many more entities than either, e.g., 7 extra dimensions, strings, etc. And that with all of the experimental success of the two preceeding theories. Ockham must be rolling in his grave

...both QT and GR fail to predict all known observations. BUT they manage to between them, explain almost all observations. Thus, scientists are trying to combine them so that we get a quantum relativity theory that explains everything the other two explain.

— Grey Wolf

I actually wouldn't call string theory complicated, I'd call it difficult. There is a difference. It is simple and elegant to write down, but the mathematics required to work with it is difficult--and in some ways has to be invented.

Thanks for some great posts, ts. I really enjoy it when informed people put up solid information - I can call the time I spend here educational, instead of just entertainment, thanks to people like you.

The salient question is what evidence can disprove mutation/selection since that's already being peddled as a well tested theory.

— DaveScot

Wow! Nice post, ts. Someone should turn it into a main page post or even a TO FAQ. I'm always at a loss when I try to think of predictions of evolution. I should at least jot down the post, so I can use it for future reference.

— Grey Wolf

Let me say it one more time: Highly respected scientists, including giants in the field like Hawking, are actively conducting research that would, if they can experimentally confirm their theories, falsify ID

Which strikes me as a whole lot less practicable than the list that ts presented for testing various aspects of evolution. We know you dislike ts, but putting that aside for a moment, what about that list?

Also, to paraphrase you: the out-of-place fossils and DNA sequences would be enough to falsify "evolution" for me. Why is that criterion any more "absurd" than your personalized criteria for ID falsification?

I couldn't resist one parting shot: Curious that the disagreement between the Einsteinian and quantum mechanical explanations of gravity (the warping of space and the exchange of gravitons respectively) wasn't solved simply by an appeal to Ockham's Razor. Someone should tell the physicists their wasting a lot of time over something that could be decided by appealing to a simple principle.

I'm an IDer, and I just told you what would falsify it for me, and your argument is that "no it wouldn't falsify it for you." But, sorry, it (parallel universes) would. Why? Because it is the fine tuning of this universe that does it for me. If there are infinite universes, then the argument that "we just happen to be in a lucky one, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about it" becomes very plausible---i.e. I.D. is dead.

It's already on a web page that ts referenced earlier (that the ID folks were too busy with their research to look at, apparently). See link in Comment #17514 above.

Let me say it one more time: Highly respected scientists, including giants in the field like Hawking, are actively conducting research that would, if they can experimentally confirm their theories, falsify ID (for me, I can only speak for myself.) So the complaint that ID is not falsifiable is false.

But, why would it not be valid to say that the designer fooled us into thinking we saw parallel universes? Why would it not be valid to say that the designer made all those universes? Perhaps the designer created life on all the parallel universes, life that is different and "fine-tuned" to the laws of each universe. If you really understood the implications of ID, you would realize that it is NOT falsifiable, because the supernatural can always bend the natural to its will.

The reason that a quantum gravity theory is "better" than saying "GM for large things, QM for small things" is that some observations (black holes, for example) involve both small things and large gravities, and thus can't be properly explained by either GM or QM. If a quantum gravity theory can be formulated which properly explains those observations, then it will have more explanatory power than both GM and QM combined, and thus be favored even by Occam's Razor (since of all the hypotheses which explain all the data, it will be the simplest). Besides, everyone here has agreed that Occam's Razor gives you likelihoods, not certainties.

David Heddle, a couple points.

First, TS has a point. Falsifiable for David Heddle is not the same as ID is falsifiable.

Second, am I to understand that the sole reason you support ID is because of Dembski's (I think it was him) argument of the fine tuning of the universe? I believe the argument goes that this universe was fine tuned so much that we would not exist if anything were slightly different, therefore the universe must have been designed giving rise to us?

If that is your argument, do you have any problem with abiogenesis? Do you dispute evolution? Evolution has nothing what-so-ever to do with the formation of the universe, so you shouldn't have a problem with it.

I also don't understand why you would reject my ideas of how a supernatural being could spoof us or could have made infinite universes, which would still support ID. That's the point of it all. Your version of ID relies on a supernatural being that is beyond time and space by definition, else this being could not have designed the universe, which includes time and space. Therefore, this supernatural being is not bound by the laws of time and space (hence the supernatural nature of it.) This being should be able to warp time/space and make it appear to us that there are infinite parallel universes, should this being wish that to be so. All I'm doing is keeping ID alive, even if it isn't alive for you, should we discover parallel universes or an ever-existing universe. The fact that you can't make that jump shows that you have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand, but the problem with that is that once you start drawing arbitrary lines, anyone else can do the same thing.

David Heddle, since you're not an official spokesman for ID, the fact that you think up two private falsifying test for your version of ID is useless. The "mainstream" ID cannot be falsified for the reasons above: it uses an omnipotent designer that can be used to explaine everything. As I said back at the beggining of this subthread, I am not interested in discussing your ID since true or false, it is not IDers' ID, just your own private hypothesis.

Are you willing to admit that Dembski's version of ID (with an all powerful designer that hides the Christian God) is unfalsifiable?

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Second, am I to understand that the sole reason you support ID is because of Dembski's (I think it was him) argument of the fine tuning of the universe? I believe the argument goes that this universe was fine tuned so much that we would not exist if anything were slightly different, therefore the universe must have been designed giving rise to us? If that is your argument, do you have any problem with abiogenesis? Do you dispute evolution? Evolution has nothing what-so-ever to do with the formation of the universe, so you shouldn't have a problem with it.

David Heddle, since you're not an official spokesman for ID, the fact that you think up two private falsifying test for your version of ID is useless. The "mainstream" ID cannot be falsified for the reasons above: it uses an omnipotent designer that can be used to explaine everything. As I said back at the beggining of this subthread, I am not interested in discussing your ID since true or false, it is not IDers' ID, just your own private hypothesis. Are you willing to admit that Dembski's version of ID (with an all powerful designer that hides the Christian God) is unfalsifiable?

Parting shot #2: An even more curious fact is that physicists are now devising an absurdly complicated theory, string theory, to replace quantum mechanics and general relativity. It posits many more entities than either, e.g., 7 extra dimensions, strings, etc. And that with all of the experimental success of the two preceeding theories. Ockham must be rolling in his grave.

Parting shot #2: An even more curious fact is that physicists are now devising an absurdly complicated theory, string theory, to replace quantum mechanics and general relativity. It posits many more entities than either, e.g., 7 extra dimensions, strings, etc. And that with all of the experimental success of the two preceeding theories. Ockham must be rolling in his grave.

So you pose a question (how to falsify ID) that cannot be answered because you can always respond (a) no, your designer could have done it that way or (b) you don't speak for everyone. Then why ask the question?

The out of place fossils are absurd (as a falsifiability test) because there is no chance of it happening... As for the list TS put up, I am not an expert, but I have no problem with accepting the fact that evolution has made successful predictions. That doesn't free it from further verification. Nothing we do as scientists is free from that requirement.

Russell,

I agree, no more point to the round and round. All I can say is, if you want to damage the case for evolution, preach that it can be falsified if you find a pre Cambrian human fossil.

And "7 extra dimensions" are not the sort of "entities" that OR refers to.

— TS

As I have demonstrated, Occam’s Razor is a theorem in information theory — given the citations I provided, this is disputable only by fools.

I could make the same argument about evolution falsifiability. When that question comes up, and after you weed out the absurd ("sure, just find a 200 million year old human fossil") you get things like the discovery of species with no common DNA would falsify evolution.

— lying conniving troll David Heddle

LOL. Your an expert on scholastic ideas of being too. Wow, you're quite the Renaissance man. Let me assure you that Ockham's use of "entity" is broad enough to inlcude "dimensions."

Let me get this straight. Because you can type in a search phrase on Google and come back with a reference, this somehow makes your conclusion only disputable by fools.

I'm reminded of a statement Milhouse made to Bart: "If it's written in a book, it must be true."

Re "Curious that the disagreement between the Einsteinian and quantum mechanical explanations of gravity (the warping of space and the exchange of gravitons respectively) wasn't solved simply by an appeal to Ockham's Razor. Someone should tell the physicists their wasting a lot of time over something that could be decided by appealing to a simple principle."

I didn't know graviton theory was developed far enough to be used as a working theory?

Henry

Since nobody is an official spokesman for ID or evolution, this is just a red herring. As discussed above, you have asked a question that can't be answered, since you refuse to accept an IDer's answer. So why ask?

The salient question is what evidence can disprove mutation/selection since that's already being peddled as a well tested theory.

— DaveScot

David Heddle,
The point I am making is that you have not shown ID to be falsifiable. Let's explore this further.

You believe that some designer made the universe and made it just so so that we can come to life and be human. Who is this designer? May I assume it is some deity, most likely the Xtian god?

OK, now supposed someone proves that parallel universes exist. Does this disprove ID? Well, to you it does, or does it? Doesn't it really disprove your philosophical idea that we are a special creation of your deity placed in this special universe? Was that really a scientific point that you held that was falsified, or was it philosophical? My discussion of the arbitrary line in the sand was to say that you drew a philosophical line in the sand, which is non-scientific. The reason that finding parallel universes would destroy ID for you is that it is philosophically held by you, not scientific. Therefore, you have not shown ID to be a scientific hypothesis that is falsifiable. You have only shown us what would make you change your personal philosophy.

But since you're aching to get questions, answer this: given that your Intelligent Designer is God, why do you state that He couldn't have created multiple universes? or even a universe without a beginning? (I am assuming that you do equate your designer with the Christian God, since you have stated repeatedly that you are a Christian, or at least implied it heavily).

As far as I know, the ID explanation to "Why is the sky blue?" is the same as the naturalist's answer, viz., because light waves corresponding to the color blue are scattered by the earth's atmosphere.

As far as I can tell, nobody will admit that ID is falsifiable because you don't want to admit that ID is falsifiable.

I never claimed ID as a scientific theory

Heddle doesn't seem to grasp that ID is not falsifiable in principle, EVEN IF he's willing under hell-freezes-over circumstances to change his mind. He might as well argue that the way to falsify ID is to administer a frontal lobotomy to every creationist.

I notice that Finley has permitted the intermediate step, the identification of mechanism, in one case but disallowed it in the second. God designed his universe in such a way that our atmosphere is blue, but did NOT design his universe in such a way that life evolves. Why not? I speculate that the first mechanism doesn't conflict with doctrine, and the second does. Then again, nobody has ever suggested that creationists are consistent.

— Flint

Gonzalez and Richards list these ways to falsify or at least damage their theory:

1)To find a distant environment that was hostile to life and yet a better place than earth for making scientific observations.

2)Find complex life where they claim you won't find it--say on a gas giant, or near a x-ray emitting star in the galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night, etc.

3)Find complex life on a planet that does not have a large moon (that produces good solar eclipses.)

4) Find non-Carbon based life

My position can can be summed up in a single sentence: Try to natural explanations, and if, in a given circumstance, none are forthcoming, consider supernatural explanations.

I am not in principle oppossed to completely natural explanations (excluding the first principle of the universe), but by the same token, I am also not in principle oppossed to supernatural explanations.

Suppose, ex hypothesi, that natural explanations of the origin of a particular biological system were not forthcoming, and there were good arguments against the probability of such an explanation. Are supernatural cuases an option? If not, why not?

It could be replied that there are natural explanations of the system in question, and the arguments against the probability of natural explanations are poor. Be that as it may, it would be a dodge of my question.

David Heddle:

OK, this is kind of interesting. After all, if someone agrees that ID has been falsified, what they are necessarily agreeing is that God might not have created what ID creationists are crediting Him with. They are, in essence, specifying criteria by which design can be distinguished from non design. But as I tried to say, this means that they can (at least hypothetically) point to something and say with full confidence that God didn't create it. And THAT I'll believe when I see it!

Your sources are basically saying, life as we know it is the only kind of life God could possibly have made, and if we find life as we don't know it (AND identify it as life, AND agree that it's life, both of which are highly unlikely if it is NOT life as we know it) then there was no designer! But if I were a creationist, I'd laugh at this. Why can't my omniscient God do whatever He wills?

What exactly are "supernatural causes"? For some reason, it doesn't sound quite right. They're certainly not natural causes, so how are we to understand causation as a supernatural event. For that matter, how are we to understand "supernatural events"? What distinguishes the two?

OK, this is kind of interesting. After all, if someone agrees that ID has been falsified, what they are necessarily agreeing is that God might not have created what ID creationists are crediting Him with...this means that they can (at least hypothetically) point to something and say with full confidence that God didn't create it. And THAT I'll believe when I see it!

Are supernatural causes an option? If not, why not?

1)To find a distant environment that was hostile to life and yet a better place than earth for making scientific observations. 2)Find complex life where they claim you won't find it---say on a gas giant, or near a x-ray emitting star in the galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night, etc. 3)Find complex life on a planet that does not have a large moon (that produces good solar eclipses.) 4) Find non-Carbon based life

1)To find a distant environment that was hostile to life and yet a better place than earth for making scientific observations. 2)Find complex life where they claim you won't find it---say on a gas giant, or near a x-ray emitting star in the galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night, etc. 3)Find complex life on a planet that does not have a large moon (that produces good solar eclipses.) 4) Find non-Carbon based life

I don't agree. To me, falsifying ID means that God has not left any evidence that he created something. It doesn't mean he didn't create it.

If you find garden variety carbon based intelligent life on a planet that doesn't experience good solar eclipses, they say that would damage their theory.

I don't agree. To me, falsifying ID means that God has not left any evidence that he created something. It doesn't mean he didn't create it.

If you find garden variety carbon based intelligent life on a planet that doesn't experience good solar eclipses, they say that would damage their theory.

Maybe you can explain to me why carbon-based life on dark planets couldn't have been designed?

Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

David Heddle,

I think we've been here before. You said,
"With one universe, I can claim the fine tuning is evidence for design---for I don't see any other credible explanation."

Would you mind laying out the scientific basis for that conclusion? Bear in mind that I consider it a prime example of what I call "Lookingback." Let me explain.

From the perspective of the self-proclaimed culmination, everything which preceded us happened specifically to facilitate us. Any claim of fine-tuning therefore explicitly claims that we were the before-the-fact planned and intended result of the meticulous design of everything, including mass extinctions, weather anomalies, local disasters, and anything else you want to toss into the mix. Your God set up a sequence that wiped out up to 90+% of all life on earth multiple times as a path to us. Kinda strains credulity, don't you think?

"I don't use ID in my work, except to the extent that I believe everyone's approach and choice of topics is influenced by their personal beliefs. (For example, I wouldn't do research on morning-after pills, and some won't do research that may have defense related applications.)"

I don't know that it leads to discoveries.

I would have to think about the blue sky---that is related to our atmosphere which is related to many other things that I do believe have design implications, including our moon. So in some sense the blue sky (and especially a sky transparent in a certain frequency range) is tied to design. However, if I were researching the blue sky, I would look at Rayleigh scattering.

Thanks for the correction (yellow-green.). You are wrong, however, that any high school physics student knows this. In all the years I taught college physics, I don't think a single student was aware of this fact. I think you are employing hyperbole here.

Man I shouldn't post when I have the flu....my post doesn't read as well as it should. Flame me all you want.

Wayne, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. "It theology, its abstract ideas." Lay off the NyQuil dude!

Naw, I'm just bustin your balls :-)

There can be no evidence that falsifies ID because you can't claim to restrict an all powerful being.

You asked for evidence that would falsify evolution

More importantly [to falsify evolution] you would need a theory that explained what we see better then evolution.

Would you mind laying out the scientific basis for that conclusion?

Kinda strains credulity, don't you think?

You're making ID sound an awful lot like philosophical inspiration, like the Eightfold Way, rather than actual science.

Then what is ID good for, then?

Sorry I don't get it. (BTW, I never claimed ID as a scientific theory.) This business of "my" version of ID is nonsense. First of all, why do Dembski and Behe (I have read some of Behe) own ID? The ID in the book The Privileged Planet is very similar to what I believe. They also list many ways that ID can be falsified. Does that not count because they (Gonzalez and Richards) are not Dembski or Behe? Or Hugh Ross? I agree with much of what he writes---but falsfying his ideas doesn't count? As far as I can tell, nobody will admit that ID is falsifiable because you don't want to admit that ID is falsifiable. But you still have this nasty problem that if certain ongoing research turns out a certain way, then certain people (not just me) will drop ID. If that isn't textbook falsifiability, then I don't know what is.

— David Heddle

Yes, that is what others are saying. With that irrefutable comeback, I claim it is then disingenuous to ask the question. And I also claim you (they) are not really asking "how can I falsify ID?" but are only pretending to ask that. You are really asking "how can I falsify God?" which more-or-less everyone has agreed, through the ages, is impossible.

— David Heddle again

Falsifying ID is not the equivalent of falsifying God.

Falsifying ID means there is no evidence of anything other than natural means for things to be the way they are.

Why is this a tough concept?

Like you (I think) said, God could have made parallel universes.

It's an absurd stance. Some of us who are IDers tell you the experimental results that would make us abandon ID, and yet you insist that ID is unfalsifiable.

So what do you call it if:

Day 1: I am a diehard ID proponent
Day 2: Experimental detection of another universe is announced
Day 3: I renounce ID

And, after you tell me that, tell me what this is called:

Day 1: I am a diehard steady-state universe proponent
Day 2: Experimental detection of the expansion of the universe is announced
Day 3: I renounce the steady-state view of the universe

how do you falsify the aspects of evolution that go beyond genetics?

— David Heddle

Yes I believe evolution is falsifiable. I didn't always think so. When you aren't being called stupid, liar, troll, moron, idiot, crack-head, and, most recently, a child abuser, you can occasionally learn something on this site.

Im am not sure how you want me to elaborate on that question (how do you falsify the aspects of evolution that go beyond genetics?) I don't what I was thinking about at that time. Probably looking for falsification in speciation.

There can be no evidence that falsifies ID because you can't claim to restrict an all powerful being. Yes, that is what others are saying. With that irrefutable comeback, I claim it is then disingenuous to ask the question.

Tara Smith writes to me complaining that calling people "moronic trolls" "makes us all look bad" --- but what is she writing to David Heddle? If Heddle's sort of bad faith and intellectual dishonesty doesn't make scientists look bad, then nothing does.