ID is not a valid scientific hypothesis, so ID should not be taught in science class

[Charlemagne_II]

When evolution is taught in school, is it taught as a series of accidental and randomly connected events without any definite purpose … or is it taught as an apparently planned process (intelligent design) that is reaching from the primordial mud all the way up to man?

It is certainly not taught as the latter. Then it must be taught as the former.

If it is taught as the former, that can be a violation of the 1st Amendment, using the public dime to interfere with the religious beliefs of citizens.

This has been the objection since evolution was first taught in the public arena … that it was an ungodly theory and that the teachers of it saw in evolution an excuse to dismiss God.

Richard Dawkins is one of them:

“An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: “I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.” I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

– Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, page 6

 

[Leela]

Those who believe that ID is the same as young earth creationism would do well to read it.

I never thought that. I thought it was more like an old earth creationism.

 

[The_Barbarian]

When evolution is taught in school, is it taught as a series of accidental and randomly connected events without any definite purpose …

No. Darwin’s great discovery was that it was random. Science, of course, can’t speak to purpose; you might as well demand that physics teach the “purpose” of gravity.

or is it taught as an apparently planned process (intelligent design) that is reaching from the primordial mud all the way up to man?

Not in science classes. In philosophy or religion classes, maybe.

This has been the objection since evolution was first taught in the public arena … that it was an ungodly theory and that the teachers of it saw in evolution an excuse to dismiss God.

And it’s always been a dishonest claim. You might as well speak of “ungodly plumbing.” Since the roll of great evolution scientists has always included Christians, the claim that it’s to “dismiss God” is likewise dishonest, and an egregious false witness against those Christians.

 

[ricmat]

I never thought that. I thought it was more like an old earth creationism.

I wasn’t referring to you Leela. There are others.

 

[edwest2]

And all bachelors are male, but such tautologies do not constitute scientific hypotheses.

Your prediction is that it can be determined whether or not something was designed by an intelligence? That’s not really a prediction. It’s just an observation stated with the word “predict.” Like saying, I predict that am typing on my keyboard right now. Just because the word “predict” is in there doesn’t make it a hypothesis.

I agree that signs of intelligence are recognized by scientists, but these are observations, facts, not hypotheses or biological theories. If you want to think of ID as archeology for life, fine, but it’s not a theory that has any place in biology class. But you won’t have a theory until you have a method of distinguishing things that are designed from those that are not, which will be a big problem for you, because anything could have been designed by a supernatural power to be exactly the way it is (or any other way that it is not as well). There is simply no way of ruling out design as an explanation for how things are, and it is simultaneously completely unhelpful to say that everything is designed. So until you have a way of showing that something was NOT designed, you don’t have anything helpful to say when you claim that something else IS designed. It would just be a difference that doesn’t make a difference–not a difference at all.

Best,
Leela

I never mentioned a supernatural power. Would you mind explaining why scientists are looking for signs of intelligence in the universe, especially when there is no empirical evidence for such intelligence?

Sadly, you appear to be making an attempt at obscuring the issue. If a designed object was found on Mars, would you say, Nature did it? Or would you agree that it was, in fact, an artificial artifact, say, like an arrowhead? I can clearly show that a triangular rock is not an arrowhead.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

To my brothers and sisters in Christ -

The Atheists have fought for years to kick God out of public schools and now they are working just as hard to kick God out of science. Just listen to PZ Myers:

youtube.com/watch?v=EczOQ1mV5aU&feature=related

A deception is going on. Science has joined with atheists to tell you there is no God. Meanwhile, some here are zealously guarding the doors of your local public school against a theory they also claim has been thoroughly discredited (!?).

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

I never mentioned a supernatural power. Would you mind explaining why scientists are looking for signs of intelligence in the universe, especially when there is no empirical evidence for such intelligence?

There is occasionally evidence for it on this board.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Those who believe that ID is the same as young earth creationism would do well to read it.

Hmmm… not all IDers are YE, but there are certainly many YE IDers.

Folks think “young earth Iders” are crazy or stupid, we’re not, we just look at the evidence and harmonize it with Genesis.
amazon.com/review/R1V2N7GRE1CVF6

Paul Nelson, a fellow at the Discovery Institute, co-authored *Three Views on Creation and Evolution * which advocates YE creationism.

Perhaps most damning, the “ID textbook”, (Pandas and People) touted by the Discovery Institute, was written by a YE creationist, Percival Davis, and was later edited in an attempt to get around the religious freedom clause of the Constitution by removing YE material. I believe Davis is still a fellow at the Institute. (The book was later renamed, in another attempt to make it acceptable)

 

[Leela]

I never mentioned a supernatural power. Would you mind explaining why scientists are looking for signs of intelligence in the universe, especially when there is no empirical evidence for such intelligence?

I can only assume that it is because it would be interesting to know if other intelligence exists. But if we find evidence of intelligence, intelligence would not be a testable theory (or have anything to do with evolutionary theory), it would be an observation.

Sadly, you appear to be making an attempt at obscuring the issue. If a designed object was found on Mars, would you say, Nature did it? Or would you agree that it was, in fact, an artificial artifact, say, like an arrowhead? I can clearly show that a triangular rock is not an arrowhead.

I sure you could come up with convincing rationale for why you think it’s an arrowhead, but you would be making an observation, not creating a testable theory like Darwinism.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Meanwhile, some here are zealously guarding the doors of your local public school against a theory they also claim has been thoroughly discredited (!?).

It’s not that design has been discredited. It never could be proven wrong. It’s just that design is not a scientific theory.

 

[Highwayhound]

It’s not that design has been discredited. It never could be proven wrong. It’s just that design is not a scientific theory.

What is the purpose of science? In particular in regard to theories?

 

[edwest2]

It’s not that design has been discredited. It never could be proven wrong. It’s just that design is not a scientific theory.

I see. So, if gravity can be observed but not fully explained, there is no scientific theory for it? Would you say the same about electricity?

You are simply dodging the obvious.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

*It’s not that design has been discredited. It never could be proven wrong. It’s just that design is not a scientific theory. *

How is it that the power to design can be attributed to humans as a fact (example, I just designed this sentence), not a theory, but that it cannot be attributed as fact or theory to the creation of the universe?

If design exists in the universe through the mind of a human being, why is it improbable (or why is it not possible, even probable) that it should exist in the universe at large?

 

[Leela]

I see. So, if gravity can be observed but not fully explained, there is no scientific theory for it? Would you say the same about electricity?

You are simply dodging the obvious.

Gravity and electricity are not theories. Neither is evolution. It is an observation. But there are theories about these things. Design is an observation, but we have no theory of design, no testable hypothesis concerning design. Except, perhaps, for the claim that abiogensis is natuarlly impossible, which is falsifiable and yet to be falsified. But abiogensis is not really part of evolutionary theory.

 

[Leela]

Leela

*It’s not that design has been discredited. It never could be proven wrong. It’s just that design is not a scientific theory. *

How is it that the power to design can be attributed to humans as a fact (example, I just designed this sentence), not a theory, but that it cannot be attributed as fact or theory to the creation of the universe?

If design exists in the universe through the mind of a human being, why is it improbable (or why is it not possible, even probable) that it should exist in the universe at large?

That’s not what I’m saying. Design could be attributed the universe as a fact based on observation. It just could never be a theory and thus could never be in competition with Darwinism.

The problem is though that design carries nothing with it that is scientifically interesting. To say that the universe is designed does not tell us what sort of universe to expect to find until we know something about the designer. When you make some testable claim about the universe based on your knowledge of the designer, then you may have a heory on your hands. But at this point, IDers make no scientifically interesting predictions. Correct me if I am wrong.

Best,
Leela

 

[JDaniel]

That’s not what I’m saying. Design could be attributed the universe as a fact based on observation. It just could never be a theory and thus could never be in competition with Darwinism.

The problem is though that design carries nothing with it that is scientifically interesting. To say that the universe is designed does not tell us what sort of universe to expect to find until we know something about the designer. When you make some testable claim about the universe based on your knowledge of the designer, then you may have a heory on your hands. But at this point, IDers make no scientifically interesting predictions. Correct me if I am wrong.

Best,
Leela

Good grief, Leela. Are you still getting beat up over this thing? Perhaps I might suggest that you alter one phrase, albeit your favorite one! Instead of saying that something is not “scientifically interesting,” you might say that something “is currently worthless to science.”

Just a thought . . .

jd

 

[Leela]

What is the purpose of science? In particular in regard to theories?

The purpose of science is to inquire, and we inquire because it serves our human purposes to do so and may be a human purpose in and of itself. Science in its broadest sense constitutes our best attempts to distinguish what we wish were true from what we actually have good reason to believe. It is simply a matter of trying to be intellectually honest. For example, if we actually had good reason to believe that the Bible (or the Koran or the Book of Mormon) were true, it would be part of our scientific understanding of the universe. Some would describe science as a particular method of inquiry, but methods and standards of evidence have always evolved and will likely continue to do so, so I think science defined as our attempts at honest inquiry is all we should say.

The question in this thread is not about whether or not the universe or anything in it is designed but about whether ID is a valid scientific theory that is in some way in competition with evolutionary theory. A theory is just a hypothesis that has stood up to some significant testing. The problem for ID is that ID is not a hypothesis since it can’t be tested. Whatever we observe, the evidence can be viewed as consistent with design, which sounds like good thing, but the problem is that if we had observed the universe to be completely different than it is, we still could have said that it was consistent with design. So design doesn’t predict anything and is unfalsifiable, so it is not a hypothesis, so it can’t be a scientific theory.

Best,
Leela

 

[Valke2]

If you can observe it and measure it, then you can’t use science to justify it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

But at this point, IDers make no scientifically interesting predictions. Correct me if I am wrong.

But people (who can exercise intelligent design on their own) do make scientifically interesting predictions, don’t they?

Why is it possible for us to recognize why we as humans can exercise intelligent design, while at the same time denying that we were not ourselves intelligently designed? Can a thing that designs intelligently come about by a random act of evolution? But how do we know that evolution was randomly working its way toward us?

The prediction of science is that the earth will someday perish. That is also the prediction of Scripture, except that the scriptural prediction came thousands of years before modern science. Where did the prophet get his prediction if not from the one who Intelligently Designed the birth (Let there be light!) and the death of all things?

 

[ricmat]

The purpose of science is to inquire, and we inquire because it serves our human purposes to do so and may be a human purpose in and of itself.

So what do you believe is the purpose of humans?