• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Can ID be disproven?

davefoc said:
Is there any similar kind of statement that you would find acceptable?
Click to expand...
I posted a bit too early before--I wanted to say that I think it is very noble of you to be trying to find middle ground here. I am giving thought to whether a statement of any sort would work.

"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. That is the purpose of a textbook, and as such reflects the purpose of your education. If this offends you, tough. If your sensibilities are so delicate that you take conservative conclusions based on overwhelming evidence as a personal affront, please pass the plate, take up a collection, and buy a freakin' clue. It is not personal. In evolution, as in every other area of science, we simply follow the evidence."

Ok, I don't think that one would help. But it made me feel better.
 
davefoc said:
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?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I'd accept that statement as it doesn't really offer anything of value to the science course.

One statement that I think might make it in (perhaps incorporating it with your wording), would be something along the lines of "the theory of evolution makes no metaphyical claims as the existence or attributes of God. It is a scientific theory relating to the development through time of the life forms of the planet earth, and offers niether assumes nor denies any role played by God."
Of course that's poorly worded, but I think you get the point - evolution isn't relgion. As, I think, Meadmaker seems to be trying to point out, it's possible that God did play a role in the process of evolution. There is no evidence for this, however, and as such God does not play a part in the theory of evolution.

Niether, though, does the theory suggest that god didn't play a role, it just doesn't account for that role because it has no evidence to base such accounting upon.

Now I'm not sure that would satisfy ID people, but it seems to get the basic point across - understanding evolution doesn't mean you have to be an atheist. I think at the least it should appeal to the middle ground - religious people who might feel threatened by the apparent implications of evolution.
 
I think the Roborama statement, or something similar, would do a very good job of placating a lot of people Of course, not all ID supporters would like it, because some of them are also creationists. However, that isn't the point. I don't think many people who read this forum are concerned about the feelings of creationists or intelligent design supporters anyway.

The Dover, PA school board wanted to put forward something related to the claims of intelligent design, though. If we wanted to specifically mention that theory, but remain on firm scientific ground, we could make a statement like this:

"the theory of evolution makes no metaphyical claims as the existence or attributes of God or any other spiritual entities. It is a scientific theory relating to the development through time of the life forms of the planet earth, and offers niether assumes nor denies any role played by God. It reflects the judgement of mainstream science about the development of life, and is supported overwhelmingly by scientists.

There is a theory referred to as "intelligent design" that asserts that there is evidence from the study of biological structures that those structures were the product of the work of a designer, and were not the product of a random process. This hypothesis lacks experimental evidence, but neither has it been disproven. It should be noted that this theory is not inherently incompatible with evolution and some supporters of this theory also believe in evolution.

Because this theory is not supported by the scientific mainstream, and because there is no specific experimental evidence to support this theory, this theory is not presented in a biology textbook. Some books have been written on the subject, and they are available through bookstores and might be available through your library."

So what good would such a statement do for the skeptical side of the debate?

First, it would make a point that evolution does not exclude the existence of God, which all by itself would take away a lot of the creationist thunder.

Second, it would point out that the claims of intelligent design are not actually incompatible with evolution. This would divide a lot of the supporters of ID. It is my belief that ID gets a lot of support only because there is a perception that scientists are pushing "godless" dogma on young minds. We should make it clear that we are not.

Meanwhile, it makes a true and correct statement about the state of scientific knowledge about evolution and intelligent design.

Does anyone disagree with that?
 
clarsct said:
ID does not predict, it teaches us nothing. It is not science.
Click to expand...


It does predict. Go back to my fruit fly experiment. We are going to subject fruit flies to severe pressure in an isolated population.

The theory of evolution predicts that, given time, those fruit flies will change into something that isn't a fruit fly, and has certain anatomical structures that are well suited to survival in that environment.

The "theory" of intelligent design predicts that any change to the fruit flies will not involve the development of new structures that appear to have been designed.

Example of one type of change: I imagined that we are going to give the flies plenty of food, but it will be in strange boxes. The boxes will have screen coverings, with mesh that just barely allows the fruit flies to get their little mouths to the food. After some generations, small-mouthed fruit flies will dominate in the cages. Then, we will make the boxes different, so that the food is actually at the bottom of short tubes. The flies can only get the food if they have very small mouths, but which can stick out from their face a bit.

The theory of evolution says that if I do this often enough, and allow enough time for evolution to work, that eventually, I will end up with a fruit fly with a long, narrow, almost mosquito-like mouth. Or maybe a better analogy would be a fruit fly with a long, narrow, mouth, similar to the long, narrow, beak of certain Galopogos Island Finches.

The theory of ID says that that will never happen because those finch beaks were designed.

There's your prediction. The experiment hasn't been run. (Has it? In some form?) If that's the case, then isn't it a valid scientific hypothesis?
 
I think I'd be fine with something like that meadmaker.

I think some ID'ers wouldn't like this line:
and because there is no specific experimental evidence to support this theory,
Click to expand...

Some of them go nuts with these convoluted explanations of how the natural world is consistent with their interpretations of biblical inerrancy. I think they would claim that their rationalizations of biblical stories and the natural world is science. I think that's crap, but I don't think a compromise is possible if you evilutionists insist on calling it crap.
 
Meadmaker said:
The theory of ID says that that will never happen because those finch beaks were designed.
Click to expand...
In which case I think they've missed the whole point. Evolution is nothing more than adaptation by design ... both internally as well as the dictates of the surrounding environment.
 
Iacchus said:
In which case I think they've missed the whole point. Evolution is nothing more than adaptation by design ... both internally as well as the dictates of the surrounding environment.
Click to expand...

Evolution has nothing to do with design, Iacchus.
 
Iacchus said:
In which case I think they've missed the whole point. Evolution is nothing more than adaptation by design ... both internally as well as the dictates of the surrounding environment.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. Evolution is nothing more than the changes in allele frequencies over time.

The theory suggests that there are a few mechanisms that cause those changes - for example differential reproduction, which itself might be caused by the adaptivity (is that a word?) of the phenotypic effects of a specific allele to the current environment relative to other alleles that are found in the gene pool.
 
Meadmaker said:
The "theory" of intelligent design predicts that any change to the fruit flies will not involve the development of new structures that appear to have been designed.
Click to expand...
It makes no such prediction at all. There is a lot of mumbling about it, and clearly some IDers would like it to be the case, but that's it.

ID makes the claim that the evolution of irreducibly complex biological mechanisms is highly unlikely. There is no empirical evidence for this. Dembski attempts a logical proof for the flagellum, but fails.

As an example, does the recently evolved ability of bacteria to digest nylon involve a designed structure?

~~ Paul
 
Meadmaker said:
The theory of evolution predicts that, given time, those fruit flies will change into something that isn't a fruit fly, and has certain anatomical structures that are well suited to survival in that environment.
Click to expand...
Although this also seems to me what evolution implies -- predicts? -- do our resident evolutionists agree? Or if not, why not?

The "theory" of intelligent design predicts that any change to the fruit flies will not involve the development of new structures that appear to have been designed.
Click to expand...
Paul says 'no'. I tend to say 'yes'; that would to me be a prediction that ID should make.


Paul said:
As an example, does the recently evolved ability of bacteria to digest nylon involve a designed structure?
Click to expand...
No, but do you suggest the bacteria are no longer bacteria? And you say 'evolved', I say 'mutated', and in the presence of nylon, survives better than strains that don't digest nylon. And, was this feature found 'in the wild' or forced in the lab?
 
Taffer said:
Evolution has nothing to do with design, Iacchus.
Click to expand...
Really? So how is it that man evolved to the point where he can create his own designs? Are you saying that these are not a part of the evolutionary process, or what? If not, then where the heck did they come from? :jaw-dropp
 
Last edited:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
...
As an example, does the recently evolved ability of bacteria to digest nylon involve a designed structure?
Click to expand...

Apparently, not every one shares your view that nylon digesting bacteria are evidence for evolution:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

The article was well above something that I could easily understand, but I think the basic idea is that the bacteria had some genetic material all along that could digest nylon. The genetic material preexisted in plasmids that were designed into the bacteria so that it could adapt to different environments.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
If you are saying that ID supporters have missed the point, I doubt you will find much in the way of argument on this board.
Click to expand...
Which, is why I say the only possible argument they could maintain, is that evolution is guided ... which, of course is a reflection of its design.
 
Iacchus said:
Really? So how is it that man evolved to the point where he can create his own designs? Are you saying that these are not a part of the evolutionary process, or what? If not, then where the heck did they come from? :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

Well, since this can evolve without any design, prove to me that evolution was designed.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
It makes no such prediction at all.
Click to expand...

I suppose we should ask someone who believes in ID what predictions it makes.

I noted in another thread in the politics forum that a lot of people who criticize ID haven't read anything written by an ID supporter, only by ID detractors. The same is true of evolution's detractors. Most of them only read anti-evolution material.

My understanding of ID is that it predicts no complex structures can evolve by random processes. Applying that to the fruit flies, they would say that maybe bigger flies or smaller flies might come about, but they would still be fruit flies, with no new complex structures.

P.S. The stuff about nylon-eating bacteria requires some study. Response to come, someday.
 
Meadmaker said:
My understanding of ID is that it predicts no complex structures can evolve by random processes. Applying that to the fruit flies, they would say that maybe bigger flies or smaller flies might come about, but they would still be fruit flies, with no new complex structures.
Click to expand...
Oh, well, you see you need to get away from the notion that true randomness exists. That way you can allow for all facets of evolution and still say that it was designed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom