Can ID be disproven?

[Meadmaker]

What are we afraid of?

The teaching of something that isn't scientific in a science class.

Is that really it?

Let's suppose that we all believe in evolution, and we want the next generation to do the same.

Consider two approaches to teaching the subject in high school biology.

Approach 1: Class, in this course you will be taught evolution. It is the only scientific theory about the origins and devlopment of life on Earth. The others are ignorant superstition akin to belief in Santa Claus. Now, chapter 1:

Approach 2: In this class, we will discuss different concepts of the origin and devleopment of life on Earth. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains all the known evidence. (Insert evidence here.) It is accepted by almost all scientists.

There is another hypothesis called "intelligent design". The people who support this believe that life exists and was created by a designer, presumably God. They point to something called "irreducible complexity" as support for their claims. However, their claims are disputed by many scientists. Here are some of the claims and counterclaims made by ID proponents and detractors.

Meanwhile, one particular form of ID is creationism. That theory asserts that the world and life were created in accord with a literal account of Genesis. That has several problems as a scientific theory, such as....

No one has yet devised an experiment that can definitively prove Evolution or ID as competing alternatives. Indeed, some supporters of ID also believe in evolution.


Which of those two approaches would be more effective in educating young people about evolutionary theory in such a way that they are more likely to see why it is accepted by so many scientists. I think approach number 2 is more effective. The only downside is that you would have to allow the possibility in discussing number 2 that God exists. I don't see that discussion as a downside myself. I'm not afraid to let students make up their own minds about science or about God.

 

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker, are you saying basically that God might cause certain mutations that would not be beneficial to the organisms affected by them, but then keep them alive, allow them to reproduce, etc,

Yeah. That's it. And that is not my personal belief today, but it is a belief I once held, and I don't think it is inconsistent with any element of science known today.

Two issues. One, would that mutation be possibly or likely to have occured without god's intervention? What I mean is do we need god for the mutation or just to keep the gene around in the gene pool once it's there?

Just to keep the gene around in the gene pool. If a structure had this property of so called "irreducible complexity", it wouldn't benefit the organism until complete. So, we'll assume God keeps the organism around until His plan for that organism is complete.

Two, how does god keep the organism alive? For instance, if the mutation caused the organism to be blind, does god give it a good shove if it's about to walk off a cliff, or is he more subtle than that?

You'll have to ask God. Seriously, though, back when I was a Christian, I figured he was sometimes, but not always, more subtle than that. But it really doesn't matter.

If so, does he do it simply by altering the environment in some way?

That's what I believed when I was a Christian.

 

[Meadmaker]

Couldn't God, the almighty and magnificent creator of every corner of the universe, simply have planned in evolution from the get-go?

Sure. The ID crowd would say, though, that that wasn't possible because of the "irreducible complexity" argument.

Until that argument can be conclusively disproved, you can't disprove ID.

If I was God, I'd be insulted by this poke-a-little-here-and-there crapola that his believers make up just so they can rag on evolution, and by proxy, on naturalism and atheism.

Back when I believed that "crapola", I thought it was ragging on naturalism and atheism, but not on evolution.

 

[Meadmaker]

Um... no it doesn't.

Umm...yeah. It does. (Theistic evolution as a means of intelligent design does predict the same fossil record as the theory of punctuated equilibrium.)


The things you spoke of weren't relevant to the "theory" of theistic evolution.

 

[Taffer]

What are we afraid of?

Is that really it?

Yes.

Let's suppose that we all believe in evolution, and we want the next generation to do the same.

Consider two approaches to teaching the subject in high school biology.

Approach 1: Class, in this course you will be taught evolution. It is the only scientific theory about the origins and devlopment of life on Earth. The others are ignorant superstition akin to belief in Santa Claus. Now, chapter 1:

Approach 2: In this class, we will discuss different concepts of the origin and devleopment of life on Earth. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains all the known evidence. (Insert evidence here.) It is accepted by almost all scientists.

There is another hypothesis called "intelligent design". The people who support this believe that life exists and was created by a designer, presumably God. They point to something called "irreducible complexity" as support for their claims. However, their claims are disputed by many scientists. Here are some of the claims and counterclaims made by ID proponents and detractors.

Meanwhile, one particular form of ID is creationism. That theory asserts that the world and life were created in accord with a literal account of Genesis. That has several problems as a scientific theory, such as....

No one has yet devised an experiment that can definitively prove Evolution or ID as competing alternatives. Indeed, some supporters of ID also believe in evolution.


Which of those two approaches would be more effective in educating young people about evolutionary theory in such a way that they are more likely to see why it is accepted by so many scientists. I think approach number 2 is more effective. The only downside is that you would have to allow the possibility in discussing number 2 that God exists. I don't see that discussion as a downside myself. I'm not afraid to let students make up their own minds about science or about God.

It's fine if ID is taught as one objection to evolution, which has been answered. Not as another scientific hypothesis, which it is not. A science class is for science, not theology. Perhaps something akin to "some people think evolution is false, because of X. Here is how X is explained".

 

[Taffer]

Umm...yeah. It does. (Theistic evolution as a means of intelligent design does predict the same fossil record as the theory of punctuated equilibrium.)


The things you spoke of weren't relevant to the "theory" of theistic evolution.

ID has no explanations for anything. It predicts, because it can accept some of the evolutionary processes, but it makes no explanation as to the observed phenomenon. The only possible answer is "because God wanted it so". This is akin to the reason that Copernicus' theory of heavenly motion is a better theory then Ptolomy's theory, despite making the same predictions.

 

[joesson]

Hello all. I'm new to this forum.

There seems to be alot of brouhaha over ID and evolution. In my mind there really is no debate. Evolution best explains the evidence we have. Proponents for ID(this is just creationism with a new hat) want to force the proverbial square peg in the round hole.

Could another theory come along and knock evolution on its backside, something that could BETTER explain the evidence? Perhaps, but it won't come from ID.

 

[Taffer]

Hello all. I'm new to this forum.

There seems to be alot of brouhaha over ID and evolution. In my mind there really is no debate. Evolution best explains the evidence we have. Proponents for ID(this is just creationism with a new hat) want to force the proverbial square peg in the round hole.

Could another theory come along and knock evolution on its backside, something that could BETTER explain the evidence? Perhaps, but it won't come from ID.

EXACTLY.

Welcome to the forum, mate!

*Hands joesson a beer*

 

[joesson]

Thanks Taffer, always nice to be welcomed with a brew.

 

[Tricky]

Umm...yeah. It does. (Theistic evolution as a means of intelligent design does predict the same fossil record as the theory of punctuated equilibrium.)


The things you spoke of weren't relevant to the "theory" of theistic evolution.

I take it then that the ID that you are speaking of does not include the concept of "irreducible complexity"?

Theistic evolution as you seem to be describing it says, "Everything happens exactly as evolution says, except God started it." You can't even say God intervenes without proposing a way to test for His intervention. Otherwise, one is just saying "He intervenes, but it is impossible to detect." And of course, if it is impossible to detect, then it is pure faith and has no business in a science class.

 

[drkitten]

Yeah. That's it. And that is not my personal belief today, but it is a belief I once held, and I don't think it is inconsistent with any element of science known today.

No, it's the "hopeful monsters" argument all over again. I don't want to get into a lot of epistemological twittering about whether science produces "knowledge" -- but modern evolutionary theory has pretty firmly rejected the idea of "hopeful monsters" on the basis of what the practitioners consider good and sufficient evidence.

In this regard, Behe is partly right. His discussion of ID and "irreducible complexity" basically means that to produce an irreducibly complex system would the creation and survival of hopeful monsters, and is therefore impossible under current evolutionary theory. No evolutionary biologist would disagree with this statement. He further claims that such systems exist, which is where he and the mainstream biologists part company. But a well-documented and provable "hopeful monster" would actually constitute a refutation of Darwinian evolution.

So on the one hand, neo-Darwinians say that hopeful monsters can't exist. Behe says not only that they can, but that they must (and thus is the hand of God proven). "Theistic evolution" -- simply saying "evolution happened, but it was directed by God" -- can't reconcile this difference. Either God produces hopeful monsters in the course of directing evolution, in which case theistic evolution is detectably different from neo-Darwinism, or else God does not, in which case, theistic evolution is detectably different from Behe.

Writ large, this is an example of some of the problems with the Big Tent version of ID/creationism. The proponents can't get their story straight,. This strongly suggests to me that even they don't believe their story, and are just telling what they regard as plausible fibs.

 

[Meadmaker]

I take it then that the ID that you are speaking of does not include the concept of "irreducible complexity"?

Theistic evolution as you seem to be describing it says, "Everything happens exactly as evolution says, except God started it."

The answer to the second part is correct. Theistic evolution is totally and completely indistinguishable from plain old evolution.

ID by means of theistic evolution would throw in that "irreducible complexity" argument. But ID by means of theistic evolution would predict the same fossil record as punctuated equilibrium. Why? Punctuated equilibrium is more than just the statement that evolution happens at a non-constant rate. It also asserts, at least in most forms of the discussion, that rapid evolution tends to occur within small groups of individuals isolated from the general population. (Which is why the Faroe Island House Mouse evolves, but the plain old House Mouse stays the same.)

ID by means of theistic evolution would assert that God deliberately isolates groups of individuals he wants to tinker with, resulting in the same fossil records as punctuated equilibrium.

Now, in order to prove that the "irreducible complexity" argument is hogwash, and therefore the intelligent design aspect of the theory should be discarded, then you have to demonstrate that a highly complex structure whose component parts do not (currently) serve an indendent function, can evolve.

Can you provide experimental evidence that such a thing has ever happened? Unless the answer is yes, then you haven't disproved the hypothesis.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Now, in order to prove that the "irreducible complexity" argument is hogwash, and therefore the intelligent design aspect of the theory should be discarded, then you have to demonstrate that a highly complex structure whose component parts do not (currently) serve an indendent function, can evolve.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Before I need to embark on this wild goose chase, someone has to define irreducibly complex in a careful manner that doesn't change every couple of years. Next, someone has to demonstrate that at least one biological object is IC according to the definition. Note I said demonstrate, not merely claim. Only then do I need to address the issue.

Biologists don't have to jump every time someone takes another potshot from the refrigerator box.

~~ Paul

 

[Meadmaker]

Hello all. I'm new to this forum.

There seems to be alot of brouhaha over ID and evolution. In my mind there really is no debate. Evolution best explains the evidence we have. Proponents for ID(this is just creationism with a new hat) want to force the proverbial square peg in the round hole.

Welcome joesson.

Whether or not there is a debate in your mind is not very relevant. There is a debate in the general public, and it isn't clear who is winning that debate.

One important thing to note is that ID is very specifically not just creationism with a new hat. All creationists are ID supporters, but all ID supporters are not creationists. Opponents of ID can repeat that line all they want to, but it doesn't help their cause. When debating someone, telling him that he believes something that he does not believe is unlikely to be persuasive.

I, personally, think our side, the evolutionist side, would be more persuasive if we pointed out the compatibility of ID and evolution. They are completely compatible, except for the notion of "irreducible complexity". If we were to simply say that this was an untested and unverified claim, and move on from their, a lot of ID supporters would embrace evolution, because it would no longer conflict with their religious beliefs, and ID would not conflict with science.

It is asserted that ID and creationism persist because the supporters are too stupid to see the truth. Everyone who has ever lost an argument can say that happened because his opponent was too stupid to figure out the right answer, but I think we should look to find the fault with our arguments, not with our opponents.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I, personally, think our side, the evolutionist side, would be more persuasive if we pointed out the compatibility of ID and evolution. They are completely compatible, except for the notion of "irreducible complexity". If we were to simply say that this was an untested and unverified claim, and move on from their, a lot of ID supporters would embrace evolution, because it would no longer conflict with their religious beliefs, and ID would not conflict with science.

Oh laugh out loud. In Kansas they are trying to change the definition of what science is. Do you think they would stop this foolishness if only we pointed out that the notion of god is compatible with everything as long as god has no affect on those things?

You do realize that god controls the market, right?

~~ Paul

 

[drkitten]

The answer to the second part is correct. Theistic evolution is totally and completely indistinguishable from plain old evolution.

.... which makes it totally and completely distinguishable from ID, because ID relies upon the existence of hopeful monsters.

Now, in order to prove that the "irreducible complexity" argument is hogwash, and therefore the intelligent design aspect of the theory should be discarded, then you have to demonstrate that a highly complex structure whose component parts do not (currently) serve an indendent function, can evolve.

Can you provide experimental evidence that such a thing has ever happened? Unless the answer is yes, then you haven't disproved the hypothesis.

This is a straw-man. Evolutionary theory does not predict that "highly complex structure whose component parts do not (currently) serve an indendent function, can evolve." Actually, as phrased, it's an easy demonstration. The components parts may not currently serve an independent function, but they may have in the past, and as the need for the parts vanished, the parts were co-opted to a different function. We've seen this in the development of the lung (from a swim bladder), which is obviously more useful to a land animal.

But I will assume that you really meant to make the weaker claim that "highly complex structure whose component parts do not and have never served an indendent function, can evolve." As a matter of fact, modern evolutionary theory specifically rejects that idea. That's the very definition of "hopeful monster."

Modern evolutionary theory also specifically rejects the idea that any such structures exist. There are no hopeful monsters.

So your argument is like saying "my anti-evolution theory says that fire-breathing dragons can't evolve. Can you provide experimental evidence that they can? Unless the answer is yes, then you haven't disproven my theory." First show me that fire-breathing dragons exist, and then we can discuss their origins.

In either case, "proving a negative" is notoriously difficult in science. I don't know offhand how one could prove that no hopeful monsters have ever existed. I don't know offhand how one could prove that no irreducibly complex structures exist in nature (especially since the definition of "irreducibly complex" changes every time someone looks seriously at the current defintion and as a result Behe gets pwned), but neither do I know offhand how one could prove that no fire-breathing dragons exist.

What I do know is that every time we've looked for dragons, or monsters, or irreducibly complex systems, we've come up dry.

The basic problem is that Behe's "irreducibly complex systems" are even less credible than fire-breathing dragons. They're both supported by absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and at least the definition of "dragon" doesn't change every ten minutes.

But the real question is how long we need to keep looking for something that isn't there?

 

[drkitten]

I, personally, think our side, the evolutionist side, would be more persuasive if we pointed out the compatibility of ID and evolution.

I agree entirely. Lying is almost always more persuasive than the truth.

I don't, however, recommend it.

 

[joesson]

Welcome joesson.

Whether or not there is a debate in your mind is not very relevant. There is a debate in the general public, and it isn't clear who is winning that debate.

One important thing to note is that ID is very specifically not just creationism with a new hat. All creationists are ID supporters, but all ID supporters are not creationists. Opponents of ID can repeat that line all they want to, but it doesn't help their cause. When debating someone, telling him that he believes something that he does not believe is unlikely to be persuasive.

I, personally, think our side, the evolutionist side, would be more persuasive if we pointed out the compatibility of ID and evolution. They are completely compatible, except for the notion of "irreducible complexity". If we were to simply say that this was an untested and unverified claim, and move on from their, a lot of ID supporters would embrace evolution, because it would no longer conflict with their religious beliefs, and ID would not conflict with science.

It is asserted that ID and creationism persist because the supporters are too stupid to see the truth. Everyone who has ever lost an argument can say that happened because his opponent was too stupid to figure out the right answer, but I think we should look to find the fault with our arguments, not with our opponents.

Thanks for the welcome Meadmaker.

I would hesitate to say that ID and evolution are compatible. One is psuedo-science, the other is not. And I may be incorrect in saying that ID is creationism with a new hat, but the similarities are too hard to ignore: A god or a higher power/intelligence created everything.

When I said there really is no debate between creationism/ID and evolution I didn't mean that people weren't debating about it, I meant that there is truth and there is wishing-it-weren't-truth. It's like debating whether or not touching a live wire with your bare hands will hurt you. People may have opinions on things, but evolution BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION is not an opinion.

 

[Mojo]

I, personally, think our side, the evolutionist side, would be more persuasive if we pointed out the compatibility of ID and evolution. They are completely compatible, except for the notion of "irreducible complexity".

And, of course, except for the small issue of whether organisms can develop as a result of mutation and natural selection, or whether they have to have been designed by God some unspecified designer.

and If we were to simply say that this was an untested and unverified claim, and move on from their, a lot of ID supporters would embrace evolution, because it would no longer conflict with their religious beliefs, and ID would not conflict with science.

I've yet to see an IDer whose religious beliefs didn't include the idea that the universe and everything in it was created by God. Evolution by natural selection conflicts with this idea because it implies that particular organisms can arise without having been created by God.

 

[Meadmaker]

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Before I need to embark on this wild goose chase, someone has to define irreducibly complex in a careful manner that doesn't change every couple of years. Next, someone has to demonstrate that at least one biological object is IC according to the definition. Note I said demonstrate, not merely claim. Only then do I need to address the issue.

Biologists don't have to jump every time someone takes another potshot from the refrigerator box.

~~ Paul

Before you teach evolution, do you have to demonstrate that at least one biological object has evolved? Good luck.