Can ID be disproven?

[Taffer]

When looking up speciation, it seems that broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, and wild mustard are darned good examples that might be worth studying. I knew they were closely related, but I didn't realize that they might actually be capable of cross-pollination. Broccoli and cabbage? Known common ancestor, possibly in historical times? Who knew?

IIRC broccoli, couliflower and cabbage come from the same plant, in a similar way that great danes and mastiffs come from the same animal.

 

[Meadmaker]

IIRC broccoli, couliflower and cabbage come from the same plant, in a similar way that great danes and mastiffs come from the same animal.

So I read. Apparently, a type of wild mustard, of all things. But a Great Dane and a Mastiff are really, really, similar. I look at them both and I see dogs. Nothing difficult to explain there.

But Broccoli and cabbage? It seems to me that is a great example of speciation with radical morphological change associated, and all within a very short time period. It isn't just a case of fruit flies that don't think each other are sexy any more. I wonder if anyone has studied how much difference there is, genetically, between brocolli, cabbage, and their wild mustard ancestors.


A word on the scientific method.

Observation 1: That thing looks like it was designed for a purpose.
Observation 2: That thing is so complicated, it couldn't have come together by chance.

Hypothesis: That thing really was designed for a purpose.

Experiment: Let's see if we can see anything that complicated that comes together by random processes guided by natural selection.

Theory: Those complicated things that look like they were designed demonstrate the handiwork of one or more designers.

Now, the experiment hasn't been completed. In fact, there are some experiments that would tend to suggest that it is possible to put together very complex things randomly, which tends to cast doubt on the hypothesis. However, none of the experiments done to date are definitive in this regard. Therefore, ID is an unconfirmed hypothesis.

As such, talking about it in science classes doesn't seem far fetched to me, as long as it is taught as what it is, an unconfirmed hypothesis. Meanwhile, teaching the age of the Earth as confirmed hypotheses seems appropriate. And teaching the mechanisms of evolution as confirmed hypotheses seem appropriate.

With respect to Dover, Pennsylvania, I am leaning to the view that the resolution is very bad, for two reasons. First, it has some inaccurate portions in the manner in which it characterizes evolution. Second, it shouldn't be necessary. Science teachers should be free to talk about any unconfirmed hypotheses they want to. They can't teach "God created the Earth" because that would be asserting something that can't be confirmed. But they ought to be able to teach, "Some people think that this particular structure is too complicated to be explained by natural selection. Most scientists disagree. However, to date, there is no conclusive evidence either way."

A note on the word "random". I spent a great deal of time in graduate school struggling with courses that involved "random variables" and "random processes". Those classes were really hard, but by any definition I used in any of my classes, evolution is a random process. Why the knee jerk reaction against the word "random"?

 

[Taffer]

There are from the species Brassica oleracea, which includes such foods as Cabbage, Brussels Sprouts, Broccoli, Kohlrabi, Cauliflower and Kale. See here.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Can they digest nylon and only nylon? Or can they digest long organic compounds? Have these little cells evolved the ability to digest nylon, or did they have it all along, but there was no nylon lying around to digest. Could they digest, for example, spider silk?

I believe it was a frame shift mutation that allowed it to digest nylon when it could not before. The resulting gene isn't able to digest carbs.

Now, the experiment hasn't been completed. In fact, there are some experiments that would tend to suggest that it is possible to put together very complex things randomly, which tends to cast doubt on the hypothesis. However, none of the experiments done to date are definitive in this regard. Therefore, ID is an unconfirmed hypothesis.

Dembski's goal was to confirm the hypothesis by logical analysis, not experimentation. After all, what sort of experiment could he perform? So No Free Lunch is his attempt at a logical proof of complex specified information. It fails. Meanwhile, we see "irreducibly complex" objects evolve in nature and in computer models.

As such, talking about it in science classes doesn't seem far fetched to me, as long as it is taught as what it is, an unconfirmed hypothesis. Meanwhile, teaching the age of the Earth as confirmed hypotheses seems appropriate. And teaching the mechanisms of evolution as confirmed hypotheses seem appropriate.

How is it less far-fetched than teaching the Santa Claus hypothesis?

~~ Paul

 

[Iacchus]

A note on the word "random". I spent a great deal of time in graduate school struggling with courses that involved "random variables" and "random processes". Those classes were really hard, but by any definition I used in any of my classes, evolution is a random process. Why the knee jerk reaction against the word "random"?

Well, look at it this way, if things change, the rules have to already be set in place that allow them to do so. And what else could that possibly mean, except that the rules have always been set in place? Which is to say, everything was scripted beforehand and, that nothing occurs by chance (or random). While I think the problem here, is that people tend to confuse the complexity of the issue with the overall picture.

 

[Mercutio]

Well, look at it this way, if things change, the rules have to already be set in place that allow them to do so.

Why do you presuppose that this is the case? Why assume that there are causal rules? I know that you confuse descriptive rules and proscriptive rules; is that the confusion this time as well? "Things change" does not, in itself, logically imply that there are any proscriptive rules at all.

And what else could that possibly mean, except that the rules have always been set in place? Which is to say, everything was scripted beforehand and, that nothing occurs by chance (or random).

It could also mean that you are confused about the application of the word "rules" again.

While I think the problem here, is that people tend to confuse the complexity of the issue with the overall picture.

No, I pretty much think the problem is your lack of understanding of descriptive rules.

 

[Meadmaker]

How is it less far-fetched than teaching the Santa Claus hypothesis?

~~ Paul

We have extremely good evidence that says Santa didn't put those toys in my kid's stocking. Do we have equally good evidence that God did not arrange the DNA in my kid?

 

[clarsct]

DO we have ANY evidence that Santa did put toys in the stockings, or that god, any damned god you care to name, has so much a lifted a FINGER in human affairs whatsoever?

A shred? A clue? Anything at all?

No.

And I disbelieve in both for that one particular reason.

Once again, if you postulate an Intelligent Designer, then the burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders. It isn't up to me to prove you wrong.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What Clarsct said. But in addition:

We have extremely good evidence that says Santa didn't put those toys in my kid's stocking. Do we have equally good evidence that God did not arrange the DNA in my kid?

If by evidence that Santa didn't do it, you mean that you have an alternative explanation, then, likewise, we have an alternative explanation for evolution.

~~ Paul

 

[Meadmaker]

DO we have ANY evidence that Santa did put toys in the stockings, or that god, any damned god you care to name, has so much a lifted a FINGER in human affairs whatsoever?

A shred? A clue? Anything at all?

No.

And I disbelieve in both for that one particular reason.

Once again, if you postulate an Intelligent Designer, then the burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders. It isn't up to me to prove you wrong.

Burden of proof? It's an interesting concept this "burden of proof". The burden of proof is on someone who is trying to convince someone else.

In the case of evolution vs. ID, on whom is the burden of proof? I hope it isn't on either, because they have both failed.

And keep in mind that guided evolution is a form of ID. If you prove the age of the Earth, and you prove the mechanism of DNA mutation, genetic recombination, and natural selection, you still haven't disproven ID.

The claims of ID that are subject to scientific examination relate to the probability that complex structures with an identifiable purpose could arise without guidance by intelligence. Until that probability can be computed or demonstrated, you haven't met the "burden of proof" to say that evolution could proceed as an unguided random process. Can you compute that probability? I've never seen it done. Therefore, what you have is two hypotheses competing for attention, neither of which has been confirmed experimentally.

There is a point that bears repeating. Our side, which is the skeptical side, of which I am a member, is losing ground. Fewer people accept evolution today than did 30 years ago. Why?

The last few messages in this thread demonstrate why we are losing. Belief in ID is not like belief in Santa Claus. For the thick-headed among you, that's because Santa Claus is not a viable alternative explanation for the appearance of toys in my kid's Christmas stocking. We know how those toys got there.

We don't know how the Earth got there, and how carbon atoms got together with their hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen friends and started developing advertising campaigns and the internet. If someone chooses to believe that God put them those atoms together, that's a perfectly logical explanation, although it is one that lacks evidence.

So when someone says that belief in ID is like belief in Santa, those people who believe ID know that this fight isn't just about science. It's also about philosophy and religion, and they know that the other side doesn't have any respect for them. That makes them nervous, and they fight back.

To combat that, if you are scientist, you have to stay strictly within the realm of what science can prove or disprove. Some people say that certain structures are too improbable to have originated through an unguided random process. I cannot prove them wrong at this time. Therefore, it's a viable scientific hypothesis. As scientists, you shoud be able to say, "It is my opinion that this hypothesis is ridiculous, but I can't prove that." When people fail to say that, it is obvious to many that the debate isn't about science vs. religion, it's about what brand of religion.

 

[Roboramma]

The claims of ID that are subject to scientific examination relate to the probability that complex structures with an identifiable purpose could arise without guidance by intelligence. Until that probability can be computed or demonstrated, you haven't met the "burden of proof" to say that evolution could proceed as an unguided random process.

One point that makes me skeptical of this idea (and there are plenty of other reasons) is that all those complex structures seem to be adaptive. That is, their "purpose" is to promote the reproductive success of individuals bearing the genes that built them.
The is true of every complex structure that we understand, with (perhaps) a very few exceptions such as vestigial organs, which are also explained by evolution.
There is nothing that has a purpose that we know of that isn't explained by the theory of evolution. A complete understanding of how it evolved isn't necessary.

I mean, would it make sense that an intelligent designed designed everything to look exactly like we'd expect it to look if it came to be that way without an intelligent designer, but rather through natural selection?
(Note, if evolution is true we should even expect complex structures whose evolutionary paths we wouldn't have figured out yet. After all, it's a complex process stretching back billions of years and we've only had about 150 years to study it).

To combat that, if you are scientist, you have to stay strictly within the realm of what science can prove or disprove.

To be fair, I think this statement should be "within the realm of what science can offer evidence for or against. Science might be able to disprove things, but proof is an elusive dream.

Some people say that certain structures are too improbable to have originated through an unguided random process. I cannot prove them wrong at this time. Therefore, it's a viable scientific hypothesis.

Only as much as the hypothesis that the earth came into existence 5 minutes ago, exactly as it is, or that gravity is run by fairies. Why do I suggest that? Simply because these are also things that we cannot disprove. But I wouldn't call them valid scientific hypothesis, unless there were some way to test them.

As scientists, you should be able to say, "It is my opinion that this hypothesis is ridiculous, but I can't prove that." When people fail to say that, it is obvious to many that the debate isn't about science vs. religion, it's about what brand of religion.

Actually I think it's more about what science actually is. If science accepted everything that cannot be disproven as equally valid, it wouldn't be science any more. It wouldn't be able to go anywhere.
Far from making science a religion, the fact that it works only with evidence makes it capable of speaking of things that religion does not.

Does this mean religion is false? No. Does it mean that ID is false? No. It means it's not scientific, just as the theory of evolution shouldn't be considered religious, ID shouldn't be considered scientific. At least not until it has anything to offer science.

If ID could show that something actually was too complex to evolve, or that it didn't (for example, a fruit fly gives birth to a Caterpillar), then it might be time to look at it further. But until then it's just someone's vague musings. All well and good, but not science until there's actually some evidence for it.

Is the theory of evolution indestructible? No. Does it mean god doesn't exist? No. But it's an incredibly well supported theory and its the only one that offers an explanation of the evidence we have available.

 

[hodgy]

Well, look at it this way, if things change, the rules have to already be set in place that allow them to do so. And what else could that possibly mean, except that the rules have always been set in place? Which is to say, everything was scripted beforehand and, that nothing occurs by chance (or random). While I think the problem here, is that people tend to confuse the complexity of the issue with the overall picture.

So you are a determinist Iacchus?

 

[wastepanel]

These conversations always remind me of this comic whose name escapes me. Basically, he said:

"Do you know the male seahorse has the babies? I bet you there's some stubborn scientists out there that started this. "You see that one...that's the male seahorse." "Question-why is the male seahorse having a baby?" "Uhhh....the males have the babies."

 

[Iacchus]

So you are a determinist Iacchus?

In terms of all that is natural, yes.

 

[Roboramma]

In terms of all that is natural, yes.

So what isn't natural?

 

[Iacchus]

So what isn't natural?

Let me put it this way, I believe that free will is the cause, of which deteminism is the effect. In fact, I believe that free will is the origin of everything. However, the only way free will can operate and thus be maintained, is by means of determinism. Or else what is there? Without determinism, there would be no way to define free will. There would be no expression of it. So in effect, everything must have a deterministic "ending."

So basically, we've just defined two dualistic elements, in which there must be two separate "realities" (realms) to accomodate it. The one reality where free will reigns, what we would otherwise deem spiritual, and the other reality where determinism reigns, what we would otherwise deem natural. So, currently we live in the natural world, and are governed by determinism. Yet when we die, and pass on into the spiritual world, we become spirits, and are ruled by free will.

I know it's a bit oversimplified, but it should give you the general idea.

 

[hodgy]

Let me put it this way, I believe that free will is the cause, of which deteminism is the effect. In fact, I believe that free will is the origin of everything. However, the only way free will can operate and thus be maintained, is by means of determinism. Or else what is there? Without determinism, there would be no way to define free will. There would be no expression of it. So in effect, everything must have a deterministic "ending."

So basically, we've just defined two dualistic elements, in which there must be two separate "realities" (realms) to accomodate it. The one reality where free will reigns, what we would otherwise deem spiritual, and the other reality where determinism reigns, what we would otherwise deem natural. So, currently we live in the natural world, and are governed by determinism. Yet when we die, and pass on into the spiritual world, we become spirits, and are ruled by free will.

I know it's a bit oversimplified, but it should give you the general idea.

Why do you not apply your determinist logic to your spiritual realm? I am not implying that it should have the same physical laws as your natural realm but don't you agree that its logic should still be consistent?

 

[clarsct]

Basically, Meadmaker, what Roboramma said.

With a slight addition:

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. Some people choose to claim that there was an intelligent designer. I am skeptical of this claim. I ask for proof. I hear 'well, prove me wrong!'. It is not up to me to prove them wrong. It is up to them to provide evidence. I am tempted to discount ID via Occam's Razor.

But that's more of a 'rule of thumb' than a logical argument.

I also ask that they make their arguments without mentioning Evolution. A good theory should stand on its own.



Why are more people believing in ID? Because people like Behe who call themselves 'scientists' are confusing the issue. We need to stick to our guns. ID does not predict, it teaches us nothing. It is not science.

 

[davefoc]

I have had thoughts along the lines meadmaker expressed in his opening post.

The fact is that most things are not provable or disprovable to an absolute certainty. Isn't there some wording that ID'ers and evolution believers could agree on that expresses this concept. I am uncomfortable with the idea of a public school being in the position of forcing a curriculum on individuals that advocates a view that so many people are so strongly opposed to.

Suppose this was ID statement that was put in the front of a biology text book:

This book explains the development of living organisms by a process of mutation and natural selection. The views in this book relating to evolution, mutation and natural selection reflect current mainstream scientific ideas about these issues. There are alternative views about the development of living organisms than the ones put forth in this book. In particular some people believe that the nature of life is such that some form of intelligent design is required to explain it. Theories relating to intelligent design as an explanation for the nature of living organisms are not discussed in this text book.

Would ID'ers accept this statement (or a similar one) as adequate? Would evolutionary believers accept this statement (or a similar one) as an acceptable intrusion into a science text book? Would this statement pass constituitional muster?

Interestingly (at least to me) my Catholic wife has no trouble with this at all. ID is religion and she doesn't want any part of it in the class room.

 

[Mercutio]

Suppose this was ID statement that was put in the front of a biology text book:



Would ID'ers accept this statement (or a similar one) as adequate? Would evolutionary believers accept this statement (or a similar one) as an acceptable intrusion into a science text book? Would this statement pass constitutional muster?

I, for one, would not find it acceptable. Substitute a similar argument for Gravity, and see how silly it sounds. The very fact that attention is drawn to this particular theory, instead of the scientific use of theories in general, renders it an attack on natural selection. Historically, that attack is based in religion. That statement is not intended to be a science lesson, but a religious attack on science.