Intelligent Design: Science or not?

[Runlikethewind]

Well lets consider the argument of irreducible complexity, and lets consider the bacterium flagellum. Behe’s argument in this is that the flagellum would have no function unless all of its “parts” were present and therefore it could not be the result of mutation and selection. Now I believe that this has been shown to be false. But that is not the question is it? The question is not about irreducible complexity being true, it is about it being science. And just by declaring it to be false obviously necessitates that it is falsifiable, which is one main criteria.

Agreed

But the first problem is that in showing that irreducible complexity is falsifiable does not show that intelligent design is falsifiable. It doesn’t seem to matter how often irreducible complexity is shown to be false it does not seem to have any effect on intelligent design. Intelligent Design is still not falsifiable.

And falsifiablity is not the only requirement. Irreducible complexity is based on a number of logical fallacies. First is the assumption that if mutation and natural selection cannot account for something then design is must be the answer, this is clearly a false dichotomy. Even if we could find a valid example of irreducible complexity it would not be evidence of Intelligent Design.

I am beginning to realize this. Even if irreducible complexity succeeded in showing that natural selection didn’t work it doesn’t prove that intelligent design is the only other possible mechanism or driving force. As pointed out to me in another thread it is a false dichotomy to say if not natural selection then ID. There could be another explanation.

Next consider the evidence that is suggested for irreducible complexity. The only evidence that they have supplied, or could supply, is simply a lack of evidence. They suggest that there is no sufficient explanation for how something came about. That is the crux of the theory, a lack of explanation. It is just as 9/10ths says, an argument from ignorance. Science must be before anything else about a search for knowledge, for understanding. Intelligent Design (and irreducible complexity) is at its core based on lack of understanding. In order for Intelligent design to be accepted we have to not know and not understand how something could have come to be.

Even if I were to agree that IC was an argument from ignorance, which I am not convinced it is, not knowing something is at the heart of science. We don’t know how things came to be. Natural selection is the best explanation we have but some folks are not satisfied with that and so they are trying to come up with an alternative hypothesis. Part of proving that hypothesis, that is ID, is showing that the other hypothesis, that is natural selection, fails. That goes with any competing hypothesis, they are going to try and prove the others failures and weaknesses. Now as it has be said, just showing that natural selection does not prove ID they would still have to prove that to be the case which would be very difficult at the very least and probably impossible. But in the end I don’t think that the use of logical fallacies makes it unscientific from a methodological perspective. Bad science, yes but science none the less. They have proposed a hypothesis and they are trying to prove it. Victor puts this very well

When I think "scientific" I don't immediately assume it has any merit or that it is even popular among scientist. I simply take it as someone attempting to use the same methods to prove it. Whether they succeed or not is irrelevant to whether it's "scientific". Know what I mean?

Think about it. In all of Behe’s writing and all of his talks has he even once suggested how the bacterial flagellum could have come about? Has he ever suggested a mechanism for how it was constructed, how these many “parts” came together? If he has please share it with me. But I think you will find that he has not. All he has suggested is how it could not have come about.? If at some point someone were to propose a theory as to how these mechanism could have come about that supports the idea of design, then we would have a theory to talk about. But as it is now, we don’t even have a theory! That is what I find so amazing, it is all smoke but no fire. They don’t even have a theory!

Yes, he suggests that some form of intelligence was involved. That is his hypothesis. Now he needs to find a way to test that which is were the difficulty comes in. we know that an intelligence of some sort could be capable of building complex structures but he needs a method of how that intelligence actual worked. But that just goes to the poor quality of his hypothesis in that it is difficult to test. But, methodologically speaking he is following the scientific method which in my eyes means he is doing science. Scientists have always come up with hypothesis that are difficult if not impossible to test and have had to wait for new technologies to emerge which would allow them to test them. Behe just need some kind of intelligence detector which is what his fellow IDer William Dembski is working on. Now I am not convinced by Dembski’s argument either but they have devised an alternative and they are working on a way to prove it. Failed or not it’s still science to me.

It is all fine to tell me that some kind of intelligent agent intended something to come about, but how did that intention come to fruition. No proponent of intelligent design has even begun to propose a process other than evolution, mutation and natural selection. Until someone can suggest a theory for a mechanism that supports the Intelligent design there can be no way to even look for evidence of intelligent design.

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Which only says to me that it is a failed science just like other failed sciences like alchemy or eugenics. But I still consider those science as well. Failed bad science, completely unsubstantiated and rejected but science none the less. Why? Because they followed a methodology of science to make claims and attempt to prove those claims.[/font]

 

[Runlikethewind]

I'll break it down as simply as I can:

Science is mankind's attempt to understand and describe the rules that govern the natural world that we live in.

Science taken in a very narrow way, much narrower than I am proposing.

As such, ID falls outside the scope of what science can address. Science cannot now (and never will) be able to test supernatural phenomena. God, by definition, is beyond the reach of science.

I agree with this statement if we mean science in the narrow way that it appears most people are taking it. If we take science in the broader methodological sense that I take it to be then we can even consider theology as a science; a different kind of science but science none the less. Hypotheses are made regarding the nature of God and those hypothesis are then researched and supported by evidence. The evidence used involves scripture, tradition, and maybe even a little common experiential data thrown in to boot. It has as its prerequisite faith in divine revelation in some form or another, but methodologically speaking theology is a kind of science.

 

[Runlikethewind]

From what I have seen in this thread I have come to the conclusion that it is my understanding of what is science that is giving me all the trouble on this question. Given the narrow understanding of what science is that is apparent through these posts I would support the claim that ID is not scientific. This narrow type of science that we are talking about here I would further specify as being strictly natural science. ID is not a matter of natural science. I think that science in general has a much broader meaning and in this broader sense we can include ID as being scientific and we can even include theology as being a type or kind of science. Will everyone agree with my broader definition of science? Probably not. What are the benefits of seeing science in this broader way that I argue for? That is a good question which will require further thinking on my part. In the end it may all just amount to a label. Labeling something science or not doesn’t really change the nature of that thing. Calling intelligent design science doesn’t all of a sudden make it a good theory.

 

[fantome profane]

Even if I were to agree that IC was an argument from ignorance, which I am not convinced it is, not knowing something is at the heart of science. We don’t know how things came to be. Natural selection is the best explanation we have but some folks are not satisfied with that and so they are trying to come up with an alternative hypothesis. Part of proving that hypothesis, that is ID, is showing that the other hypothesis, that is natural selection, fails. That goes with any competing hypothesis, they are going to try and prove the others failures and weaknesses. Now as it has be said, just showing that natural selection does not prove ID they would still have to prove that to be the case which would be very difficult at the very least and probably impossible. But in the end I don’t think that the use of logical fallacies makes it unscientific from a methodological perspective. Bad science, yes but science none the less. They have proposed a hypothesis and they are trying to prove it. Victor puts this very well

The conclusion of I.C. is based on nothing more than Behe’s claim that he can see no way for certain structures to come about. That is argument from ignorance.

You are right that ignorance is the starting place for science, from there we investigate, theorize, explain. We must never be afraid to say we don’t know. But you cannot base conclusions based on a lack of knowledge. If you could do that then what would be the point of investigation? That is what makes in unscientific, not just that it is based on a fallacy, but that if you accept this fallacy you end up with a theory that requires no evidence and is unfalsifiable.

I applaud the attempt to try to come up with an alternative explanation, what I find objectionable is the pretence that they already have. The I.D. movement has shown a clear preference for propaganda over research.

we know that an intelligence of some sort could be capable of building complex structures

We do? I certainly don’t know that. Do you have some knowledge that an intelligence could be capable of building the kind of complex structures that constitute living organism without that intelligence first possessing these kind of complex structures. I don’t understand how anyone can claim to know that until they propose a theoretical method for how. When and if they propose a theoretical method then and only then can that proposition be evaluated.

But that just goes to the poor quality of his hypothesis in that it is difficult to test. But, methodologically speaking he is following the scientific method which in my eyes means he is doing science. Scientists have always come up with hypothesis that are difficult if not impossible to test and have had to wait for new technologies to emerge which would allow them to test them.

I just don’t see how he is following the scientific method. He is proposing a supernatural explanation that is immune to evidence and testing. And it is not a question of the technology available, he is proposing something that is just logically impossible to test. This is fine in philosophy, but it is not science.

Behe just need some kind of intelligence detector which is what his fellow IDer William Dembski is working on. Now I am not convinced by Dembski’s argument either but they have devised an alternative and they are working on a way to prove it. Failed or not it’s still science to me.

I am even more unimpressed with Dembski’s idea of specified complexity. The whole notion seems hopelessly circular. Specified is a synonym of intended. The premise of specified complexity and the conclusion of intelligent design are virtually identical. It was specified therefore it is intended therefore it was designed therefore it was specified.

Which only says to me that it is a failed science just like other failed sciences like alchemy or eugenics. But I still consider those science as well. Failed bad science, completely unsubstantiated and rejected but science none the less. Why? Because they followed a methodology of science to make claims and attempt to prove those claims.

No, it is so much worse than that. Alchemy proposed a mechanism, well several mechanisms for reaching their goal. These mechanisms failed which is what lead to alchemy being a failed science. The same with eugenics, it proposed a theory which could be examined and tested. And it failed. I.D. does not propose a mechanism or a theory which can be tested. I.D. does not follow the methodology of science, it follows the methodology of pseudo-science, which is to mask non-scientific ideas with the accoutrements of science.

 

[fantome profane]

What are the benefits of seeing science in this broader way that I argue for? That is a good question which will require further thinking on my part. In the end it may all just amount to a label.

As you ponder then possible benefits of this broader definition of “science” that would possibly include theology I hope that you will also consider the damage that such a broader definition could have not only to science, but to religion, philosophy, and theology.

 

[Runlikethewind]

The conclusion of I.C. is based on nothing more than Behe’s claim that he can see no way for certain structures to come about. That is argument from ignorance.
You are right that ignorance is the starting place for science, from there we investigate, theorize, explain. We must never be afraid to say we don’t know. But you cannot base conclusions based on a lack of knowledge. If you could do that then what would be the point of investigation? That is what makes in unscientific, not just that it is based on a fallacy, but that if you accept this fallacy you end up with a theory that requires no evidence and is unfalsifiable.

I see your point.

I applaud the attempt to try to come up with an alternative explanation,

As do I which must be one of the reasons that I am so reluctant to lambaste their efforts and label them as unscientific.

what I find objectionable is the pretence that they already have. The I.D. movement has shown a clear preference for propaganda over research.

I can see that.

We do? I certainly don’t know that. Do you have some knowledge that an intelligence could be capable of building the kind of complex structures that constitute living organism without that intelligence first possessing these kind of complex structures. I don’t understand how anyone can claim to know that until they propose a theoretical method for how. When and if they propose a theoretical method then and only then can that proposition be evaluated.

I was referring to intelligence in general. Human intelligence is capable of building al kinds of complex things including genetic manipulations. Its funny that you mention that we are not aware of any intelligence that is not already built from the very same complex structures that we are talking about building. That same thought was going through my mind. So the intelligence would have to be some non biologically complex intelligence which leads us inevitable to God/the supernatural/ the divine/ the inherently unscientific.
I feel rather stupid right now because I was thinking that it would not be a far thing to stretch or experience of human intelligence to say that if there were an intelligence with enough knowledge and power it would certainly be able to build complex structures. But is that any different from saying that we can stretch our observations of natural selection working to make small scale changes to say that it could be responsible, given enough time, to make those very complex leaps that we are talking about? No it is no different. It seems perfectly clear to me at this point that indirect evidence for an intelligence is simply not enough. There is no way that ID can avoid the fact that it must somehow show some kind non-biologically complex intelligence does exist. As you say and I think I am forced to agree

I just don’t see how he is following the scientific method. He is proposing a supernatural explanation that is immune to evidence and testing. And it is not a question of the technology available, he is proposing something that is just logically impossible to test. This is fine in philosophy, but it is not science.

I have always been favorable to looking at ID more as a philosophical theory than a scientific one anyway.

I.D. does not follow the methodology of science, it follows the methodology of pseudo-science, which is to mask non-scientific ideas with the accoutrements of science.

Well I think they have done a good job in doing so because they certainly have my mind all tied up in knots.

As you ponder then possible benefits of this broader definition of "science" that would possibly include theology I hope that you will also consider the damage that such a broader definition could have not only to science, but to religion, philosophy, and theology.

Believe me that has been foremost in my mind. At this point I seem to be able to come up with far more negative consequences than positive ones. Although in my own mind I might still retain this concept of science I think it might be best to just keep it to myself.

 

[fantome profane]

Although in my own mind I might still retain this concept of science I think it might be best to just keep it to myself.

lol :biglaugh:

 

[Runlikethewind]

You are a little confused. That is because (as I showed in the post above this one), when I asked Victor how he reconciled his embrace of ID (and his disavowal of evolution) with his Catholicism, he replied "I can't".

My confusion was over your question and not Victors response. I could not understand why you where asserting that he embraced ID when he clearly stated in an earlier post that he was not an IDer. That was where my confusion was, even before Victor responded. I took his response to mean that he could not reconcile that which he did not hold.

Whatever it is, that is what has led to the confusion. As you can see (assuming that you actually read my posts), I did not assert that Victor supported ID - rather, I ASKED him if he supported ID.

I have tried to read most all the posts here, yours included. I may have missed something but your question appeared to me to assert that you thought Victor already embraced ID and that you were asking him not if he supported ID but how he reconciled his belief in ID with his faith. Nowhere did I see you ask him if he accepted ID. But like I said I might have skimed over it and missed it.

I would ask that you at least take the time to read and digest my posts before putting words in my mouth.

That is only fair. I will certainly try to be more diligent in the future. I did not mean to come across in a negative way I was honestly confused. But like you say, maybe I could have avoided that confusion if I had read through all the posts and not just post a response in haste.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

RunLikeTheWind -

I'm sure you probably misunderstood my question, due to overlooking the original part of my post. If Victor has clearly stated (in this thread) that he supports evolution and rejects ID, then I have missed that as well.

As I read his posts in the last couple of pages, it appeared to me that he was espousing ID. That is why I asked him the question, as opposed to stating it positively.

If you have misread my posts, now that we understand each other, I see no harm having been done, other than a bruised ego, or unfounded umbrage. For my part in this, I apologize.

I would address one item of your larger, more encompassing definition of science, though.
The danger in using your own unique definition of "science" is that the term itself becomes muddled, and much more difficult to debate. In essence, any time we redefine ANY word, as opposed to using the more universally accepted definition, we run this risk of equivocation, and render all meaning virtually useless.

 

[Willamena]

I'm sure that's how it's supposed to work in practice, but the scientific community has been running amok with a dogmatic naturalized epistemology it's not even funny. Such a thing does play a role in how they interpret the cosmos.

Perhaps the misunderstanding stems from realizing that science *is* a "dogmatic naturalized epistemology." That's what it is; embrace it. To be anything else would be "not science".

Science requires naturalism, because there is no means to measure the supernatural. Science requires measurement, data, definition, form. Science is dogmatic in that it cannot sway from this attitude/philosophy without losing all its strength.

 

[logician]

I think Dawkins does a good job of analyzing the "god exists" question in a scientific fashion.

 

[Runlikethewind]

now that we understand each other, I see no harm having been done, other than a bruised ego, or unfounded umbrage. For my part in this, I apologize.

Me too, apologies. No harm no foul.

I would address one item of your larger, more encompassing definition of science, though.
The danger in using your own unique definition of "science" is that the term itself becomes muddled, and much more difficult to debate. In essence, any time we redefine ANY word, as opposed to using the more universally accepted definition, we run this risk of equivocation, and render all meaning virtually useless.

That is certainly true, but defenitions and words to change, language does evolve. So I don't see a problem inherent in trying to change the univerally accepted definition of a word if I see that a different usage or understanding would be better. Is this a time for such a movement? Probably not. With science I think it best to just keep the universal usage and try to find another term that would express my broader understanding of science.

That being said, using the common usage of the term science, I would have to admit that ID fails to meet the requirements to be called scientific.

 

[fantome profane]

That is certainly true, but defenitions and words to change, language does evolve. So I don't see a problem inherent in trying to change the univerally accepted definition of a word if I see that a different usage or understanding would be better. Is this a time for such a movement? Probably not. With science I think it best to just keep the universal usage and try to find another term that would express my broader understanding of science.

Might I suggest simply using the word “philosophy”, which would encompass science, theology, ethics, metaphysics, etc. This way you could still use the word science to mean what it means. Science really is a very limited way of looking at the world, and I think this is what bothers many people and drives some people to try to change it, to broaden it. But when people try to do that I think that they miss the whole point. It is just those very limits of science that give science its strength. It is the limits of science that make it a useful tool. Trying to broaden it pasts its limits makes it useless.

On the other hand accepting that science has these absolute limits does not mean that we must accept those limits for ourselves.

 

[Quiddity]

Perhaps this is where the confusion comes in. I thought this thread was a discussion about ID and evolution. I didn't realize that you had taken the path less traveled.

It developed once others began to respond to a comment of mine.

Again, you seem to be suffering from the delusion that science will ultimately bend to your will, and begin to accept your position (whatever it is, or shifts to be) simply because you wish it to be so.

Let me know how that works out for you.

I haven’t the foggiest idea why you continue to persist on this. I pointed out that a bias exists and somehow this turned into me wanting to bend it.

... and yet, you still managed (somehow) to have missed my admission that I did not understand you. Hang in there. Some of the words are multi-syllabic, but they can be understood with a modicum of effort.

Sorry, I didn’t know……” its definitely possible”……was an admission. I figured you were only entertaining the possibility of it and that was it.

Then you should have written "I can't, because I don't embrace ID". That would have saved quite a bit of bandwidth.

Geesh, go back and read post# 53. I clarify right after you responded to my “I can’t”. Talk about reading skills and following a discussion.

Like your aide de camp (runlikethewind), you seem to need to put words in my mouth.

This àààThen you went on this regurgitating ramble that is so often seen of "you dumb religious people don't understand".
Was not talking about you actually saying that word for word but rather something “that is so often seen”

If you consider my posts regurgitation, that isn't a problem. Feel free to skip them, if they cause you heartburn. I promise that I won't be offended.

*shrug*……seen it a thousand times in this forum alone. I don’t care for it, but it’s not going to stop me from have a civil discussion with you.

On the other hand, I didn't use the term "dumb religious people". While I do question your ability to grasp the purpose, scope, limitations, and goals of science, I do not lump all religious people in with you. You seem to have the need to be part of a group. That's fine, but don't expect me to force others to associate with you. They will choose to do that on their own (or not).

Question away...

 

[logician]

ID does meet the requirements to be called magic.

 

[Quiddity]

Nonsense. Just like if you are not playing soccer you don’t have to listen to the soccer ref, if you are not playing “science” then methodological naturalism has nothing to do with it. If you chose to believe in a supernatural explanation for whatever, that is your business. And science has nothing to say in the matter. If you want to play religion, or philosophy, or mysticism or basketball, that is no problem. But if you want to play soccer you have to play by the rules of soccer, and if you want to play science then you have to play by the rules of science. The question in this thread is “is intelligent design science” and if it doesn’t play by the rules of science then it is not science, it is not playing the game of science. It might be playing some other game, that is fine. If you are not claming to be conducting science, then you don’t have to follow methodological naturalism.

But I.D. makes the claim to be science and therefore it should either follow the rules or :redcard:

Methodological Naturalism is not just a procedural protocol but also an epistemology. To say that its interest is only in science is simply not true. I’m not saying it’s a big giant conspiracy, but one can find several articles on epistemology naturalized in the net to catch your curiosity.


Anyways, like I said in an earlier post, we should probably get back on topic now.

 

[fantome profane]

Methodological Naturalism is not just a procedural protocol but also an epistemology. To say that its interest is only in science is simply not true. I’m not saying it’s a big giant conspiracy, but one can find several articles on epistemology naturalized in the net to catch your curiosity.


Anyways, like I said in an earlier post, we should probably get back on topic now.

O.k. I think I understand you now. I was never saying that naturalism existed only in science. I agree that this epistemology exists beyond science. But you are right, that is off topic for this thread.

What I am saying is that methodological naturalism must exist in science. And if you have an objection to naturalism being applied beyond the realm of science that might be an interesting thread, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is a necessary and defining part of science. Intelligent Design violates the principle of methodological naturalism and that is just one of the many reasons that it is not science. That is the topic of this thread.

(this is one of those very rare instances where I am not off topic. :angel2

 

[gnostic]

(this is one of those very rare instances where I am not off topic.

)

Rare? Wow, then you're unique individual.

I can't help myself, so I'm often off the beaten track....LIKE RIGHT NOW.

 

[gnostic]

ID does meet the requirements to be called magic.

:sorry1: ...but I'm afraid that ID would also failed in the magic requirement.

What it will win is, in misdirection.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

ID does meet the requirements to be called magic.

DANG!!

I just frubaled you in another thread. This is one of the classic posts of all time. I'd put this on a level with many of Jay's witticisms.

Killer.