What is the ONE thing that makes Intelligent Design (ID) unscientific?

Question

Immediately, opponents of ID are shouting: "Just one? JUST one??"

Why just one? Well ...

In a courtroom stunt, Kenneth Miller piled volumes of books before Michael Behe claiming that they contained the very explanations of Darwinian pathways to irreducibly complex systems that Behe said do not exist.

Those of you who paid attention in the last discussion on falsification [1] know that Behe's contention was not framed in such a way that required volumes of information to falsify it. Dr. Miller only needed to present Dr. Behe with a SINGLE Darwinian pathway.

I present a similarly framed proposition:

The theory of Intelligent Design is NOT unscientific.

All you have to do to falsify this proposition is to give me ONE example of how it IS unscientific.

I will *not* consider answers with more than one example for BA.

Answer 1

The one thing?

God.

If you have a problem in science. A theory that doesn't work all the time. Or simply something without a known answer the ID proponent just throws "God" in there.

Answer 2

Well Poor Loser, Dr. Behe's answer says it all!

Answer 3

Science is observation, hypothesis, test, repeat until verified.

There is no "test" in ID.  You assert that "something" caused it and you will not provide evidence of that something other than to say complexity is just too darn complex.

ID does not observe, ID does not verify.

I remind you that it is not possible to prove a negative, it falls to those who assert the positive statement to show that it is valid.

ID is a theory without support from the scientific method, no matter how loudly you proclaim it, it's like cold fusion - it's just not verifiable.

Good luck rationalizing your way around that.

Answer 4

I agree.

DE is not falsifiable using current scientific definitions.

Thank you, I learnt something new.

I guess the theory will have to 'evolve' to survive this new challenge or become extinct:)

Quadfather, I think I may have found an internal inconsistency in your argument, whilst giving DE proponents something to consider. Let’s explore!

Ok, here seems to be the heart of your argument:

Current scientific reasoning is heavily influenced by Karl Popper who challenged the use of induction and verification. He proposed falsification as key method.

- See 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery' (1959).

+ Popper saw Positivism being severely criticized and wanted to rescue the underlying ideas of the scientific method.

+ By positivism I mean the belief that 'if something exists it can be measured'.

He highlighted problems with induction, one being the psychological problem of finding what you are expecting to find. One of your points is that DE does this.

He thus found 'common sense' as a scientific justification inadequate method of prediction and statements about what we have not experienced cannot be deemed as 100% 'true'.

He also noted that a verificationist approach is less likely to result in new discoveries, as it simply seeks to confirm the beliefs of the scientist. Fair point, positivism is more likely to incur change.

--------------------------------------...

Logical Positivists set the demarcation criteria between science and non-science around observability. In his Hypothetico-deductive model, Popper moved this to testability in the sequence:

1. Consider phenomena

2. Observation and Generation of Ideas

3. Development of Testable Hypothesis (including a null hypothesis)

4. Systematic Observation

5. Data Analysis

6. Testing of Hypothesis

7a. Hypothesis Falsified (Refuted)

8a. Reject and / or Revise Hypothesis (return to step 3)

-- or --

7b. Hypothesis is confirmed

8b. Theory (Consists of confirmed hypotheses)

9. Prediction

--------------------------------------...

Whilst I applaud Popper for attempting to raise the benchmark for science and introducing more stringent criteria for verification, I wonder if positivist interpretation of phenomena is the only kind of science. In you argument you are challenging scientists on this forum to define evolutionary theory. The problem with this task seems to be that ‘On the Origin of Species’ was published and accepted before positivism and Popper’s Critical Rationalism became generally accepted. Sure this does not escape DE from its attention and you are right to revisit it, especially as an Apologist for ID who will be used to hostility from the ‘scientific’ community, but you are applying Popper’s Critical Rationalism (hard science) as criterion for validity as a theory.

I said in my first answer that science is a kind of philosophy but not the only kind. Now I say that Positivism is a kind of science but not the only kind.

Much of science is rhetoric, especially in the social sciences where even the object of study is subject to debate (define comprehensively and scientifically using positivism ‘society’, or show me a universal measurement of ‘family’ what excludes other social groupings, lets not even start on the proof of consciousness!) If ID is to use positivism to remove DE from the domain of science, then it is also removing God from its own ‘scientific’ ID theory, unless you are suggesting God can be measured. Is ID theory dependent on God or does it stress that God is not part of its explanation? I do not know enough about ID to comment so I ask in earnest.

There is another possibility; that Popper is too stringent in his definition of scientific. Certainly the flack some social scientists get for being ‘soft’ suggests there is some bias in professional selection of what is, and is not science (tangent: Psychology is scientific and falsifiable but philosophy of mind is not, despite being the parent philosophy). Whether consciousness exists is a blindingly obvious truth, but just because you cannot disprove it does not refute its existence. Perhaps Popper is wrong when Positivist dogma is indiscriminately applied?

In summary I say: If DE is relegated to philosophy or ‘soft’ science as it was proposed in ‘On the Origin of Species’ then ID would also have to reject immeasurable divine intervention by its own accepted definition of science or accept the same fate.

Tangent 2: In the social sciences I teach many perspectives. Some theories are ‘scientific’, whereas some are ‘soft scientific’. For example; The criticism that Humanism for instance is not science does not detract from its common sense usability and predictability. There has never been a shred of scientific evidence against it, for it is not falsifiable,  yet it is one of the most effective forms of therapy for some types of mental illness.

Because the theory is a simplification of a highly complex process, it isn’t going to explain the truth, because (I believe) the truth cannot be summarized in such a way. Truth occurs anew each time, we would need to be omniscient to know the truth, it never occurs in a predictable way because you cannot take a law into isolation. Even if you could it would be meaningless! What would we do with such knowledge?

Miscellaneous variables will always interfere, but we do our best with what we observe. I do not for one minute believe DE is ‘THE TRUTH’, but neither does it appear to be ‘lies’ and determining one from the other is bound to incur the ultimate uncontrollable variable, the human mind.

In conclusion:

1. Positivist scientists have to accept that DE perhaps is not defined well enough to hang it in the safety category of belonging to ‘hard’ science.

2. ID needs to acknowledge that if they are seriously going to suggest that ID is ‘hard’ science they need to exclude any dependency on an immeasurable divine entity, or show how God can be measured. To simply say that life follows intelligent design without defining who or what the creator is, is not a 'scientific' theory (this answers your question I hope).

EDIT 1: Boy do I wish I had found this an hour ago!

Taken from Wikipedia:

...in Unended Quest, Popper declared "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme, a possible framework for testable scientific theories," while pointing out it had "scientific character".[58]

In what one sociologist derisively called "Popper-chopping,"[59] opponents of evolution seized upon Popper's definition to claim evolution was not a science, and claimed creationism was an equally valid metaphysical research program.[60] For example, Duane Gish, a leading Creationist proponent, wrote in a letter to Discover magazine (July 1981): "Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious)."[61]...

I hate it when you spend all day thinking about something to find someone beat you to it years ago!;)

EDIT 2:

Hmm, I am not entirely convinced by your assertion that ID is dependent on 'intelligence'. As you may be aware the definition of intelligence is hugely debated itself. This makes the argument circular, as although different versions of intelligence can be falsified making them scientific, we are unable to move forward to ID as a scientific theory until we first determine its premises.

Let’s say we come across something in 'nature' that makes sense. This is not ID being disproved. If we cannot explain something in 'nature' then ID is falsified? What stops ID proponents saying that we don’t understand it "yet"? Or worse still, we do not possess the intelligence to understand due to our human limitations but intelligence is still evident? This pushes ID to unfaslfiability in the same way DE is when evolutionists say "unpredictable combination of genes did it" or "mutation!".

Sure you could state a version of intelligence as a premise, but no doubt it will not form a stable foundation for dependent theories. Any research psychologist could undermine a definition of intelligence and cite with a little of their own research alternatives. Let me see if I recall any; Gardner’s 16 intelligences, g-general intelligence, emotional intelligence, various cognitive intelligences, IIRC the original interpretation of intelligence was based on reflex reaction times.

Now, if you are referring to intelligence as a 'human' intelligence (which itself is debated the more we discover about animal cognition), it sounds to me like we are saying in lay terms; "If observations about the world make sense to me it is because it was designed by [someone/thing like] me."

What this seems to be describing is idealism; reality [or truth] is constructed by the eye of the beholder.

Answer 5

ID is entirelly scientific. If both other theories can be proved wrong with things such as missing ppopulation III stars and 0 evidence is against creation, then ID must be correct.

Answer 6

OK first it was not Kennith Miller who did the "stunt" as you say but the LAWYER questioning Dr. Behe.  Also Intelligent Design is not a scientific Theory but a hypothesis that was shown to be false after it's upporting data was proved to be in error.

OK now to answer your question

Intelligent Design say that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.

Now ID is not testable, it makes no and cannot be used to predict future occurrences .

So ID is not scientific

ADD> I cannot agree.  IC says that any IC device would not function at all in any way if one piece was missing....now many people have proved in many ways how things work quite well with a missing piece or pieces...maybe not in the original function but as another mechanism possibly for a different part of cell.  Every one of Behe's IC examples have been disproved and his idea of blood clotting was disproved BEFORE he published IC.  So IC is 100% false as no IC system proposed has been validated as IC...hence ID is false since Dr Behe's ID rests on IC...just like Darwin himself said Evolution would be false if we could find something that could in no way have evolved gradually.  Furthermore as I stated, it is not science as it does not follow scientific method.  

It is a very interesting idea, but at this time that is all it is.  It could very well be true but based on all the evidence and our present understanding of the universe it is equally likely as the sun not rising tomorrow.  

Maybe we will find new data that will support it as a scientific Theory one day, as we eventually did with the Heliocentric model of the solar system, but today we are not there yet.

ADD> you say "ID makes conclusions based on positive experiential evidence, not the absence of information."  Please give a detailed explination

ADD> Also your idea "there is no rigirous detailed expliantion" is the same as Dr Behe's.  There are answers but Behe does not accept them and he does not accept the validity of transposition that modern Theory holds.....so "Well i just don't accept that" is valid and a point of fact...then why can I not get the whole issue resolved by saying "I don't accept it"?

Final ADD> OK you just invalidated everything and proved you are either a troll or someone who has very little understanding of the issue.  Inanimate matter becoming animate...that is Abiogenesis not Evolution and *only* the closed minded, or the jokers even attempt to make the 2 the same.  You ignore points and say no one is responding.  You make same arguments as Behe, then claim those are not your words and so the rebuttal is not valid....you make silly little rules about we can only present one specific thing while you give nothing but ideas that are false and have been proved false many times over by multiple people and then have the temerity to suggest I d**n something because I consider it interesting but because I have a respect for learning and language I do not redefine the entire English language and restructure the entire system of Science to allow a philosophy access into the science realm.  I suggest you watch the movie Idiocracy with Luke Wilson...because you seem to want to accelerate the world into something very similar

Answer 7

I think that most of these answer cover it well.    Int. Design does not have the evidence to prove it.  It cannot be verified by scientific methods.    That's about it in a nutshell, as they say.  There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution, however, but some people will not accept it, regardless. Actually, I suppose that Intelligent Design would (or should) include evolution as part of the design.   Is that so?  

I find that people who take every word in the Bible as the truth straight from God, will not listen to any contradicting viewpoints or evidence.    Read Leviticus 25, 44-46.   Is this the word of God?

Answer 8

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

Here's what we have so far....

*ID is a "theory" that evolution is wrong.

*ID is trying to find some data where evolution breaks down but so far nothing of any significance has been generated. (This is the part of your word game that you lost to me.)

*If evolution is wrong, there must be something else to account for these observations (even though these observations haven’t yet been observed)

*The answer might be some unknowable force or entity - a willful designer.

*There is no research available to support the willful designer conjecture; in fact it is completely beyond the range of human experience, understanding, and science.  

*No research into the details of the actual designer is possible. So it’s not really possible for this conjecture to be a part of ID as a science.

*Of course it all might be something else but evolution is still wrong and ID will continue in its quest to show this.

*Thus, because it cannot prove anything about a designer(s), ID’s raison d’être is merely to disprove evolution.

*A further look into ID’s tactics reveals that’s it’s little more than a political ploy sowing doubt and confusion to get creationism into schools and evolution out.

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

This paper offers zero empirical evidence. Speculation and metaphysics are interesting but at some point ID needs real-world data - at least if it want to shake the pseudoscience label.

http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Life%2...

The extension of Goedel's incompleteness theorem beyond it's original frame is highly speculative indeed and Albert Voie is not the first to misapply it.

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/07...

You have no data....

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

You missed my point again - I'm not interested in your pseudo-scientific arguments nor your goofy epistemology, I'm merely pointing out ONE thing that makes Intelligent Design (ID) unscientific - that is, there are no scientific publications that actually state the "theory" and provide any support. As your inability to provide any credible papers indicates, ID enjoys a total absence of empirical data.

ID is not science, it's nothing more than an advertising campaign.

You have no data....

**************************************...

Excerpt-

How Not to Detect Design

Branden Fitelson, Christopher Stephens, Elliott Sober

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/dembski...

"Creationists frequently think they can establish the plausibility of what they believe merely by criticizing the alternatives. This would make sense if two conditions were satisfied. If those alternative theories had deductive consequences about what we observe, one could demonstrate that those theories are false by showing that the predictions they entail are false. If, in addition, the hypothesis of intelligent design were the only alternative to the theories thus refuted, one could conclude that the design hypothesis is correct. However, neither condition obtains. Darwinian theory makes probabilistic, not deductive, predictions. And there is no reason to think that the only alternative to Darwinian theory is intelligent design."

"When prediction is probabilistic, a theory cannot be accepted or rejected just by seeing what it predicts. The best you can do is compare theories with each other. To test evolutionary theory against the hypothesis of intelligent design, you must know what both hypotheses predict about observables. The searchlight therefore must be focused on the design hypothesis itself. What does it predict? If defenders of the design hypothesis want their theory to be scientific, they need to do the scientific work of formulating and testing the predictions that creationism makes. Dembski’s Explanatory Filter encourages creationists to think that this responsibility can be evaded. However, the fact of the matter is that the responsibility must be faced."

.....

You have no data. This is why you are incapable of delivering any research that supports ID, and until ID can deliver, it's going to remain where it is - right next to perpetual motion, palmistry and astrology.

You have no data.

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

No, I think I'm done here. It was enough for me to see that ID's seminal paper is complete science fiction and that your design inference remains untested, unsupported and will never hold up to rigor. There's no science here.

I have no wish to discuss your other rants and redirects  - it's all just the Discovery Institutes's vacuous revisionism - politics not science, and I've heard enough.

Now, if you ever get any data, then there's something to discuss! But you don't have any - you couldn't give me one item of substance - and so, ID remains right up there with astrology and perpetual motion...

Answer 9

Intelligent design is not falsifiable.  It can never be wrong, so it's impossible to see if it's right.

Evolution IS falsifiable.  Cats giving birth to dogs (without human manipulation) would mean there is something very wrong with theories of evolution.  I'm fairly certain I've pointed this out to you before, but you didn't seem to understand that evolution is talking about gradual changes over time and has no goal - an existing species being born from a completely different species with no transitional forms would falsify evolution in pretty much every way.

But this is not forum for a discussion as you seem to want to do in your posts.  I recommend going to the Evolution vs Creation section of this forum.  http://www.christianforums.com

Answer 10

IMO, the major problem with ID is that it is an "argument from incredulity", by its use of the "irreducible complexity" issue.

Essentially, it says "I don't understand how [feature x] evolved, therefore no-one will ever understand how [feature x] evolved, therefore it didn't evolve, but was designed."

This is not scientific, as it is not based on evidence and experiment.

Answer 11

Proponants of ID do not use the scientific method to prove or disprove their theories... they use interpretation of the Bible and faith.

Since the use of the scientific method is the basis for all science, ID cannot be called scientific.