Intelligent Design is not Science

[Spanish_Eyes]

Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?
By Uriah Kriegel
Published 11/10/2005

In an election in Pennsylvania this week, voters tossed out eight members of the Pittsburgh school board who wanted Intelligent Design theory to be taught alongside evolution in school. But should Intelligent Design -- the theory that living organisms were created at least in part by an intelligent designer, not by a blind process of evolution by natural selection -- be taught in public schools? In one way, the answer to this question is simple: if it's a scientific theory, it should; if it's not, it shouldn't (on pain of flaunting the Establishment Clause). The question, however, is whether Intelligent Design (ID) is a scientific theory.

Opponents dismiss ID's scientific credentials, claiming that the theory is too implausible to qualify as scientific. But this reasoning is fallacious: a bad scientific theory is still a scientific theory, just as a bad car is still a car. There may be pedagogical reasons to avoid teaching bad scientific theories in our public schools, but there are no legal ones. The Constitution contains no interdiction on teaching bad theories, or for that matter demonstrably false ones. As long as theory is science and not religion, there is no legal barrier to teaching it.

To make their case, opponents of teaching ID must show not just that the theory is bad, but that it's not science. This raises a much more complicated question: What is science? What distinguishes genuinely scientific theories from non-scientific ones?

In one form or another, the question has bothered scientists and philosophers for centuries. But it was given an explicit formulation only in the 1920s, by Karl Popper, the most important 20th century philosopher of science. Popper called it "the problem of demarcation," because it asked how to demarcate scientific research and distinguish it from other modes of thought (respectable though they may be in their own right).

One thing Popper emphasized was that a theory's status as scientific doesn't depend on its plausibility. The great majority of scientific theories turn out to be false, including such works of genius as Newton's mechanics. Conversely, the story of Adam and Eve may well be pure truth, but if it is, it's not scientific truth, but some other kind of truth.

So what is the mark of genuine science? To attack this question, Popper examined several theories he thought were inherently unscientific but had a vague allure of science about them. His favorites were Marx's theory of history and Freud's theory of human behavior. Both attempted to describe the world without appeal to super-natural phenomena, but yet seem fundamentally different from, say, the theory of relativity or the gene theory.

What Popper noticed was that, in both cases, there was no way to prove to proponents of the theory that they were wrong. Suppose Jim's parents moved around a lot when Jim was a child. If Jim also moves around a lot as an adult, the Freudian explains that this was predictable given the patterns of behavior Jim grew up with. If Jim never moves, the Freudian explains -- with equal confidence -- that this was predictable as a reaction to Jim's unpleasant experiences of a rootless childhood. Either way the Freudian has a ready-made answer and cannot be refuted. Likewise, however much history seemed to diverge from Marx's model, Marxists would always introduce new modifications and roundabout excuses for their theory, never allowing it to be proven false.

Popper concluded that the mark of true science was falsifiability: a theory is genuinely scientific only if it's possible in principle to refute it. This may sound paradoxical, since science is about seeking truth, not falsehood. But Popper showed that it was precisely the willingness to be proven false, the critical mindset of being open to the possibility that you're wrong, that makes for progress toward truth.

What scientists do in designing experiments that test their theories is create conditions under which their theory might be proven false. When a theory passes a sufficient number of such tests, the scientific community starts taking it seriously, and ultimately as plausible.

When Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, the first thing he did was to make a concrete prediction: he predicted that a certain planet must exist in such-and-such a place even though it had never been observed before. If it turned out that the planet did not exist, his theory would be refuted. In 1919, 14 years after the advent of Special Relativity, the planet was discovered exactly where he said. The theory survived the test. But the possibility of failing a test -- the willingness to put the theory up for refutation -- was what made it a scientific theory in the first place.

To win in the game of science, a theory must be submitted to many tests and survive all of them without being falsified. But to be even allowed into the game, the theory must be falsifiable in principle: there must be a conceivable experiment that would prove it false.

If we examine ID in this light, it becomes pretty clear that the theory isn't scientific. It is impossible to refute ID, because if an animal shows one characteristic, IDers can explain that the intelligent designer made it this way, and if the animal shows the opposite characteristic, IDers can explain with equal confidence that the designer made it that way. For that matter, it is fully consistent with ID that the supreme intelligence designed the world to evolve according to Darwin's laws of natural selection. Given this, there is no conceivable experiment that can prove ID false.

It is sometimes complained that IDers resemble the Marxist historians who always found a way to modify and reframe their theory so it evades any possible falsification, never offering an experimental procedure by which ID could in principle be falsified. To my mind, this complaint is warranted indeed. But the primary problem is not with the intellectual honesty of IDers, but with the nature of their theory. The theory simply cannot be fashioned to make any potentially falsified predictions, and therefore cannot earn entry into the game of science.

None of this suggests that ID is in fact false. For all I've said, it may well be pure truth. But if it is, it wouldn't be scientific truth, because it isn't scientific at all. As such, we shouldn't allow it into our science classrooms. At least that's what the Constitution says.

The writer teaches philosophy at the University of Arizona.

[Tom in North Carolina]

Hey guys, I just found a Cheese Doodle that looks just like Vincent Price!!!!!


Tom

[Graceland Gardener]

Know why alot of teenagers commit suicide?

No self-respect or self-value.

Because school science is teaching them they are all accidents,
lives without purpose,
existence without meaning,

just an evolved accident.

not created.....just merely evolved.

so who cares if you live or die?



Darwin is a liar. - whether he knew it or not.

[Torben]

GG

Well, the truth hurts.

[Tom in North Carolina]

Do you think I should sell this thing on eBay or just eat it???

Tom

[Graceland Gardener]

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.


the other option:

all men are not equal.
It's every man for himself, survival of the fittest
based on random states of evolving from neanderthals.

so, based on evolution, some races are inferior and some are superior.

can't have all are equal - if evolution teaches there's no Creator and we're all just random lifeforms.


is it not a racial stereotype to say Black people are adapt to boxing and athletics,
and Asians are adapt for brainy hi-tech computerizations

Yet based on Evolution, those views are textbook truth.

[tupelo_boy]

Intelligent Design?

Yes rational thought, that's been an integral plank of Christian doctrine ever since two nudists started by taking dietry advice from a talking snake.

Geoff

[Pete Dube]

For those who would like to explore the subject: http://www.arn.org/

[Tom in North Carolina]

Uh oh, I dropped it.

Tom

[tupelo_boy]

Do you think I should sell this thing on eBay or just eat it???

Tom

Tom

You will need to decide if it's 'Intelligent Design' or coincidence and then eat it.

Geoff

Sorry Tom we posted simultaneously - my advice is redundant - I'm sorry for your loss

[Graceland Gardener]

based on Evolution,
the Asian race, with their strict civilized work ethic uniformity and ingenious engineering skills,
has advanced the farthest from the primordial soup from whence we all came.

Congratulations!

People rooting around in the streets like lawless uncivilized animals, rioting and looting and burning property, or living in caves, haven't advanced very far at all.


we don't evolve at the same rate, do we?




See, there are 2 theories to subscribe to:

1. All men/All races are created equal by a Creator.

2. none of us are equal and the variety of races proves evolved inequality.

- take your pick.

[Torben]

Tom

Uh oh, I dropped it.

I guess you have to eat it yourself then.

[Graceland Gardener]

another thing ----

this godless secularism/evolution movement is totally combative to the Civil rights Movement.

it was a belief in God,
a belief in the Bible,
a belief in prayer (publicly praying, quoting scripture, singing hyms),
and a belief in "All men Are Created Equal"
and a Christian Reverend organizing it that fueled Civil Rights of the 1960s.

without a Creator, God, Bible, prayer, etc.....
they'd still be oppressed and sitting at the back of the bus


-- amazing how Evolution & Secularism veils/disguises its racist positions.

[Torben]

GG

Not true. The US is and was a predominantly Christian society.

It were mostly Christians that fueled the Civil Rights movement just as it were mostly Christians that held racist positions.

[Graceland Gardener]

But Secularism doesn't want any Christian (white or black) to possess a bible, pray in public, or acknowledge a Creator.

Killing the concept of God and Creation would kill Rev. King's movement.

[Luuk]

Please explain:
According to the bible:
God created Adam out of clay.
For Eve he needed a rib from Adam. Was there no more clay?
Cain killed his brother and ran out of paradise to marry a daughter of the humans. Humans? Where did they suddenly come from? There were only 3 people on the whole wide world: Adam, Eve and their son Cain.

[ColinB]

I don't mind which theory schoolkids are told.

As long as the lessons are couched in the terms:

"Some believe that creation was an accident, that we have simply evolved from simple life-forms etc. etc."

And:

"Some people believe in 'intelligent design' and that we have a creator who designed us etc. etc."

The kids can make up their own minds what to believe.

And they're no fools.

[Luuk]

I agree with Colin B.
I also think kids should not be exposed to religious doctrines until they are old enough to know it is a doctrine.

[elvissessions]

Hey guys, I just found a Cheese Doodle that looks just like Vincent Price!!!!!


Tom

---

Do you think I should sell this thing on eBay or just eat it???

Tom

---

Uh oh, I dropped it.

Tom

Tom, I'm glad you're here.

[Eileen]

I don't mind which theory schoolkids are told.
As long as the lessons are couched in the terms:
"Some believe that creation was an accident, that we have simply evolved from simple life-forms etc. etc."
And:
"Some people believe in 'intelligent design' and that we have a creator who designed us etc. etc."
The kids can make up their own minds what to believe.
And they're no fools.

You might mind once much of your science curriculum disappears.

Perhaps we could try it out in mathematics first.

"Some people believe that 9 x 7 = 738."

And:

"Some people believe that 9 x 7 = 63."

The kids can make up their own minds what to believe.

And they're no fools.


Eileen

[genesim]

Right..lets leave it to the kids to make up their own minds. Hell why even have teachers or parents?

Listen....to what the flower...

P.S. Luuk, its based on faith. No more no less. For those that believe thats where the salvation occurs. For those that don't, they will never understand.

Or do you believe in throwing out the bath water with the baby in it?

[TJ]

-- amazing how Evolution & Secularism veils/disguises its racist positions.

Not so hard to disguise something that doesn't exist.

I don't mind which theory schoolkids are told.

As long as the lessons are couched in the terms:

"Some believe that creation was an accident, that we have simply evolved from simple life-forms etc. etc."

And:

"Some people believe in 'intelligent design' and that we have a creator who designed us etc. etc."

The kids can make up their own minds what to believe.

And they're no fools.

Spot on Colin.

[Pete Dube]

I'm seeing this thread turn into an atheism vs. theism debate (and I'm seeing atheists knocking down the usual creationist straw men - par for the course), so I think some commentary is necessary in order to provide some obviously badly-needed perspective on this issue:

The battle taking place in this country isn't really about intelligent design vs. evolution. It's a continuation of the religion vs. science battle. Biblical fundamentalists/literal genesis creation 'science' advocates have hijacked the theory of intelligent design in order to use it as a pry to get the door opened so to speak which will then put them in a position to have literal genesis creation science taught in public schools. Our media has been presenting this as a modern day Scopes monkey trial type of situation.

The irony in all of this is that the vast majority of I.D. proponents are not seeking for I.D. to be taught in public schools. Their goal is only to have evolution taught in an honest manner, in other words both the pros and the cons. And for good reason. While some aspects of Darwin's theory are stone-cold fact (microevolution and natural selection for example) other aspects are heavy on speculation and light on actual empirical evidence. For example the fossil record by & large disconfirms Darwinistic gradualism. The two hallmarks of the fossil record are sudden appearance and stasis. Species come onto the scene all at once fully formed and stay looking pretty much the same until they disappear.
And in the part of the fossil record where the fossils are most numerous, the invertebrates, where you would expect to find some transitional intermediates, there are none. The fossil record has long been the Achilles heel for evolutionary biologists. Darwin in his day knew the fossil record
didn't support his theory, but thought that over the course of time that more of the fossil record would be uncovered including the transitional intermediates his theory required. Unfortunately for Darwin, the record today doesn't look all that much different than it did in his day.

Intelligent design is a theory proposed by some scientists (legitimate scientists, not literal genesis/creation science advocates) that certain organisms possess features that could not have resulted from Darwinistic gradualism due to something called irreducible complexity. Basically irreducible complexity is a component of an organism that has to have all of it's parts to function. Take away one part and the component doesn't function. This is a very simplistic explanation, but for those who would like to explore the subject in extreme depth seek out the book Darwin's Black Box by bio-chemist Michael Behe.

In Darwin's day cells were 'black boxes,' the workings of the cell were a mystery. We now know that cells are extremely complex organisms.

Darwin wrote that "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." I.D. proponents believe they have identified/demonstrated this irreducible complexity at the cellular level. One example is the bacterial flagellum.

Because of this irreducible complexity and other factors such as the genetic code I.D. proponents see evidence of systems within living organisms having been designed by an intelligent agent of some sort. I.D. proponents are quick to point out that they cannot identify who or what this intelligent agent is. But the crucial point here is that
it's the scientific investigation that has led the I.D. proponents to their conclusions - not a commitment to religion/theism/the Bible.

I hope I've helped to clarify this issue.

[Torben]

Pete

Evolution is a fact and has to be taught in school. The theories on how evolution happens should be taught with their pros and cons. That's an honest attempt at teaching evolution. You may teach ID within your religious community, but not in school.

Sounds harsh, because it is.

[MauriceinIreland]

Pete, On all our many life on earth TV documentaries (Hundreds a year!) evolution is given as the reason for the great variety of animals and other life on this planet...a pale blue dot in the Universe.

Older children watching these programmes become a little confused thinking of the garden of Eden, Noah's Ark and the many other stories fed to them by, TEACHERS!

Think about it:-)