ARCHIVE - The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory-by Casey Luskin

Stratnerd

New member
Warren,

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. My problem with pulling in the supernatural is that is seems to be done at times when we have difficulties explaining phenomena (e.g., how could the flagellum evolve?). So is ID just a substitute for ignorance or can you think of situations that are explained well by naturalists but could be better explained by ID?
 

Stratnerd

New member
Warren,

I haven't spent too much time thinking about this but evolutionary scenarios (which I take as hypotheses) can be falsified. For example, I can hypothesize that birds evolved feathers. This can be falsified, and has been, by finding feathers in more ancestral lineages.

Does ID make any sort of hypotheses that can be falsified?
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Stratnerd,

No flight feathers have been found to date except in organisms that by any definition were true birds.

Stop passing on wild speculations.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Stratnerd,

I have just been reviewing the interesting discussions on this thread about bacterial mutation. The scientific studies in these areas actually prove that random mutation is not involved because many of the results are repeatable something that Gould says is not possible in the ToE.

This subject is covered very well in chapter 7 of "Not By Chance" by Lee Spetner and was part of the impetus for his theory of "non-random mutation". It should be obvious that if the effects seen in the experiments happen rapidly and are repeatable that they are being induced by the environment and are probably the result of adaptive design. It is hard to see how evolution could "look ahead" and design something that would only come into play when the environment would change.

The bottom line is that such experiments rather than supporting evolution are actually falsifying it.
 
Last edited:

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
BTW,
If you will check this link you will see that nobody is claiming that the impressions regarding Caudipteryx were flight feathers.

http://www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDcaud.html

I find it amusing that evolutionists will claim "convergence" any time it is convenient, but in their zeal to provide evidence that birds arose from dinosaurs will grasp at any "straws" like this to make their case.

There is no credible evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs and plenty that they didn't.
 
Last edited:

Prisca

Pain Killer
Super Moderator
Warren,

Warren,

Thanks so much for your response. I’m pleased to hear that Behe didn’t take that position. I’m about half way through his book and am thoroughly enjoying it. I also enjoyed your post to Stratnerd.

Presently, I am fighting off the little “de-evolved” bacteria known as mycoplasma pneumoniae. It has ravaged my entire family over the last few weeks. What a miserable little organism!

I hope to be back to TOL on a regular basis very soon.

Thanks again,
Becky
 

Prisca

Pain Killer
Super Moderator
Stratnerd

Stratnerd

As soon as I'm feeling better, I plan to devote more time to this thread. Please forgive me for not answering your posts yet. I promise I'm not ignoring you.;)
 

Valmoon

New member
Bob what was your point in talking about flight feathers in your reply to Stratnerd?

You said: "No flight feathers have been found to date except in organisms that by any definition were true birds.

Stop passing on wild speculations."

I dont see him mention flight feathers once in the post you reply to. So what was your point? Sorry to ask for more clarification but please elaborate.

I will reply to your bacterial mutation contention later but I do see that you havent answered Stratnerds original question on whether the ID theory makes any hypotheses that can be falsifiable.
 
Last edited:

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Valmoon,

I will open up a new thread in the Creation/Evolution forum to discuss the so-called dino to bird question. Ditto for the bacteria question. I expect you to continue the discussion of these questions there since it is against forum rules to "hijack" threads by switching from the original topic.

My answer to the "prediction" question is contained in the creation/evolution forum where I just this morning answered Stratnerd's question by demonstrating that the theory of evolution makes no "predictions" (in the scientific usage of the word) either.

So the bottom line is that if ID theory is not scientific then evolution is not either.

To be scientific a theory must make predictions that follow directly from the principles of the theory as opposed to expectations derived from already known "patterns" or data.
 

Stratnerd

New member
Bob,

>>> The bottom line is that such experiments rather than supporting evolution are actually falsifying it. <<

How do nonrandom mutations falsify evolution? Or does it add another mechanisms to evolutionary change?

>>> random mutation is not involved because many of the results are repeatable something that Gould says is not possible in the ToE. <<<

I think you are mixing apples and oranges or are dishonestly using what Gould said. Which is it? There's population genetics and then there's long term changes in the Earth's biota which must include a number of contingencies that random events such as bollide impacts or circumstances that have nothing to do with biology but have large impacts on evolutionary history such as plate tectonics. This is a little different than exposing bacteria to antibiotics or changing their temperature (or whatever the experiment did). Funny you bring this up because you said that evolution wasn't predictable. Is it or isn't it?

>>> nobody is claiming that the impressions
regarding Caudipteryx were flight feathers. <<<

I said feathers not flight. What do I care what type of feathers they were? The question is when and who.

>>> I find it amusing that evolutionists will claim "convergence" any time it is convenient, <<

False. Convergence is a hypotheses of a character state that can be evaluated (tested) by a phylogeny. But why even mention it?

>> There is no credible evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs and plenty that they didn't. <<

These are strange arguements to me. You are a creationists and by definition no evidence can be credible! Why argue?

************************************************

Becky,

>> “de-evolved” bacteria known as mycoplasma pneumoniae <<<

Get well soon. Mycoplasma are nasty ain't they?
 

Stratnerd

New member
>> So the bottom line is that if ID theory is not scientific then evolution is not either. <<

Can we put alternative aside and talk about ID. Hopefully, if this is a new and superior theory then it should be more scientific, eh?

So, does ID make hypotheses that one can falsify? Are there more direct means of testing the theory?
 

Warren

New member
Stratnerd>> Warren, Thank you for your thoughtful answer. My problem with pulling in the supernatural is that is seems to be done at times when we have difficulties explaining phenomena (e.g., how could the flagellum evolve?). So is ID just a substitute for ignorance or can you think of situations that are explained well by naturalists but could be better explained by ID?

I haven't spent too much time thinking about this but evolutionary scenarios (which I take as hypotheses) can be falsified. For example, I can hypothesize that birds evolved feathers. This can be falsified, and has been, by finding feathers in more ancestral lineages.

Does ID make any sort of hypotheses that can be falsified?<<

Stratnerd,

Your questions are based on a couple of incorrect assumptions. First of all, ID is an empirical theory and doesn't invoke the supernatural. ID posits that certain aspects of biotic reality are best explained by reference to an advanced form of bioengineering and nanotechnology that is not beyond the grasp of human reasoning. Thus, a designer/ designers need only possess human-like intelligence and human-like motivations.

Secondly, ID is not anti-evolution. ID is an alternative theory of evolution that is in opposition to the theory that all aspects of biotic reality are the result non-intelligent processes. This kind of evolution is often referred to as the blind watchmaker. A good definition of non-teleological evolution was provided by the National Association of Biology Teachers a few years ago. In it's first draft it said:

"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies, and changing environments."

The NABT definition of evolution has successfully drawn the line between a non-teleological and a teleological interpretation of natural history. Note that evolution is defined as "unsupervised, impersonal ... natural process." There is obviously no role for any intelligence to even guide an evolutionary process.

This NABT position on evolution is identical to the blind watchmaker hypothesis promoted by Richard Dawkins:

"The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up. No, on second thought I don't give up, because one of my aims in this book is to convey something of the sheer wonder of biological complexity to those whose eyes have not been opened to it. But having built up the mystery, my other aim is to remove it again by explaining the solution.....Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life....Natural selection has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.""[Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1987), ix.]

Now, here's the point. There is currently no way to DIRECTLY detect the existence of either a teleological or NON-teleological cause from ancient history. ID and blind watchmaking are in the same boat in regard to direct verification. The ID critic's positon seems to be that there is positive evidence for blind watchmaking therefore in order for ID to compete with blind watchmaking it needs to present proof. But this isn't the case. The best either side can do when investigating ancient natural history is to infer a cause indirectly to determine how well those inferences make sense of the data we have.

ID and blind watchmaking are both based on inferences, not proof. ID critics don't seem to understand that. That is why I often ask them what evidence would cause them to infer intelligent design. When you examine their responses it becomes obvious they will accept nothing less than absolute proof. But if we had proof of ID there would be no need to infer it! The ID critics are incapable of inferring design. On the other hand, they have no trouble inferring blind watchmaking from very meager evidence. Why the double standard?

So, evidence for ID shouldn't be evaluated in isolation, rather we should compare it with evidence for blind watchmaking. Darwin often argued to his correspondents, that the theory of common descent by natural selection had to be weighed COMPARATIVELY, "vis-a-vis its competitors."

So let's compare ID with blind watchmaking. Please reference any peer reviewed article that demonstrates that a non-teleological cause was behind the origin of life or the origin of molecular machines or the origin of the genetic code or the origin of mammals or the origin of feathers. Also , please tell us how blind watchmaking (i.e. non-teleological evolution) can be falsified.
 
Last edited:

Warren

New member
Stratnerd>>Can we put alternatives aside and talk about ID. Hopefully, if this is a new and superior theory then it should be more scientific, eh? <<


The debate about ID often revolves around either/or thinking - either ID is true and should serve as the basis of science or it is not true and should continue to be excluded. But why can't we take a both/and approach? It's not a question of the teleological view replacing the mechanistic view, it's a question of using both perspectives in parallel (such a both/and perspective could be used by individuals and/or a community).

Design theory is at best a supplementary consideration introduced alongside (or perhaps onto by way of modification) neo-Darwinian biology and self-organizational complexity theory. It does not mandate the replacement of these highly fruitful research paradigms.

I think ID will indeed develop into a very serious research approach to the extent that it does not tie itself to religious apologetics or become hyper-skeptical of anything that supports evolution.

Inclusion of design theory as part of the standard discourse of the scientific community, if it ever happens, will be the result of a long and difficult process of quallity research and publication. It also will be the result of overcoming the stigma that has become attached to design research because of the anti-evolutionary diatribes of some of its proponents on the one hand and its appropriation for the purpose of Christian apologetics on the other.
 
Last edited:

Stratnerd

New member
Warren,

The problem, and I hope you can clarify this, is where do ID-ers step in and invoke a designer? If it is at the very beginning (at the formation of life and, say, up to the first eukaryotes) then it certainly is much harder to set up tests. However, if a designer is at work constantly then we should be able to develop tests that should sort this stuff out.

As for falisification of non-teleological evolution. I would strongly suspect tinkering if I found a species with a complex character (e.g, a fire breathing sparrow) with an obvious function (uses when provoked by a predator) whose genes for that trait had no homologues in the sister species.
 

Stratnerd

New member
>>> It does not mandate the replacement of these highly fruitful research paradigms. <<<

That's my biggest question with ID, where does it step in?

>>> that it does not tie itself to religious apologetics or become hyper-skeptical of anything that supports evolution. <<<

But it must because ID has inherit religious implications. Like complexity the identity of a being with abilities and knowledge that surpasses our own "cries out for an explanation".

Also, given unlimited funds what type of research would ID-ers be doing?
 

Warren

New member
Warren,

The problem, and I hope you can clarify this, is where do ID-ers step in and invoke a designer? If it is at the very beginning (at the formation of life and, say, up to the first eukaryotes) then it certainly is much harder to set up tests. However, if a designer is at work constantly then we should be able to develop tests that should sort this stuff out.

Stratnerd,

The ID hypothesis is that the original cells were exogenous, seeded, and bioengineered. They were implanted as a heterogeneous population. Their design necessarily front-loaded evolution in a passive sense and may have involved active front-loading. This happened around 4 billion years ago. Did subsequent intelligent interventions follow? I don’t know. That’s one question in need of investigation.

Many have adopted Gould's line of thinking, where replaying life's tape would not produce the same world, meaning that evolution is thoroughly non-teleological or unguided in any sense. But I think there is MUCH middle ground that has simply not been thought about or explored.
 
Last edited:

Stratnerd

New member
Warren,

Thanks!!! That actually cleared up a bunch of questions.

Next question: since motivations are highly idiosynchratic what do ID-ers posit is the "grand" motivation of the designer(s)?

Thanks again, js
 

Warren

New member
Stratnerd>>Warren, Thanks!!! That actually cleared up a bunch of questions.

Next question: since motivations are highly idiosynchratic what do ID-ers posit is the "grand" motivation of the designer(s)? <<

ID only attempts to answer questions that can be researched via the scientific method. Your question is beyond the scope of the scientific method and hence ID can't answer it. Unless we can get an interview with the designer(s) I see no way to determine their motivations.
 

Stratnerd

New member
Warren,

But I assume that something brought you to this conclusion:

>>> designer/ designers need only possess human-like intelligence and human-like motivations <<<

Why does the designer(s) need human-like motivation and what was the logic for coming up with this idea?

Thanks!
 
Top