1221 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Here is a good ID source with answers for some of these questions, but right now I have a birthday for one of my kids.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/

 

 

[Duchykins]

Here is a good ID source with answers for some of these questions, but right now I have a birthday for one of my kids.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/
 
 

I am well acquainted with Uncommon Descent and it actually does not answer any of the questions I asked today (nor does the Discovery Institute).

You are a liar.

Whenever you return we shall continue:


How do intelligence and design work together to cause speciation?


Is it acheived through any natural means?


If it's not acheived through any natural means, and the philosophy that science is built upon does not recognize the existence of anything that is not natural, how is ID scientific?

[Duchykins]

Here is a good ID source with answers for some of these questions, but right now I have a birthday for one of my kids.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/
 
 

I am well acquainted with Uncommon Descent and it actually does not answer any of the questions I asked today (nor does the Discovery Institute).

You are a liar.

Whenever you return we shall continue:


How do intelligence and design work together to cause speciation?


Is it acheived through any natural means?


If it's not acheived through any natural means, and the philosophy that science is built upon does not recognize the existence of anything that is not natural, how is ID scientific?

[The fact that science is built on a philosophy of empiricism is the reason atheists cannot use scientific means to demonstrate that supernatural gods do not exist. It means that atheists can't really demand scientific evidence for supernatural gods, because such a thing cannot exist unless science becomes something else. It also means that theists can't use scientific means to demonstrate that supernatural gods do exist, unless science becomes something else.]

If ID requires any change in the scientific method, then it is not scientific.

[shadowhawk]

ID is testable laughing man.

http://www.evolution...tist045311.html

 

[Duchykins]

ID is testable laughing man.
http://www.evolution...tist045311.html
 

1) Specified complexity, as defined and used by Dembski and not others, is not a scientifically or mathematically sound concept and is founded upon erroneous ideas of evolutionary mechanisms. It is also an argument from ignorance.

2) Irreducibly complex structures are acheivable through evolutionary means through no extraordinary means. When irreducible complexity is called upon as evidence of an intelligent designer, the argument becomes an argument from ignorance.

3) Punctuated equilibra adequately explains the *relatively* sudden jumps in evolution. Note that these jumps still occur in periods of MILLIONS of years, these periods of millions of years are only "short" and "sudden" relative to deep time. These periods are not really a short as the creationists imply. The Cambrian Explosion took place over roughly 30 million years.

4) Lactose tolerance in humans has been acheived through several different mutations occuring at different times and in different populations, independent of one another, an example of how evolutionary mechanisms can acheive one thing through several different means. This is also an example of how natural selection is deterministic.


Let's say ID is falsifiable for argument's sake. Falsifiability would make it a viable scientific hypothesis.

Okay, next:

What intelligence and what design?

How do intelligence and design work together to cause speciation?

Where is the evidence that raises Intelligent Design from scientific hypothesis to scientific theory?

Edited by Duchykins, 25 April 2014 - 03:41 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Can Intelligent design be falsified?  Yes.

http://www.discovery.org/f/494
http://www.evolution...ifia005061.html
http://www.idthefutu...ty_and_can.html
http://books.google....sified?&f=false
http://books.google....sified?&f=false
http://www.caseyluskin.com/id.htm
http://unscriptedrem...-falsified.html
http://russp.us/IDscience.htm
http://evidencepress...n-id-falsified/
http://www.angelfire...y/zacknine.html
http://www.detecting...tingdesign.html
http://philosophersp...ent-design.html
http://www.reasonabl...ig-ayala-debate
http://wightman.blog...science-part-1/
http://randalrauser....esign-a-primer/

http://www.amazon.co...ricpementhom-20




 

[shadowhawk]

Duchykins   1) Specified complexity, as defined and used by Dembski and not others, is not a scientifically or mathematically sound concept and is founded upon erroneous ideas of evolutionary mechanisms. It is also an argument from ignorance.

Empty declaration.  Who says and what basis?

  2) Irreducibly complex structures are acheivable through evolutionary means through no extraordinary means. When irreducible complexity is called upon as evidence of an intelligent designer, the argument becomes an argument from ignorance.

It is an argument against evolution of some things.  What irreducibly complex things are achievable through evolution?

3) Punctuated equilibra adequately explains the *relatively* sudden jumps in evolution. Note that these jumps still occur in periods of MILLIONS of years, these periods of millions of years are only "short" and "sudden" relative to deep time. These periods are not really a short as the creationists imply. The Cambrian Explosion took place over roughly 30 million years.

The syntheses is not Punctuated Equilibra.  Hotly debated.  Does not explain the  Cambrian Explosion.  30 million years is a blink of an eye in geological time.  See Darwin’s Doubt.   http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/0062071475

4) Lactose tolerance in humans has been acheived through several different mutations occuring at different times and in different populations, independent of one another, an example of how evolutionary mechanisms can acheive one thing through several different means. This is also an example of how natural selection is deterministic.

Perhaps the genes for lactose tolerance were already there and Natural Selection, selected them.  No evolution.  Proof.

[Duchykins]

Duchykins   1) Specified complexity, as defined and used by Dembski and not others, is not a scientifically or mathematically sound concept and is founded upon erroneous ideas of evolutionary mechanisms. It is also an argument from ignorance.

Empty declaration.  Who says and what basis?

  2) Irreducibly complex structures are acheivable through evolutionary means through no extraordinary means. When irreducible complexity is called upon as evidence of an intelligent designer, the argument becomes an argument from ignorance.

It is an argument against evolution of some things.  What irreducibly complex things are achievable through evolution?

3) Punctuated equilibra adequately explains the *relatively* sudden jumps in evolution. Note that these jumps still occur in periods of MILLIONS of years, these periods of millions of years are only "short" and "sudden" relative to deep time. These periods are not really a short as the creationists imply. The Cambrian Explosion took place over roughly 30 million years.

The syntheses is not Punctuated Equilibra.  Hotly debated.  Does not explain the  Cambrian Explosion.  30 million years is a blink of an eye in geological time.  See Darwins Doubt.   http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/0062071475

4) Lactose tolerance in humans has been acheived through several different mutations occuring at different times and in different populations, independent of one another, an example of how evolutionary mechanisms can acheive one thing through several different means. This is also an example of how natural selection is deterministic.

Perhaps the genes for lactose tolerance were already there and Natural Selection, selected them.  No evolution.  Proof.

Perhaps the genes for lactose tolerance were already there and they were selected? LOL! DUH! That's how evolution works, selection acts on what genes are there, genes that were produced through reproduction and mutation.


Irreducible complexity, by any of the creationist's definitions so far, is a product of evolution. You don't understand how this can be because you don't know what evolution is and you are determined to lie about it. But you've already made such a fine display of your ignorance, I don't really need to keep pointing it out.

http://www.talkorigi...sc/ICsilly.html

http://www.talkdesig...st/ICDmyst.html

Dembski's arguments about specified complexity employ a scientifically useless definition of specified complexity (just like the word 'kind' creationists like to use) and are built upon a misrepresentation of evolution: there is no goal in evolution. That is why biologists and mathematicians alike laugh at Dembski for his application of the NFL theorem.


PE is not the modern synthesis but that has no effect on its truth value, on whether it's true or false. The modern synthesis itself is incomplete, like relativity and the standard cosmological model. They are incomplete but we still use them because they are the most useful to us and if we discard them then we cripple ourselves.

I understand that creationists like you have an "all or nothing" mentality and, in scientific matters, prefer the "nothing" side of things, so forgive me if I am not impressed with your dismissive attitude.

Creationists assert the Cambrian Explosion could not have been acheived through evolutionary means. They can't even be bothered to offer a correct representation of evolution in this argument. They offer an argument from incredulity for this an expect to be taken seriously. It's still 30 millions years. The only argument you offer is that it blows your mind. Such arguments can be summarily dismissed.

Stephen Meyer has been laughed out of serious academia on more than one occasion, here's one of my favorites:

http://pandasthumb.o...hopeless-1.html


You keep avoiding my questions because you cannot answer them. You cannot answer them because there are no answers to be found on the internet. There are no answers to be found because Intelligent Design is a vacuous teleological argument, and teleological arguments never have any explanatory power.

This thread is about the scientific status of Intelligent Design. I will acknowledge no more anti-evolution arguments in this thread. Proving evolution wrong does not make ID scientific or validate ID in any way because it is a different topic. Create another thread for debating evolution. I will only acknowledge pro-ID arguments from now on.

I have already stated that ID is 99% anti-evolution arguments, 1% teleological argument. Your continued efforts to attack evolution while offering nothing of substance in the way of *what ID is and how it is scientifically useful* only serve to prove me right.








ASSUME THE MODERN SYNTHESIS IS WRONG.


Now we cast evolution aside and focus on Intelligent Design and the question of whether ID is a scientific theory or not.


Again:



What intelligence and what design?


How do intelligence and design work together to cause speciation?


Where is the evidence that raises Intelligent Design from hypothesis to theory?

[shadowhawk]

Duchykins:  Perhaps the genes for lactose tolerance were already there and they were selected? LOL! DUH! That's how evolution works, selection acts on what genes are there, genes that were produced through reproduction and mutation.

Laughing Man: DUH, I didn’t say what you are saying.  I said, “Perhaps the genes for lactose tolerance were already there and they were selected? “ I have posted extensively on this.  That is not how evolution works.  The Genes in the ID view, were even reproduced!  Now a quiz and I am going to ask you for evidence, where does ID differ from what you have said?

 

I won't even try to, as you attempt to do, limit the information.  Pandas Thumb is ok, but not anyone theistic.  How about theistic evolution?  Nonsense. 

Edited by shadowhawk, 26 April 2014 - 10:11 PM.

[Duchykins]

No scientifically useful description of Intelligent Design's mechanisms has been provided. Without such a thing no scientific discussion can be had about ID. That is why I have been asking you the same questions for two days. I can't tell you how ID differs from my explanation of the concurrent evolution of lactose tolerance because I don't know how ID explains any mechanism of any thing, much less this one simple matter of lactose tolerance.

But perhaps YOU know how ID explains the mechanisms that result in such diversity?

Care to share with the rest of us?

[addx]

These arguments are pointless.


Evolutionary theory is inducted from proof as there are so many details that it is not realistic that it will ever be deducted how each of them evolved.


So, these arguments are all about finding a detail that has not been deducted properly yet and using it to postulate a completely unsupported theory that could never be inducted on its own (as evolutionary is) but actually requires the contrast of the evolutionary theory against which it is uphieved into "truth".

There would be no ID theory if there was no evolutionary theory to "take down".

ID theory is in essence caused by the need to know and the lack to understand.

Not figuring out how the eye evolved is a chance for you to work your brain into figuring it out. If you can't do that, but still want to "know" how it came to be you invent ID and persuade people into it. If you manage to persuade them, it is all the validation you need. It becomes the truth by being accepted as such, not by being proven.



If we don't understand how something evolved - we simply don't understand it. That's it.

If we don't understand something there doesn't have to implied ultimatum stating "what we dont understand, must be of God or superintelligent aliens".

We can simply stop at "we don't understand it". And that's it. Thought over.

There is no real requirement of imagining various deux-ex-machinas to hide our ignorance whenever we can't understand something. It only shows the ignorance more - emotional ignorance, to accept defeat of not being able to truly understand.

Edited by addx, 27 April 2014 - 11:55 AM.

[shadowhawk]

No scientifically useful description of Intelligent Design's mechanisms has been provided. Without such a thing no scientific discussion can be had about ID. That is why I have been asking you the same questions for two days. I can't tell you how ID differs from my explanation of the concurrent evolution of lactose tolerance because I don't know how ID explains any mechanism of any thing, much less this one simple matter of lactose tolerance.

But perhaps YOU know how ID explains the mechanisms that result in such diversity?

Care to share with the rest of us?

Laughing man, you didn’t answer my question!!!     http://www.longecity...-13#entry658690
Here, let me give you more information on ID but you will have to read it carefully if you hope to answer my question to you above.  Otherwise laugh on.

‘Intelligent Design
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process.

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

See New World Encyclopedia entry on intelligent design.”


 

Edited by shadowhawk, 28 April 2014 - 07:08 PM.

[Duchykins]

That is the standard vacuous definition of Intelligent Design. It's scientifically useless and it doesn't answer any of my questions.

It has no explanatory power. That is a teleological argument, literally an argument from design. Demonstrating that something is designed is not a demonstration of how the designer actually did anything. "Oh wow, this looks designed! Therefore it's designed! No, we don't want to talk about HOW the designer did it, because we don't know! It was probably magic anyway!"

The designer created all of these things somehow, right? HOW? WHAT IS THE MECHANISM? That is the explanation ID needs to attempt in order to be anywhere near a scientific theory. That is the explanatory power associated with scientific theories.

You didn't answer any of my questions. I asked them first.

[shadowhawk]

That is the standard vacuous definition of Intelligent Design. It's scientifically useless and it doesn't answer any of my questions.

It has no explanatory power. That is a teleological argument, literally an argument from design. Demonstrating that something is designed is not a demonstration of how the designer actually did anything. "Oh wow, this looks designed! Therefore it's designed! No, we don't want to talk about HOW the designer did it, because we don't know! It was probably magic anyway!"

The designer created all of these things somehow, right? HOW? WHAT IS THE MECHANISM? That is the explanation ID needs to attempt in order to be anywhere near a scientific theory. That is the explanatory power associated with scientific theories.

You didn't answer any of my questions. I asked them first.

You didn't answer any of my questions. I asked them first.

That is why it is a scientific enterprise.  We don’t have all the answers yet but we believe it looks designed and we do not believe other views have the answer of how design took place. You haven’t answered any of my questions laughing man..Where is your explanatory power.  I don’t know how the designer designed but suspect the process was intelligent.  If this is a dialogue rather than name calling, I am interested.  WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION!!!
Again, “Now a quiz and I am going to ask you for evidence, where does ID differ from what you have said?”  What is your explanatory power view for the source of information that makes things seem to be designed?  This is where design and ID differ.  Intelligent design is in the real world and part of it.  Dawkins even said, it looked designed.  
http://www.longecity...-13#entry658690

[Duchykins]

That is the standard vacuous definition of Intelligent Design. It's scientifically useless and it doesn't answer any of my questions.

It has no explanatory power. That is a teleological argument, literally an argument from design. Demonstrating that something is designed is not a demonstration of how the designer actually did anything. "Oh wow, this looks designed! Therefore it's designed! No, we don't want to talk about HOW the designer did it, because we don't know! It was probably magic anyway!"

The designer created all of these things somehow, right? HOW? WHAT IS THE MECHANISM? That is the explanation ID needs to attempt in order to be anywhere near a scientific theory. That is the explanatory power associated with scientific theories.

You didn't answer any of my questions. I asked them first.

You didn't answer any of my questions. I asked them first.

That is why it is a scientific enterprise.  We dont have all the answers yet but we believe it looks designed and we do not believe other views have the answer of how design took place. You havent answered any of my questions laughing man..Where is your explanatory power.  I dont know how the designer designed but suspect the process was intelligent.  If this is a dialogue rather than name calling, I am interested.  WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION!!!
Again, Now a quiz and I am going to ask you for evidence, where does ID differ from what you have said?  What is your explanatory power view for the source of information that makes things seem to be designed?  This is where design and ID differ.  Intelligent design is in the real world and part of it.  Dawkins even said, it looked designed.  
http://www.longecity...-13#entry658690

You're still lying.

I asked questions in the first post of mine in this thread. You only started asking questions to distract from the fact that you couldn't answer mine.

You're just asserting that certain things are designed. Your use of "information" is biologically useless. You never asked a pertinent question.

Our perception of design could be nothing more than the observation that life develops where it can and adapts to whatever environment its in - the organism is "fine tuned" to the environment, not vice versa. If something is designed by nature, it is no less designed. Where is your intelligence? Where is your evidence that organisms are not adaptable unless someone is overseeing each step?


Your problem is a total blind ignorance to the distinct lack of randomness in evolution. You repeatedly demonstrate a lack of understanding that the deterministic nature of natural selection overrides the randomness of mutation. You are determined to remain this way because natural selection offends your religious sensibilties.


You're just asserting that it cannot happen sans a creative entity. Why? Because you say so? Because these other hot shot creationists say so? LOL! Such assertions can be summarily dismissed.

Edited by Duchykins, 29 April 2014 - 08:12 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Because we have a beautiful painting does not mean we know who the painter is.  It looks like a painter painted it.  Lets find out laughing man.  ID.  You seem to want us to remain blind and ignorant because we cannot name the painter at the present.  That is what science is about.

Edited by shadowhawk, 29 April 2014 - 08:35 PM.

[Duchykins]

Because we have a beautiful painting does not mean we know who the painter is.  It looks like a painter painted it.  Lets find out laughing man.  ID

1) We know the painting was intelligently designed because we painted it. Did we also create new life in the lab? *trick question*

2) The painting cannot respond to stimuli like an organism.

2) The painting cannot grow like a organism.

3) The painting cannot reproduce with variation like an organism.

4) The painting cannot excrete waste like an organism.

5) The painting cannot die like an organism.

Edited by Duchykins, 29 April 2014 - 08:42 PM.

[Duchykins]

So we're back to the scientifically useless and religiously-charged teleological argument.

More religio-philosophy, no science.

[Duchykins]

The teleological argument of ID relies on the assumption that out of nearly infinite rolls of the cosmic dice, a planet resembling the early Earth could never occur anywhere in the universe. The second assumption is that the amino acids we are constantly finding in meteorites could never have occured by natural means.

ID proponents expect us to accept those assumptions because ... because they simply want us to. Just because they say so.

[shadowhawk]

We found something in the lab far more profound than the picture,
http://www.longecity...-12#entry657869
Your old laughing buddy, Casey Luskin talks about ID every day with scientists all over the world.
http://intelligentde....podomatic.com/
http://www.evolutionnews.org/

I am glad you told me a painting is not an organism, do you know if an intelligent organism produced the design of the painting?  Is an ID behind it?  Shall we laugh at your scientific evidence.  You still haven’t answered my question.  I suspect you just want to call people names and laugh at them.  Do I have any evidence?
 

[Duchykins]

Casey Luskin lies to scientists all over the world, you mean.

You keep citing propaganda I'm already familiar with.

So, let's recap:

1) We established that appearance of design is not evidence that it was actually designed, or designed by an intelligence

2) Your best argument was that if something looks designed, then it's designed by an intelligence. Your supporting evidence was an analogy of objects created by humans.

3) We established that scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena.

4) Demonstrating that something is intelligently designed doesn't explain how the designer did anything.


I believe I told you that already.

So we're back to the explanation of the mechanism.


WHAT IS IT?

[Duchykins]

Let's grant that life on Earth is intelligently designed. For sake of argument, intelligent design is now a scientific fact.

Facts, even laws, are a dime a dozen in science. Scientific theories encompass a plethora of related facts and laws. A scientific law is a "WHAT", a scientific theory is a "HOW". Two totally different things.

But is ID a scientific theory?

No.

It doesn't explain how organisms were designed by the intelligence. ID is a "WHAT".

Which brings me back to my original argument; ID cannot be a scientific theory because it has no explanatory power and serves a different function than evolutionary theory. A "what" cannot replace a "how", only another "how" can replace a "how".

Is that language dumbed down enough for you?

[shadowhawk]

So, let's recap:

1) We established that appearance of design is THE SUBJECT FOR SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION.

2) Your best argument was that if something looks designed, then it's designed by an intelligence. Your supporting evidence was an analogy of objects created by humans, W|HO ARE INTELLIGENT AND DESIGN.  INTELLIGENCE AND DESIGN ARE PART OF THE REAL COSMOS AND MAY HAVE DIFFERENT SOURCES.

3) We established that scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena AND INTELLIGENCE AND DESIGN ARE PART OF NATURAL PHENOMENA.  LOOK IN THE MIRROR.

4) Demonstrating that something is intelligently designed doesn't explain how the designer did anything.  THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY.


I believe I told you that already.

So we're back to the explanation of the mechanism.
YES, ANSWER MY QUESTION LAUGHING GUY

WHAT IS IT?  
INTELLIGENCE AND DESIGN.

[Duchykins]

That's not a mechanism, and that's not a scientific theory.

You need to explain how the intelligence designed anything.


Example:

Evolutionary theory has a pretty good step by step explanation of the evolution of whales from land mammals.


ID needs to have something comparable.

[Duchykins]

Using the painting analogy:

1) Intelligence manufactured the canvas, the paints and the paintbrush, using its body to manipulate raw materials

2) Intelligence began mixing paint colors using its body

3) Intelligence began applying paint to the canvas using its body to manipulate the paintbrush

4) Intelligence began alternating paint colors to define shapes using its body to manipulate the paintbrush

5) Intelligence ceased painting and allowed the paint to dry

Mechanism.

Edited by Duchykins, 30 April 2014 - 02:13 AM.

[Duchykins]

Maybe this will help you get a clue:


http://www.wikipedia...anism_(biology)

[shadowhawk]

You get to play the How game also.  How did the whale evolve?

 

I will let the IDers speak for themselves.

http://www.evolution...aqua052021.html
http://www.evolution...es_k004412.html
http://www.uncommond...d-in-antartica/
http://sententias.or...-and-darwinism/
http://llamapacker.w...-and-darwinism/

And your old laughing buddy Casey luskin.  http://www.discovery...ownload&id=1408

ID should be in not out of science.






 

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 30 April 2014 - 07:05 PM.

[shadowhawk]

How Do We Know Intelligent Design Is a Scientific "Theory"?
Casey Luskin October 14, 2011

“A question I commonly receive is whether intelligent design is a "scientific theory." The word "theory" gets tossed around a lot as if everyone agrees on what it means. To answer the question, we must first consider the meaning of the word "theory."

As I've already elaborated, philosopher Peter Kosso explains that calling something a "theory" says little about the degree of certainty backing the idea. As he states, "neither 'theoretical' nor 'law' is about being true or false, or about being well-tested or speculative." In Kosso's view, a theory "describes aspects of nature that are beyond (or beneath) what we can observe, aspects that can be used to explain what we observe." Thus "[s]ome theories are true (atomic theory), some are false (caloric theory), and the scientific method is what directs us in deciding which are which."

Does ID meet this definition of theory? Yes, it does.

ID is a theory of design detection, and it proposes intelligent agency as a mechanism causing biological change. ID allows us to explain how aspects of observed biological complexity, and other natural complexity, arose. And it uses the scientific method to make its claims.

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested for by reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When scientists experimentally uncover irreducible complexity in a biological structure, they conclude that it was designed.

Meeting the Definition of "Theory" from ID's Most Eminent Critics

Though Peter Kosso might disagree, I believe ID qualifies under his definition of "theory." But as I suggested above, there are many definitions of "theory" out there. How can we know if ID is a scientific theory? Take the definition of "theory" given by ID's most eminent scientific critics, and if ID meets that definition then there's a good bet ID may properly be considered a scientific theory.

Perhaps the most eminent scientific opponents of the theory of intelligent design can be found among the membership of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). In contrast to Peter Kosso, the NAS defines "theory" as an idea that is well-tested and well-supported by the scientific evidence:

    "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, and tested hypotheses" (Science & Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (National Academy Press, 1999).)
    "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence" (Science, Evolution & Creationism (National Academy Press, 2008).)

Even if we accept the NAS's more stringent definition of theory, ID more than qualifies.

When we're confronted with multipart tests, it's often useful to break them down into their elements. If the subject meets all the "elements," then it passes the test. Let's use that method here to analyze whether ID is a theory:

 

"Element 1: ID must be an "explanation of some aspect of the natural world" and a "comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature."

Element 2: ID must "incorporate many facts, laws and tested hypotheses."

Element 3: ID must be "well-substantiated" and "supported by a vast body of evidence.""Element 1: ID is a an "explanation of some aspect of the natural world" and a "comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature."

ID is not just an explanation of "some aspect of the natural world": in fact it explains many aspects of the natural world. If we think in terms of just broad categories, ID proposes that intelligent agency is the best explanation for historical events like:

    the origin of the fine-tuning of the cosmos for advanced life.
    the origin of extremely high levels of complex and specified information in DNA.
    the origin of integrated systems required for animal body plans.
    the origin of many irreducibly complex systems found in living organisms.

So ID satisfies this element: It is an explanation of many aspects of the natural world, especially many aspects of biological complexity.

Element 2: ID "incorporates many facts, laws and tested hypotheses."

ID easily meets this criterion. ID incorporates many facts, laws, and tested hypotheses, including:

    ID incorporates the known laws and constants of the universe and ties them together in a unified theory to explain why they are coordinated to produce life-friendly physical parameters.
    ID incorporates many known facts about DNA sequences, as well as tested hypotheses showing they are finely tuned to perform biological functions.
    ID incorporates a myriad of tested hypotheses about the geologically abrupt appearance of body plans in the fossil record, as well as numerous facts from biochemistry and animal biology regarding the kind and amount of integrated information necessary to coordinate new types of proteins, cell types, tissues, and organs into new functional body plans.
    ID incorporates many tested hypotheses about the presence of irreducible complexity in biological systems, evidenced by genetic knockout experiments which have shown that irreducible complexity is a real phenomenon.
    ID does all of this by proposing new laws such as the law of conservation of information, new principles about the causes of high CSI, new methods of measuring functional information and complexity, and new hypotheses about the ubiquity of fine-tuning throughout both cosmology and biology.

Element 3: ID is "well-substantiated" and "supported by a vast body of evidence."

This element is unique because it places "theory" in the eye of the beholder. If you think ID is correct (i.e., "well-substantiated"), then it will qualify as a scientific theory. If you don't think it's correct, then you won't think it's well substantiated, and ID won't qualify as a theory. In practice, this element thus measures subjective questions about what people believe about an idea rather than posing objective questions about the basic nature of the idea being considered. This is probably why careful thinkers like Peter Kosso expressly exclude this element from their definition of "theory."

Nonetheless, ID meets the NAS's third element, and a vast body of evidence can certainly be shown to back intelligent design. ID is well substantiated because a significant number of studies have confirmed ID's predictions, such as:

    Studies of physics and cosmology continue to uncover deeper and deeper levels of fine-tuning. Many examples could be given, but this one is striking: the initial entropy of the universe must have been fine-tuned to within 1 part in 10(10^123) to render the universe life-friendly. That blows other fine-tuning constants away. New cosmological theories like string theory or multiverse theories just push back questions about fine-tuning, and exacerbate the need for fine-tuning.
    Mutational sensitivity tests increasingly show that DNA sequences are highly fine-tuned to generate functional proteins and perform other biological functions.
    Studies of epigenetics and systems biology are revealing more and more how integrated organisms are, from biochemistry to macrobiology, and showing incredible finely-tuned basic cellular functions.
    Genetic knockout experiments are showing irreducible complexity, such as in the flagellum, or multi-mutation features where many simultaneous mutations would be necessary to gain an advantage. This is more fine-tuning.

ID is supported by a vast body of evidence ranging from physics and cosmology to biochemistry to animal biology to systems biology to epigenetics and paleontology. ID more than exceeds the NAS's definitions of "theory."”

 The scientific method goes from observation --> hypothesis --> experiment --> conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI. They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC). ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC. If they find them, they can conclude design.

http://www.ideacente...ails.php/id/832

 

[Duchykins]

Wow, all that hand-waving, and yet no mechanism.

We already granted for the sake argument that ID is a scientific fact. Move on already. "Specified complexity", "irreducible complexity", all that garbage. It's true.

Now what do you do with ID?

Now where is the mechanism that makes it a useful theory?

How did humans come about?

Explain.

:D


Protip: Quotes from scientists are not scientific evidence. Only creationists think these are good arguments and evidence in and of themselves. Dawkins could say tomorrow "Darwinism is an inadequate explanation for biological diversity" and it would have no scientific impact whatsoever. It's not science.

Edited by Duchykins, 30 April 2014 - 09:26 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Good, granted that it is true, it is "in."  Our topic.