If Intelligent design isn't falifiable then why?

Question

was it argues that it wasn't falsfiable then ironically argued that it had been falsified in the same Dover court preceding. It is also a claim made by Kenneth Miller and notice Richard Dawkins title in the Blind watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a Universe without design?

Many scientific organization state that there may have been an intellgent designer in the fine tuning of our universe.http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/The_Fine_Tuning_of_the_Universe.asp

John W. Good stratedgy when you are unequipped to discuss the issue at hand change it.

Digital you should read Miller's example of falsification and Behe's response. Is quite informative.

Edit: Dr. R The Intellgient Design theorists don't try to exaine who the designer is. They simply look for signs that something has been intelligently designed as I have suggested this shouldn't be difficult as we do it regularly when we look at automobiles even if we may not agree with the intelligence of the desginers/engineers. As far as yor Flying Spaghetti Monster argument. I delight when people raise these nonsense arguments and think they somehow equivalent with legitimate theories. Would you honestly take a lie detector and claim in a court room under threat of pergery that you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Not only would you be laughed out of court but would face perjury charges. I think if you are at all honest(which I hope you are) you will admit that you wouldn't.

Meissen you should read Behe's responses to his critics. Although it would be impossible to address all of them he does his best to sumerize the most common arguments and he easily shows thier faulty arguments. Such as Miller claiming he disproved the irreducable mousetrap argument by showing that the different pieces of a mouse trap could be used for different applications such as a toothpick or other applications. Behe never questioned that but rather how does a toopick become a mousetrap through the darwinian model of evolution?

Dr. R When you say that evolution has nothing to say about one way or the other about the grand design of the universe you then suggest it does imply that there was no specific intelligent design to the species on earth. That is a materialistic philisophical pressuposition which hasn't been proven.

Meissen here is a link for you. http://www.trueorigin.org/behe08.asp

Londonp: You should read Behe's response to the flagellum and other Id responses if you want to see what you haven't been told about the flagellum.

Numnuts you say there is no need for a designer: I say there is no need to assume no designer either. And the complete failure for nature to account for how specified complexity might arise shows that the answers they have been trying have completely failed. At some point it is time to start considering new possibilities and not close your mind off from enquiry by holding philisophical presuppositions.

David C: This is stereotypical of the arguments used against ID. It is not so suprising when encountering it on the internet where anybody and there brother can use a computer but when you see highly educated professors and sceinttists resorting to name calling and attacking antythiing but the issue at hand you begin to wonder how capable are they discussing the issues at hand. As for my grammar. Hey no problem. I can roll with the criticism. It was never my greatest asset and it only increasingly worse with the extra sensitive keyboard on my laptop. Unfortunately there is no spellcheck when add details to your own question. But way to defend your position!

Marky: We may look at an automobile and argue about what is intelligent design and what is dumb design but the point should not be lost. Despite our opinions and preferences we can recogize easily that an automobile was no less designed. Because we don't understand what purposes things such as cancers and male nipples may serve doesn't mean they do not serve a in the function. If science has shown anything over the years it has shown that there have been many purposes that prior to beig discovered were unknown. I should mention your arguments are not scientically based but rather theological arguments. The problem with that arguent style is there will always be someone out there no matter how something is made who will not like it. So to them that is all the proof they require. ID is not interested in nameing who the Intelligent designer may be, simply is there evidence of intelligent agency detectable in living organisms.

As far as not being falsifiable> I think that if scientists can prove that life can emerge without intelligent assistance they can falsify ID's claims. Most scientists know they have been working on this for decades since the first hope in the Uery Miller experiment but that has been nothing but a dismal failure in the ensuing decades. It turns out there is no mechanism known to man which can seperate amino acids and build them into a chain with the proper folds required in a prebiotic murky pond. This is why so many have now turned there eye to the sky thinking maybe it started somewhere else and came here. Anything but avoid one possible idea perhaps it cannot self assemble with intelligent assistance.

Answer 1

Yes, that is pretty funny. But, whenever you mention this kind of stuff, evolutionists jump from their trees and start behaving as if someone had stolen their bananas.

Looking at the responses that often come from a discussion on ID, I have to agree with Dr. Stephen Meyer; Many people have the problem of not making a distinction between the evidence and the implications. ID may have unsavory theological implications, and so many people simply reject it or dismiss it as religion. As Meyer has said, “The evidence is one thing; the implications are another. We want you to settle the discussion on the basis of the evidence.”

Dr. Stephen Meyer, "Some may decide that Behe's conclusions lend support to their religious beliefs. But that does not mean that his theory is based on religion, only that it may have theistic implications. But so what? Many Darwinists, and even some Darwinist textbooks, openly state that Darwinism has anti-theistic implications. Implications don't decide the truth of theories either. Evidence does."

Dr. Stephen Meyer, "The argument for design is based on scientific evidence, it’s based on the presence of rotary engines, molecular machines, nanotechnology in the cell, it’s based on the presence of encoded information in the DNA and what we know about what it takes to produce information, namely intelligence. It is also true that once you have inferred that intelligence may have played a role in the origin of life, then it raises a larger question as to the identity of the designer. And that larger philosophical question has led many people to say that the theory of intelligent design is based on religion. As one early advocate of the theory of intelligent design, an agnostic biologist from Australia Michael Denton, said: the inference to design may have religious implications, but it is not based on religious premises, it’s based on scientific evidence."

Answer 2

Intelligent Design is indeed not falsifiable and no one has declared that it is. The Dover court just said it was religion and not science. I believe that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe quite recently complete with fossils in the ground. Everytime someone makes a measurement that would prove that the earth is young, the FSM reaches in with His Noodly Appendage and changes the result to make the earth appear old. This also cannot be falsified. Once the need for empirical verifiability is abandoned, whatever explanation satisfies the demands of your religion is free to step in, and it is no longer science.

Darwinian Evolution has nothing to say one way or the other about a grand design of the universe as a whole. However, it does imply there is no specific intelligent design to species on earth. According to DE, *random* inheritable (ie, in the genome) variations occur with each new generation. Variations that happen to cause the organism to be better adapted to the environment *naturally* result in an increase in their frequency in the population due to better adapted individuals leaving more offspring than others. Random and natural processes mean that there is no intelligent design occurring in the genome. ID, as presented by its main backer The Discovery Institute, means that some really smart entity like an alien, God, the Cosmic Computer, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster engineered the genome for some purpose. This is a nonrandom and artificial and/or supernatural process, so it not an example of Darwinian Evolution, by definition.

Followup:

What does belief have to do with science? What do courts have to do with it, except to keep ID out of public school science class? Who cares if a bunch of religious nuts find it silly? Have you seen what they do to snakes? Science is about evidence and logical consistency. I hereby solomly swear on the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster that FSM-ID is a logically consistent belief system more consistent with the fossil record than non-FSM-ID as presented by The Discovery Institute. It explains everything, and has numerous academic endorsements.

Being reasonable, however, I am willing to compromise. Let's give FSM-ID, non-FSM-ID, and Darwinian Evolution each equal time in biology class. Teach the controversy!

Answer 3

I think a close examination of the tail of the Flagellum – Intelligent Designs’ flagship case for irreducible complexity , demonstrates that Behe is only willing to look as far as he wants to see.


Which came first TrueOrigin.org or TalkOrigins.org – Is there any reason why these two websites have similar layouts ? Is it an underhand attempt to confuse the issues by mimicking the website containing the argument you are trying to attack ?

Answer 4

Too many strange words for me.
Why should anything need a paranormal designer? Everything copes quite well without one and there is zero evidence of such activity.
The universe and everything in it appears to be just as it would be without a creator. Thus, no creator involved.

Look at it this way. If YOU were a super-powerful paranormal wizard that could do anything, would you design this planet better than it is? I sure would. Most of it is uninhabitable by most life-forms. All that ocean, all those deserts, all those high mountains ....
Would you design it so that there were no earthquakes? Sure.
And so on.
This planet is far from perfect. We humans have adapted to the environment that we found ourselves in and it was not designed so that we could suddenly pop up from nowhere and find the environment perfect for us already, on a plate. To consider so is infantile at best.
No creator.
No intelligent design.
Chaos theory, yes.
Accidents, yes.

Answer 5

so far there's no need for a designer, so no need to look for evidence to disprove a designer, ID is in the position where it needs to get some proof from somewhere to have any credibility.
It does seem to be either 'its so pretty someone must have done it' or 'its all so complex it, someone must it cos it can't have happened by accident'. Both are fallacious, the first is an argument by brain death, and the second is just as silly as assuming the universe is ordered just for them.

Answer 6

Origin of the universe has nothing to do with Behe's feeble and disproved attempt to advance Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, nor well established theory of evolution.

Answer 7

Falsifiable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable

And you should read all the billion people who have disproven everything Behe claims. Here is one link to a review of his book.

http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html

Edit: Yes and all of his claims have been proven false. So he has no claims.

You should also view the court transcripts of Kitzmiller v. Dover where the proponents of ID admit in court it is false. You may want to also reference the fact ID failed as a hypothesis and what it takes to actually be a hypothesis. FSM is just as valid as ID.

Then there is the fact you stated they look for evidence of design instead of looking at the evidence and finding out where it leads. ID is pseudoscience.

Answer 8

Erm wow cool observation i think I understand, maybe the quality of the intelligence was not examined at the time giving a false positive prior to the later time when a claimed flaw of falsification was found due to the initial ignorant value that the initial intelligence was exemplairy..............

Answer 9

ID is the last clutch of the straw by a quite frankly scared religious community. oh no, i'm not specail any more, i can't be judgemental. boo hoo.

if there really was an intelligent creator, how come he made such a mess of things?

male nipples, the human heart, human eyes, the female human pelvis, haemorroids, cancers, only two sets of teeth, non regeneration of severed limbs, tv evangelists, margaret thatcher, varicose veins?

oh really, come on. wake up!!

Answer 10

The design of the Universe is within you. The rest is just wishful thinking and a monstrous projection of hope.