Can the "intelligent design" theory be falsified?

My Post Blueberry Morning cereal isn’t in the Bible. Is it false?

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.

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?

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.

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.

This should read: That’s why we need testing to determine the merit of a claim.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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]

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 and elsewhere on the boards. You have received several other warnings 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.

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.

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, 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?

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.

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.

No it doesn’t. Can you name me one ID proponent who doesn’t believe that the mechanism will remain unknown?

No, it isn’t outside evidentiary methods. Yes, it does belong in science class along with other fringe theories.

Yes, you should have expected that pseudoscience would meet with a lot of resistence on this forum.

Having read it several times, I seem unable to parse this sentence in a way to give it meaning.

Please tell me the actual proposition of Darwin that is not falsifiable, and explain why evolution depends on it being falsifiable.

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?”

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?

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?

I don’t accept that ‘unguided biological evolution theory’ is more ‘conventional’ then ‘intelligent design’. Actually I would think is it the opposite.

I don’t accept that ‘unguided biological evolution theory’ is more ‘conventional’ then ‘intelligent design’. Actually I would think is it the opposite.

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?

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.

Oh come on, we are here to fight ignorance, not promote it. Whatever you may think of Behe he is indisputably a real scientist.

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?

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.

Ah I see. It’s Core Scotsman. :smiley:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.)