Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Jared Jammer]

. . . Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Why? Logic 101.

They're opposing answers to the same question, thus, any test for one will inherently test the other.
Any evidence for one will be evidence against the other.
Any proof of one will be proof against the other. proving one will falsify the other (and vice versa).

When Darwinists say we can't falsify the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't prove biology is the product of blind nature.

When Darwinists say we can't prove the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't falsify the claim that biology is the product of blind nature.

The only reasonable conclusion is that either both are science, or neither is science.

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

. . . Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Why? Logic 101.

They're opposing answers to the same question, thus, any test for one will inherently test the other.

Wrong. While creationism was put forward as in opposition to evolution, that doesn't somehow magically mean that they are both equally testable or untestable.

For example, if I oppose the theory of gravity with my theory of "intelligent falling" in which I claim that people are pushed back down onto the earth by the hand of a magic, invisible genie, the fact that my "theory" is in opposition to gravity doesn't somehow mean that any test for gravity can now accurately be called a test of my theory. Gravity pertains strictly to physical forces, while my theory relies on invisible genies - they are NOT equal claims, even if they are both attempting to explain the same phenomenon.

Any evidence for one will be evidence against the other.

Wrong again. See my "intelligent falling" analogy above. While I could easily say "any instance of gravity is really an instance of genies pushing us down", my claim has no credibility because the genies cannot be tested for. The evidence cannot therefore be said to be evidence of my claim, since my claim relies inherently on something that is untestable, while the theory of gravity relies only on descriptions of physical forces which can be easily quantified. Again, not all claims are equal, therefore interpreting the available evidence to fit an untestable hypothesis doesn't lend credibility to the hypothesis - but it doesn't necessarily detract from it either. All of the evidence for evolution being considered, a theistic explanation of life is still possible - it's just unlikely that it's one that doesn't involve some form of evolution. You could argue that the evidence of evolution is evidence against a young earth interpretation of creationism, but that's because a young earth claim is actually testable - a claim of the existence and intervention of an all-powerful agency is not (at least, yet).

Any proof of one will be proof against the other. proving one will falsify the other (and vice versa).

"Proof" does not exist in science, aside from as mathematical formulas used to describe specific and Universal phenomena.

When Darwinists say we can't falsify the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't prove biology is the product of blind nature.

Wrong, see above.

When Darwinists say we can't prove the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't falsify the claim that biology is the product of blind nature.

Wrong and wrong, see above.

The only reasonable conclusion is that either both are science, or neither is science.

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.

Here's a great "flimsy excuse": you don't understand logic or science.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

. . . Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Why? Logic 101.

They're opposing answers to the same question, thus, any test for one will inherently test the other.
Any evidence for one will be evidence against the other.
Any proof of one will be proof against the other. proving one will falsify the other (and vice versa).

When Darwinists say we can't falsify the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't prove biology is the product of blind nature.

When Darwinists say we can't prove the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't falsify the claim that biology is the product of blind nature.

The only reasonable conclusion is that either both are science, or neither is science.

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.

You can just do science about how things are chosen. That is, if you are good in maths, and understand how fMRI and stuff works. The contest is then between theory about many independent and simple decisions coincedentally coming together and forming a species, and theory about reasoned and informed decisions making a specie as a whole.

The idea that everything is forced can just be discarded.

 

[Revoltingest]

. . . Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Why? Logic 101.

They're opposing answers to the same question, thus, any test for one will inherently test the other.
Any evidence for one will be evidence against the other.
Any proof of one will be proof against the other. proving one will falsify the other (and vice versa).

When Darwinists say we can't falsify the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't prove biology is the product of blind nature.

When Darwinists say we can't prove the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't falsify the claim that biology is the product of blind nature.

The only reasonable conclusion is that either both are science, or neither is science.

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.

You gotta fix that title!
(We lowly posters now have the ability to edit our titles.)
Evolution does make predictions which are falsifiable though, eg, evolutionary algorithms (which use the same process). This doesn't prove evolution to be "true", but falsifiability does put evolution in the realm of science. ID is different because it makes no predictions which are testable, thereby making it inaccessible to the scientific method....ie, not science (even if it is "true").

 

[Sunstone]

. . . Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Why? Logic 101.

They're opposing answers to the same question, thus, any test for one will inherently test the other.
Any evidence for one will be evidence against the other.
Any proof of one will be proof against the other. proving one will falsify the other (and vice versa).

When Darwinists say we can't falsify the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't prove biology is the product of blind nature.

When Darwinists say we can't prove the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't falsify the claim that biology is the product of blind nature.

The only reasonable conclusion is that either both are science, or neither is science.

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.

Were you home schooled in logic? Just curious.

There is no test of the cross between intelligent design and the Theory of Evolution because it does not necessarily follow that, if the Theory of Evolution is false, intelligent design is true. To see the two as opposed is sloppy thinking because there are other alternatives: For instance, Lamarckian evolution.

 

[Jared Jammer]

ImmortalFlame is first in line, and, as predicted, his post is less an argument than a flimsy excuse. He also seems emotional, so I can only assume I've hit a nerve.

Wrong. While creationism was put forward as in opposition to evolution, that doesn't somehow magically mean that they are both equally testable or untestable.

Evolution was put forward in opposition to creationism; the latter preceded the former.

Wrong again. See my "intelligent falling" analogy above. While I could easily say "any instance of gravity is really an instance of genies pushing us down", my claim has no credibility because the genies cannot be tested for. The evidence cannot therefore be said to be evidence of my claim, since my claim relies inherently on something that is untestable, while the theory of gravity relies only on descriptions of physical forces which can be easily quantified. Again, not all claims are equal, therefore interpreting the available evidence to fit an untestable hypothesis doesn't lend credibility to the hypothesis - but it doesn't necessarily detract from it either. All of the evidence for evolution being considered, a theistic explanation of life is still possible - it's just unlikely that it's one that doesn't involve some form of evolution. You could argue that the evidence of evolution is evidence against a young earth interpretation of creationism, but that's because a young earth claim is actually testable - a claim of the existence and intervention of an all-powerful agency is not (at least, yet).

If I claim that intelligent design is the cause of gravity, and you demonstrate that anything other than intelligent design is the cause of gravity, then you will have falsified my claim.

You may not have demonstrated that invisible genies exist, but you have demonstrated that my claim -- that intelligent design is the cause of gravity -- is false, and you did so by proving your logically converse claim. You've disproved A by proving Not A.

Now, if that's still not sinking in, here's a better analogy to make sense of things.

• You have a girlfriend.
  
• Your girlfriend claims she's pregnant.
• You don't believe she is pregnant.
  
• You go to the store and buy a pregnancy test that is 100% accurate.

Question: Will this pregnancy test test for the presence of pregnancy (her claim), or the absence of pregnancy (your claim)?

Answer: Both. You cannot test for the presence of pregnancy without also testing for the absence of pregnancy. The test will not only prove one, it will inherently disprove (falsify) the other.

Now, let's rephrase the Darwin vs. Design question to more closely fit the above analogy.

• Darwinists claim there is no design in biology.
• I.D. proponents claim there is design in biology.
• Scientist runs a test which tests for Darwinism (the absence of design in biology).

Question: Will the scientist's test test for the presence of design (I.D.'s claim), or the absence of design (Darwinists' claim)?

Answer: Both. You cannot test for the presence of design without also testing for the absence of design. The test, assuming it's successful, will not only strengthen one position. it will inherently weaken the other.

Any test which addresses the question of whether or not there is design in biology will inherently affect both sides of the Darwin vs. Design debate.

Note that this flawless reasoning works equally well on the origin of life.

Every single time an origin of life researcher attempts to demonstrate abiogenesis, he's simultaneously attempting to falsify intelligent design. Thus, Intelligent Design is one of the most tested ideas in science. That it's not yet been falsified doesn't mean it's unfalsifiable, it just means that the abiogenesis position is weak and almost certainly false. Remember: You can't falsify truth, not even with lies and shoddy court room rulings.

"Proof" does not exist in science, aside from as mathematical formulas used to describe specific and Universal phenomena.

The term proof in science doesn't refer to 100% mathematical certainty, but to statements which are (provisionally) true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here's a great "flimsy excuse": you don't understand logic or science.

I have confidence that the reasonable, intelligent members of this forum can see which of us best understands logic and science.

 

[Jared Jammer]

I think you were home schooled in logic. There is no test of the cross between intelligent design and the Theory of Evolution because it does not necessarily follow that, if the Theory of Evolution is false, intelligent design is true. To see the two as opposed is sloppy thinking because there are other alternatives: For instance, Lamarckian evolution.

Actually, I may have to agree with you here. I should've used the term blind watchmaker evolution, rather than Darwinian evolution, to create a more all-encompassing dichotomy.

With that said, typically anything in biology which is deemed ateleological becomes an ad hoc extension of Darwinian evolution, so it's little more than a petty semantics issue.

Further, the claim is that blind watchmaker Darwinian evolution is demonstrably true, which still makes the adjoining claim that watchmaker evolution (intelligent design) is unfalsifiable an illogical statement.

• If blind watchmaker evolution is testable, then watchmaker evolution is testable.
• If blind watchmaker evolution is demonstrable, then watchmaker evolution is falsifiable.

Watchmaker evolution being intelligent design, and blind watchmaker evolution being any variation of evolution which is said to be lacking in intelligent direction -- most notably Darwinian evolution.

Better?

 

[Sunstone]

Actually, I may have to agree with you here. I should've used the term blind watchmaker evolution, rather than Darwinian evolution, to create a more all-encompassing dichotomy.

With that said, typically anything in biology which is deemed ateleological becomes an ad hoc extension of Darwinian evolution, so it's little more than a petty semantics issue.

Further, the claim is that blind watchmaker Darwinian evolution is demonstrably true, which still makes the claim that watchmaker evolution (intelligent design) is unfalsifiable an illogical statement.

Allow me to suggest that "blind watchmaker evolution" sounds to me like it has great potential to be a straw man fallacy. Of course, that will depend on precisely how you define it. So please define it precisely.

 

[Jared Jammer]

Allow me to suggest that "blind watchmaker evolution" sounds to me like it has great potential to be a straw man fallacy. Of course, that will depend on precisely how you define it. So please define it precisely.

It's Richard Dawkins' term, not mine, so if you don't like it, blame him, not me. Personally, I think it's a good term which creates a clear distinction in the debate.

Watchmaker Evolution: Any variation of evolution which posits that a directing intelligence is responsible for the history of life's development.

Blind Watchmaker Evolution: Any variation of evolution which posits that life's development is the result of blind, non-intentional mechanisms and/or forces (random mutations, etc.).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Were you home schooled in logic? Just curious.

^This.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's Richard Dawkins' term, not mine, so if you don't like it, blame him, not me. Personally, I think it's a good term which creates a clear distinction in the debate.

Watchmaker Evolution: Any variation of evolution which posits that a directing intelligence is responsible for the history of life's development.

Blind Watchmaker Evolution: Any variation of evolution which posits that life's development is the result of blind, non-intentional mechanisms and/or forces (random mutations, etc.).

The more I hear about Dawkins, the more he annoys me.
"Blind watchmaker evolution" seems best suited to describe a divine creator who uses
evolution &/or abiogenesis as the tools to create the diversity of life we observe.
(Such a "god" strikes me as a pretty reasonable belief....not for me, but respectable.)
The secular view of the non-intentional mechanism of evolution is better described as
a stochastic process with a fitness function.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's Richard Dawkins' term, not mine, so if you don't like it, blame him, not me. Personally, I think it's a good term which creates a clear distinction in the debate.

That may help explain your expectations.

You seem to be assuming that the clash between ID and Evolution involves a choice of dogmas. Such is not the case.

 

[Jumi]

There doesn't seem to be any real reason to assume design. The two aren't on equal ground.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There doesn't seem to be any real reason to assume design. The two aren't on equal ground.

Except of course that the organisms appeart to be a an efficiently integrated whole.

With many independent and simple decisions one would expect to see much more "rubbish" which natural selection has not selected out yet.

 

[metis]

There simply is not one iota of objective evidence that suggest that "intelligent design" is likely, but the evidence for the ToE is absolutely overwhelming, even though we don't really know how it all started. There's definitely hypothetical room for theistic creation, but it's certainly not a gimme.

 

[Augustus]

Every single time an origin of life researcher attempts to demonstrate abiogenesis, he's simultaneously attempting to falsify intelligent design. Thus, Intelligent Design is one of the most tested ideas in science. That it's not yet been falsified doesn't mean it's unfalsifiable

What would it take to falsify ID?

Even if you demonstrate 100% that there was no discernible pattern behind evolutionary mutations, this would not demonstrate that there was no 'intelligent designer' behind them. You can disprove young earth creationism, but not the idea that God is behind evolution. This doesn't mean there is any evidence that God is behind it though.

Anyway, would it not paint your god in a better light if you said 'God created the world and allowed evolution to be random', rather than 'God consciously decided to create tsetse flies, filarial nematode worms and bot fly larvae and thought they should feast mostly on poor African children'?

 

[Jared Jammer]

There simply is not one iota of objective evidence that suggest that "intelligent design" is likely, but the evidence for the ToE is absolutely overwhelming, even though we don't really know how it all started. There's definitely hypothetical room for theistic creation, but it's certainly not a gimme.

That the foundation of all life on Earth is a literal programming language, for starters.

 

[Mycroft]

If Intelligent design is real, why is everything so very poorly designed? Top of the list being human beings?

 

[Twilight Hue]

. . . Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Why? Logic 101.

They're opposing answers to the same question, thus, any test for one will inherently test the other.
Any evidence for one will be evidence against the other.
Any proof of one will be proof against the other. proving one will falsify the other (and vice versa).

When Darwinists say we can't falsify the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't prove biology is the product of blind nature.

When Darwinists say we can't prove the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't falsify the claim that biology is the product of blind nature.

The only reasonable conclusion is that either both are science, or neither is science.

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.

Look in a microscope.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What would it take to falsify ID?

Even if you demonstrate 100% that there was no discernible pattern behind evolutionary mutations, this would not demonstrate that there was no 'intelligent designer' behind them. You can disprove young earth creationism, but not the idea that God is behind evolution. This doesn't mean there is any evidence that God is behind it though.

Anyway, would it not paint your god in a better light if you said 'God created the world and allowed evolution to be random', rather than 'God consciously decided to create tsetse flies, filarial nematode worms and bot fly larvae and thought they should feast mostly on poor African children'?

It is categorically a subjective issue what the agency of any decision is. Also for people we cannot see anything in the brain which makes the decision turn out the way it does.