What aspect of Intelligent Design isn't falsifiable?

Question

There is a second question coming shortly but I first wanted to see what the understanding and opinions were on this topic?

Corrosion check your facts there are number of peer reiewed Intelligent Design advocates including the three you mentioned.

Here ya go but no doubt this won't be sufficienthttp://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640

It was never Behe's attempt or the Id movement to suggest who the inteeligent designer is only that there is evidence for intellignet design. Each may have their views but that is their purpose and if it came to that it would be entering the realm of religion. I should point out that ID does have agnostics on board.

Lazurus I should point out that Science has yet to prove that life can emerge from non intelligent causes and they have being pouring tons of research into this for decades, Yet some have no problem accepting this without the evidence. Even a simple protein chain is much more complex and at best they have gotten a few amino acids to cling together and that was decades ago.

I am not suggesting the earthis any age. To be honest many great scientists disagree about it within tens of millions and more years. And contrary to what you know they are doing tests which show what evolution is and isn't capable of.

Corrosion here is what Behe did say about astrology at the Dover trial. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/michael_behe_speaks_in_kansas.html

It seems many peole miss the point. No one is trying to see God, but rather if intelligent desing is perceived in the structures of living organisms. Why is that so difficult? If we can identify intelligent design in non living structures such as automobiles and other machines why is it not possible when one encounters irreducible complexity.

SFB Kenneth Miller regularly claims he has falsified it.

Edge I think allot of people don't understand or don't want to understand what ID is saying and not saying. People fail to realise that Big Bang is an accepted scientific theory even though it has religious implications. Most scientists would totally agree with that statetment. ID is the saying the same thing. The irreducibly complex systems that we see often compred to a mousetrap cannot be explained by gradual evolutionary processes. But they have tried to falsify this using various arguments.

Answer 1

For those who say Intelligent Design is not empirically testable and doesn't makes predictions, check this out: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica.html#more

And here is a brief overview of the scientific case for ID: http://www.arn.org/docs/positivecasefordesign.pdf

And for those who put so much faith in peer-review, check this out: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

The funny thing is, I often feel that way about the general theory of evolution. Evolution is so “plastic” that it can be expanded to fit any data. Even data that is exactly the opposite of what has been used in the past to teach evolution is twisted as new “proof” of evolution.

Dr. Michael G. Houts, “This illustrates another key (non-scientific) feature of the theory of evolution. The theory is constructed in such a way that no matter what the evidence, evolutionists can claim it supports their religion. If a bird is brightly colored, it evolved vivid feathers to attract a mate. If a bird’s plumage is drab, it evolved that drabness to provide camouflage. If similar structures are derived from similar gene sequences, it is because the two species share a common ancestor. If similar structures occur in species that are genetically quite different, it is because of ‘convergent evolution.’ No matter what the evidence, in the eye of the believer, evolution is true.

One criterion for determining if a theory is scientific is if it is falsifiable. In other words, the theory must be constructed in a way that an experiment could be devised to prove it false. In the discussion of similarities between organisms, the theory of evolution is purposely constructed so that no experiment can prove it false.”

Dr. William Dembski, "Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.

On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism seems effectively impossible. To do so one must show that no conceivable Darwinian pathway could have led to a given biological structure. What's more, Darwinists are apt to retreat into the murk of historical contingency to shore up their theory. For instance, Allen Orr in his critique of Behe's work shortly after _Darwin's Black Box_ appeared remarked, 'We have no guarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway.' What he conceded with one hand, however, he was quick to retract with the other. He added, 'But even if we can't, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its gradual evolution.'

The fact is that for complex systems like the bacterial flagellum no biologist has or is anywhere close to reconstructing its history in Darwinian terms. Is Darwinian theory therefore falsified? Hardly. I have yet to witness one committed Darwinist concede that any feature of nature might even in principle provide countervailing evidence to Darwinism. In place of such a concession one is instead always treated to an admission of ignorance. Thus it's not that Darwinism has been falsified or disconfirmed, but that we simply don't know enough about the biological system in question and its historical context to determine how the Darwinian mechanism might have produced it."

Answer 2

you are rattling and comparing something that is even a theory with an established therory. Actually intelligent design might have been at some beginning point but then evolution took over and finished the job. The only possible way you can use intelligent design is to start the life on this planet and it is probably the wrong answer anyway and you would be shotting down the first Chapter in the Bible if you use the intelligent design argument. Evolution is change over time and it is how things on this planet that now exist have come from lesser or earlier life forms. Whether the first were of any intelligent design is rather inmaterial anyway because it can not be proven because we can not go back in time 2 billion years.

Answer 3

ID is in a class of propositions which include statements such as "there are no green swans" that cannot be falsified. Specifically, ID states "Some things are too complex to occur without intelligent design". Individual proposed examples of ID *can* be falsified, though. For example, "The burn pattern on that tree is too complex to have occurred without intelligent design" can be falsified if the damage is demonstrated to be the result of a lightning strike. However, to disprove the general statement "Some things ...". One would have to, one by one, deduce the detailed natural cause of every individual thing in the entire universe. This, of course, is impossible. If there were a single thing in all the world that did not have a definitively proven natural cause demonstable upon demand, ID would not be falsified.

Answer 4

From a scientific point of view the problem with ID is quite simply God. The scientific method is not equipped to deal with a Being that can change the rules. Science is based upon examining nature and requires set conditions. The ability to test things in controlled situations. When you put a God into the situation who made those rules, can break them at will, and can change them to suit Him science is at a loss. This is why I do not believe ID will ever be accepted by science. Science just is not capable of dealing with God.

Answer 5

A scientific theory has to first arrive in the form of a hypothesis, which is typically followed by field observation to confirm the hypothesis, by way of a conclusion.

Intelligent Design is not even as much as a hypothesis, since it does not propose any mechanisms of nature that can either be observed, reproduced, or confirmed in evidence. In a sense, the whole thing is unfalsifiable, strictly speaking, because it does not propose any natural behaviours that can BE falsified.

And no "that them thar unnamed unknowable deity or alien done dunnit" is not a scientific hypothesis.

I'm a Christian myself. But surely as I can insist that science has no claims on God or his existence, surely scientists can also say they should not be forced to rely on supernatural claims to explain natural systems?

Answer 6

The conclusion was reached before the new name for creationism was adopted.

They are in the process of ditching ID for another term: Sudden Emergence.

No published papers on ID, only appeals to the public through popular books, for starters.

Michael Behe does not teach ID in his biochem classes at Lehigh. He only runs off the rails outside of the lab.

William Dembski twists Information Theory to make the math fit.

Jonathan Wells has a doctorate in microbiology yet has never taught nor researched. Instead, he serves at the command of Rev. Moon.

I think you're seeing the pattern here. Their motto does not concern science when they bellow "Teach The Controversy!"

Baloney. Behe may have published peer-reviewed papers IN HIS FIELD but not as ID. I follow this very closely as a member of the National Center for Science Education.

One paper managed to slip into a small journal in Washington State but was pulled fast with an apology from the editor for missing the premise.

Don't mistake editorial papers for peer-reviewed science.

And, off I go to work. ID is still a sham, in case Kitzmiller vs. Dover slipped past you, where Behe admitted on the witness stand that ID has as much credibility as astrology. Catch you later as you try stuffing belief into science. Carry on.

Answer 7

Science is increasingly proving the theory of evolution to be quite imposable, if one were to look at the science honestly. For the answer to your question read the book THE FORGOTTEN TRUTH. You will find it at the following web site. Just click the link below then click the enter button.
God Bless.
http://theforgottentruth.webs.com/

Answer 8

The part that says a "creator" is behind this universe without actually spelling out the mechanism by which it manipulated matter and energy to produce anything we see.

ID could immediately command respect if they could do that, but they can't because it's theology masquerading as science. Once they try to make it a science, they reveal how crackpot ID really is.

Answer 9

The one aspect of Intelligent Design which isn't falsifiable is the arrogance and stupidity of Man.

Answer 10

Basically every element of it that deviates from the theory of evolution.