# Can the "intelligent design" theory be falsified? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 13, 2005, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906 "2005-08-13T22:54:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/21 "2005-08-14T14:20:55Z")
My Post Blueberry Morning cereal isn’t in the Bible. Is it false? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/22 "2005-08-14T14:29:48Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > John Mace I’d just like to make sure we’re not enegaging a false dilemma here. This isn’t simply a choice between an untestable intelligence and a testable one. There is the third choice, the one used by most ID proponents in my experience. That third choice is the undefined creator. If the designer is undefined, then how is that different than saying: We observe a phenomenon that we don’t understand. Yet. And that’s also true of Irreducible Complexity. IC is not an explanation of something, but a critique of science. It’s also no different than saying: We observe a phenomenon that we don’t understand. Yet. ---
**Author:** ![rorty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b2d939/32.png) [@rorty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rorty)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/23 "2005-08-14T14:36:06Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Science is a closed system of thinking. Only data, research, criteria that meet the methods and rules of science are allowed to be called science. You mean testing hypotheses with empirical evidence? That’s about as open as you can get. What other method would you advocate using for determining an open-ended, working view of the universe? > [@lekatt](#): > > Even then most scientists will not accept good evidence if it doesn’t follow the current theories already accepted as science. There is a large difference between what you say happens and what really happens. Cite? Listen, eventually the better theory always wins out. There are always going to be scientists that cling to their pet theory of whatever and that’s fine. When a theory is established, it’s not written in stone. It’s always going to be open to attack by other scientists who feel they have strong enough evidence to revise the current theory or toss it out in favor of a new one. That is fine. In fact, that drives at the heart of what science actually sets out to do. This super critical method helps push the strongest theories to the top where they belong. The weaker, less likely theories fade away in favor of the stronger ones and we improve our knowledge of reality in the process. > [@lekatt](#): > > For example tell me why science won’t accept first-hand eye-witness personal experience as evidence. Our judicial system accepts this evidence and so do most people. By eliminating this evidence science has closed the door on any evidence that doesn’t come from their system making science a closed belief system. What are these first-hand, eye-witness accounts you’re speaking of? Surely you don’t mean what’s printed in the Bible. Come on. If there were a way to test those accounts, then yes, they’d be useful evidence in determining the merit of some theories, but there is no means of verification with such evidence. What somebody said three thousand years ago doesn’t hold a whole lot of weight right now. In fact, what somebody says yesterday doesn’t hold a whole lot of weight either. Not unless their claims can be backed up with credible evidence. Also, our judicial system is typically weary of eye-witness accounts. Such accounts, although very helpful, are usually scrutinized heavily by all sides (ahh, testing) to determine their merit. Just because someone relays an account doesn’t mean it’s true. Humans are fallible, they get confused, forget, and hallucinate. That’s why we need testing to determine the merit of evidence. ---
**Author:** ![rorty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b2d939/32.png) [@rorty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rorty)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/24 "2005-08-14T14:40:59Z")
> [@rorty](#): > > That’s why we need testing to determine the merit of evidence. This should read: That’s why we need testing to determine the merit of a claim. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/25 "2005-08-14T14:53:46Z")
> [@rorty](#): > > What are these first-hand, eye-witness accounts you’re speaking of? Oh, don’t get him started. THIS thread is not about lekatt’s conversation with angels, ghosts, aliens, or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/26 "2005-08-14T15:01:29Z")
> [@cricetus](#): > > Oh, don’t get him started. THIS thread is not about lekatt’s conversation with angels, ghosts, aliens, or whatever. I agree. Let’s stick to ID and let \*\*lekatt \*\*start a new thread about why science doesn’t accept “eye witness experience”. That subject has nothing to do with ID. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/27 "2005-08-14T15:12:34Z")
I committed an error I complain about. Theories are not falsifiable, propositions are. A possible proposition from ID is that “the human can not have evolved; it must have been created by design.” This is falsifiable. It is also false. Note that being falsifiable doesn’t make something “true,” or even scientific, it just means there is a method for testing it. Lately ID proponents tend to say, “such and such suggests design,” which is not falsifiable, because even if it can be demonstrated how such a thing may have evolved, the ID proponent can still insist it was designed. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/28 "2005-08-14T18:00:55Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Nope. No ID theory would work if there wasn’t an intelligent designer, so in that respect it is an essential facet. But at the same time they wouldn’t work if the hereditary mechanics weren’t there, so we can’t say that such mechanics are irrelevant. > > Can you reference any ID theory that would work without the mechanics? And if not then how can you conclude that they are irrelevant? ID Theory works by attaching the notion of an intelligent designer causing changes in a change-over-time theory (in this case, evolution). Let’s imagine that the best accepted version of evolution were Lamarkian. All you need to do to create an Intelligent Design theory of this is to claim that the changes were caused by an intelligent entity. You can do this no matter what the evolutionary theory is, as long as you add the words “an intelligent entity caused these changes.” Therefore I conclude that the mechanics of evolution are irrelevant to ID theory, because ID theory applies to **any** set of mechanics. To go way out there, if morphic fields became the best accepted mechanic for evolutionary change, all you need to do is claim the morphic fields were changed by an intelligent entity, and **presto!** You’ve got an ID theory. > [@Blake](#): > > And as I pointed out, Charles Darwin never bothered getting very specific about what the elements of transmission were. So by this argument Darwin’s initial theory wasn’t scientific. I completely disagree with you here. As you know, Darwinian theory rests on three pillars: 1. That there is variation among organisms 2. That this variation is heritable 3. That variation causes differential success in the survival and reproduction of organisms It’s not that Darwin didn’t know or wasn’t specific about the mechanism of heredity, it’s that **heredity as a concept** is testable and falsifiable. You can ask: “Do organisms tend to inherit the characteristics of their ancestors?” and you can test that. It doesn’t matter whether heredity is carried through DNA, proteins, morphic fields, or tiny homunculi that smell vaguely of cheese. Heredity as a concept is falsifiable. Compare to ID theory. One of the potential designers is God (IMHO, this is the whole _point_ behind ID theory). I cannot think of a way to make the concept of God falsifiable. Please share with us if you’ve got this idea. > [@Blake](#): > > Wevets you seem to be conflating falsification of ID theory with falsification of an intelligent designer. Those are not the same thing. As with Darwinain evolution a theory can be itself falsifiable even if the nature of key mechanisms is unknown and unknowable If the lynchpin of the theory is unfalsifiable, how is the theory falsifiable? Maybe you could provide us with an example of the test you think would falsify ID theory, just as a thought experiment, even if the test is unperformable with current technology. Just as a thought exercise, I would think possession of a time machine would provide you with an excellent opportunity to falsify evolutionary theory. I can see no way that possession of a time machine would permit falsification of ID theory. > [@Blake](#): > > I’m very sure it is not being carried on with the same rigour, but that just makes it weak science, it doesn’t make it unscientific. Perhaps it would be best to say that ID theory is more scientific than creationism, but it’s really not the sort of thing that lends itself to good hypothesis testing, which to my mind is the primary business of natural science. Would it be possible to start a different thread on the “science is a closed system of thought” idea? It seems to be a distracting hijack of this one and makes it difficult to focus on the question of the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/29 "2005-08-14T18:49:08Z")
[moderator underoos NOT on] **lekatt** , I have a simple request for you. Since you neither understand nor respect the scientific method, and this thread _directly_ concerns the proper application of the scientific method, could you please restrict your poorly thought out hijack/attacks to the BBQ Pit, where they rightfully belong. Thank you.[/moderator underoos NOT on] ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/30 "2005-08-14T21:53:56Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > \ > > Mom! They keep saying I can’t prove NDEs with the evidence available to me! Make them stop! Wahhhhhhh! **Moderator’s Note:** **Scott Plaid** , this post is definitely not appropriate for this forum. You have been warned several times now for insults and flames against other posters outside the Pit, both [here in Great Debates](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=5894803) and [elsewhere on the boards](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=6318026). You have received [several](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=5911709) [other](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=5942794) [warnings](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=6163324) for various things. If you don’t change your behavior, and in particular if you continue with the BBQ Pit posts outside the BBQ Pit, then at the very least your membership will be suspended for 30 days. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/31 "2005-08-14T22:17:14Z")
And just to make this a Moderating trifecta: There is no reason to support a hijack, even (especially!) if one knows that one’s opponent in a debate does not even agree on the terms of the discussion. If someone wishes to have a religion vs science brawl, open a second thread. Anyone is capable of posting an odd remark that they believe is pertinent, but if someone posts something so odd that it will derail this thread, just do not respond to it. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/32 "2005-08-14T22:24:44Z")
Oh dear, a dog-pile. I should have expected it suggesting that ID has any merit on these boards. Excuse me if I miss any points by the numerous posters addressing me here. I f Is kip something important please ask again. I won’t be ducking the issue, just missing it in the torrent. > [@DSeid](#): > > Darwin’s positing as unnamed element of transmission was not “unscientific” but the essential prediction that was later confirmed. It was unknown in his time, but not unknowable. He predicted that later observations would identify an element of transmission that was inheritable and subject to variation within generational cohorts. Yes, and every ID proponent I have heard of predicts that a creator that invokes variation within generational cohorts will becomes known. Most of them are very strident on that point. Something about the second coming of that creator IIRC. The point being missed here is that this important part of Darwin’s theory was never defined, and thus could not be falsified. If simply saying that if we wait long enough and search hard enough then the agent will become known to future generations made Darwin’s work falsifiable then why not apply the same standard to ID? Why the double standard? > [@](#): > > You seem to take every particular specific speculation or tentative hypothesis of the exact details of the means as a full theory that has been falsified. By that token the germ theory of disease has been falsified because many specific guesses about how germs operate in specific circumstances have been modified in the face of additional data. That’s right. That’s what the scientific method means. If a theory postulates that’s something shouldn’t exist and it is late proven that such a thing does exist then the theory has been falsified. The fact that such is specific speculation doesn’t mean the theory is any less falsified. Newtonian physics work on all but very specific occasions, but nonetheless Newtonian physics have been falsified almost universally. With robust theories like evolution or Newtonian physics it can only ever be the specific points that are open to falsification. > [@](#): > > A hypothesis that says, “I believe that the sun and the moon and the stars were created by an intelligent designing invisible pink unicorn named Fred to ultimately produce me, and that She did it by all the physical mechanisms described by current scientific thought, just it wasn’t exactly random.” is not falsifiable, it adds no predictive value, and is not science. Wrong, wrong and wrong. It is falsifiable because any of the physical methods can be falsified. It adds predictive value in that it predicts that some things exist which should be impossible to replicate through random means. It is science. [qupte]For the purposes of science I must assume that a designer could design this vessel any way He chose and to have left obvious design flaws speaks against the work of a designer. [/quote] That’s your belief, but it’s not a scientific belief and as such can’t be used as a scientific criticism of ID. As anyone who has ever used commercial computer software knows, intelligent designers can and do leave obvious design flaws. That doesn’t mean that my copy of MSOffice was the product of natural selection. > [@](#): > > Unlike Darwin’s prediction of some means of transmission to be observed in the future but within his time unknown, ID posits a mechanism that is both unknown and _unknowable_. No it doesn’t. Can you name me one ID proponent who doesn’t believe that the mechanism will remain unknown? > [@](#): > > It, like all religious thought, may be true, but it is a level of supposition that is unnecessary and is outside of evidenciary methods. It does not belong in science class. No, it isn’t outside evidentiary methods. Yes, it does belong in science class along with other fringe theories. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/33 "2005-08-14T22:59:31Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Oh dear, a dog-pile. I should have expected it suggesting that ID has any merit on these boards. Excuse me if I miss any points by the numerous posters addressing me here. I f Is kip something important please ask again. I won’t be ducking the issue, just missing it in the torrent. Yes, you should have expected that pseudoscience would meet with a lot of resistence on this forum. > [@](#): > > Yes, and every ID proponent I have heard of predicts that a creator that invokes variation within generational cohorts will becomes known. Having read it several times, I seem unable to parse this sentence in a way to give it meaning. > [@](#): > > The point being missed here is that this important part of Darwin’s theory was never defined, and thus could not be falsified. Please tell me the actual proposition of Darwin that is not falsifiable, and explain why evolution depends on it being falsifiable. > [@](#): > > If a theory postulates that’s something shouldn’t exist and it is late proven that such a thing does exist then the theory has been falsified. ID theory hasn’t had anything related to the core belief of an intelligent designer pass a test for validation. That ID proponents MAY in some cases admit that this or that evolved and then use that evidence as a pretense that their central theory is scientific is ridiculous. Here’s an analogy: “I can fly.” “Fly then.” “OK.” (I try and fail.) “You fell.” “I can’t always fly.” “Well, prove you can fly then.” “I don’t have to. I proved I fail sometimes, just like I said. Isn’t that enough to prove I can fly?” > [@](#): > > Wrong, wrong and wrong. It is falsifiable because any of the physical methods can be falsified. It adds predictive value in that it predicts that some things exist which should be impossible to replicate through random means. It is science. I don’t know what you mean you refer to “physical methods” that can be falsified. Physical methods of what? What physical methods? Are you talking about ID or Fred the unicorn? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/34 "2005-08-14T23:13:52Z")
> [@](#): > > It adds predictive value in that it predicts that some things exist which should be impossible to replicate through random means. It is science. What examples, found in nature, would be impossible to replicate through random means? None have been found. The few that have been posited have been discredited. It might be shown to be false in every case for which it is pled, but it has no predictive value. Beyond that single claim, what predictive value comes from ID? The current Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution has been used to predict changes in populations or to predict the common gene frequency of diverged populations (the latter is not postdictive if the prediction of frequency is not known prior to the study); the existence of eusocial animals with sterile offspring and “queen” breeders was predicted before any such species were discovered that were not insects, and when matching conditions were discovered among naked mole rats, the same eusocial and sexual behaviors were discovered; the examination of ecological niches are the results of the predictive application of the Theory of Natural Selection. What similar predictive powers does ID provide? That we might find a feature for which we cannot (yet) find the evolutionary pathway? How is this predictive? ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/35 "2005-08-14T23:38:47Z")
> [@](#): > > “intelligent design” ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent\_design](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design)) taught alongside the more conventional theory of unguided biological evolution in public-school science classes I don’t accept that ‘unguided biological evolution theory’ is more ‘conventional’ then ‘intelligent design’. Actually I would think is it the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/36 "2005-08-14T23:51:36Z")
> [@](#): > > “intelligent design” ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent\_design](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design)) taught alongside the more conventional theory of unguided biological evolution in public-school science classes I don’t accept that ‘unguided biological evolution theory’ is more ‘conventional’ then ‘intelligent design’. Actually I would think is it the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/37 "2005-08-14T23:55:16Z")
> [@cricetus](#): > > It’s a parlor trick to pretend ID is falsifiable or scientific because parts of the theory that have nothing to do with ID are falsifiable or scientific. Well that’s an assertion. Now have you got anything to back it up? Who gets to decide what has to do with ID and what has nothing to do with ID? > [@](#): > > If you think that ID has any kind of scientific rigor and that it would be easy to get an ID paper published, then why has ID failed to do so? It would certainly give them the credibility they want. A strawman and a misundertanding of the facts one sentence. First off I don’t believe it is easy to get an ID paper published. I specifically said exactly the opposite to that earlier. Secondly ID theorists have had papers published. Far fewer than synthetic theories, but they have been published. All else aside this whole line of argument is circular. We know ID is scientific because scientific journals won’t publish it. Science does not decide on the facts by vote, it decides on the facts by reason. It wouldn’t matter if there were no peer-reviewed articles, if you can’t show why it isn’t scientific here and now the objection has no standing. > [@](#): > > Maybe it’s a conspiracy, or maybe ID just hasn’t got any actual scientists doing work and research…. Oh come on, we are here to fight ignorance, not promote it. Whatever you may think of Behe he is indisputably a real scientist. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/38 "2005-08-15T00:21:17Z")
> [@cricetus](#): > > Yes, you should have expected that pseudoscience would meet with a lot of resistence on this forum. Yes, and we know it is psuedosceince because you have asserted it to be so. :rolleyes: [quote] [quote] Yes, and every ID proponent I have heard of predicts that a creator that invokes variation within generational cohorts will becomes known. [/quote Having read it several times, I seem unable to parse this sentence in a way to give it meaning.[/quote] That astounding, because it an direct parody of your Dseid’s own words. Maybe you should ask him what they mean? > [@](#): > > Please tell me the actual proposition of Darwin that is not falsifiable, and explain why evolution depends on it being falsifiable. This is a total strawman of course. I have specifically pointed out numerous times that Darwinism does **not** depend on it being falsifiable. Would you like me to quote a few instances of where I said exactly that so you don’t miss them? There are plenty to choose form. > [@](#): > > ID theory hasn’t had anything related to the core belief of an intelligent designer pass a test for validation. Ah I see. It’s Core Scotsman. 😃 Cricetyus: ID can’t be validated Blake: Id makes almost identical predictions to sythetic theory and they are all open to the same validations. Cricetus: But that isn’t core validation. Cricetus this is rather obviously just another variation on the true Scotsman fallacy. > [@](#): > > That ID proponents MAY in some cases admit that this or that evolved and then use that evidence as a pretense that their central theory is scientific is ridiculous. > > Here’s an analogy: > > “I can fly.” > > “Fly then.” > > “OK.” (I try and fail.) > > “You fell.” > > “I can’t always fly.” > > “Well, prove you can fly then.” > > “I don’t have to. I proved I fail sometimes, just like I said. Isn’t that enough to prove I can fly?” Yes, that is an analogy. It is what is called a false analogy. We are discussing falsification here, not demonstration. Your analogy is attempting proof by demonstration, and as such is totally inapplicable. The real analogy would be: “I predict can fly with wings because wings are antigravity devices…” " OK then, fly without wings." “OK.” (I try and fail.) “You fell.” "That’s because I didn’t have my antigravity devices, err, wings. I proved I can’t defy gravity without wings, just like I said.” Notice the difference here Cricetus? ID makes certain predictions about what should or shouldn’t happen. If those predictions are testable then the theory is considered to be falsifiable. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what you mean you refer to “physical methods” that can be falsified. Physical methods of what? What physical methods? Are you talking about ID or Fred the unicorn? Once again that is an almost direct quote form Dseid in direct response to his question. He knows what he means by physical mechanisms, I know what he means. That is sufficient for that response. If you fail to understand then I will let him explain the term he introduced. If you have any questions of your own then I will answer them but I’m not going to clarify terms used in our discourse to bring it to your level. That would be a waste of all our time. If you come into the middle of someone else’s ocnversation you can’t relaly expect them to stop to explain terms they clearly both understand to you,If you want to join in then by all means do so but Dseid and I will continue to discus things in the most effiecient terms for us. If you get lost in those parts then that is unfortunate. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/39 "2005-08-15T00:32:53Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > What examples, found in nature, would be impossible to replicate through random means? None have been found. The few that have been posited have been discredited. It might be shown to be false in every case for which it is pled, but it has no predictive value. Hang on, Can we settle one issue at a time to avoid conflating separate though related issues? Dseid claimed that ID added no new predictions whatsoever beyond synthetic theory. That is the point I was addressing. Are you yourself now conceding that such predictions have been made by ID? Never mind for now whether they have been proven false, I am asking whether they were made. Only after we have agreed whether such predictions were made is there any sense in discussing whether they were accurate. It seems ridiculous to argue that a prediction was discredited if no such prediction was ever made. > [@](#): > > Beyond that single claim, what predictive value comes from ID? The current Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution has been used to predict changes in populations or to predict the common gene frequency of diverged populations (the latter is not postdictive if the prediction of frequency is not known prior to the study); the existence of eusocial animals with sterile offspring and “queen” breeders was predicted before any such species were discovered that were not insects, and when matching conditions were discovered among naked mole rats, the same eusocial and sexual behaviors were discovered; the examination of ecological niches are the results of the predictive application of the Theory of Natural Selection. What similar predictive powers does ID provide? That we might find a feature for which we cannot (yet) find the evolutionary pathway? How is this predictive? The point you have just evaded is that ID makes exactly the same predictions. Had Behe’s ID theory existed 100 years ago it would have made all those predictions. It provides identical predictions to synthetic theory the vast majority of the time. And you are wrong to say the the current neo-Darwinian theory predicted those things. The current version has only existed for 10 years at most. Prior to that a similar but non-identical theory existed that has been subtly modified since to incorporate new observations. That process has been going on for the last 100 years. So it’s misleading to say that the current version made those predictions. Old versions that are essentially similar in the relevant areas made those predictions, not the current version. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906/40 "2005-08-15T03:47:30Z")
> [@](#): > > The point you have just evaded is that ID makes exactly the same predictions. Had Behe’s ID theory existed 100 years ago it would have made all those predictions. It provides identical predictions to synthetic theory the vast majority of the time. Are you pretending that ID would have made an _identical_ prediction (meaning that it did not actually involve Intellogent Design or a Designer)? Or are you claiming that it would have made a very similar prediction, but inserted a claim for an unobserved (and unobservable) Designer at some (never actually specified) gap in the process? > [@](#): > > And you are wrong to say the the current neo-Darwinian theory predicted those things. The current version has only existed for 10 years at most. You’re just playing games, here, pretending that any modification to any aspect of any subset of a theory creates a “new” theory. By that measure, there is no Theory of Intellient Design because every time that Dembski gets caught in a misstatement or Behe’s gaps get narrowed by actual investigation, they are producing a new theory. So we do not actually have to address the issue of Intelligent Design Theory until some remote future date when it is actually proposed without the various multiple “clarifications” each year. > [@](#): > > Are you yourself now conceding that such predictions have been made by ID? Not at all. I have not seen a prediction. I was commenting on the fact that the _observations_ thus submitted for ID have been routinely dismembered. Behe’s irreduceable complexity gaps have never stood up to the most basic scrutiny. (A couple of them had already been demolished even before he published his “Black Box” book, even though he erroneously (I hope that it was not falsely) reported that there was not even research pursuing the issues.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-intelligent-design-theory-be-falsified/316906.md?page=3)