Can ID be disproven?

[Tricky]

Dembski asserts that such systems cannot evolve in small successive steps that are not part of a goal directed process, but that isn't part of the definition. Actually, his assertion is somewhat more complicated than that, but that's an ok approximation.

If Dembski's assertion were correct, then we should see no extinctions, especially those preceded by long, dead-end strings of evolution. For example, trilobites evolved greatly and expanded widely, but they all died, leaving no successors. I do not see how those eons of evolution followed by extinction could be called part of a directed process. It also ignores the well-established knowledge that most mutations are either benign or harmful. If it were directed, then most or all mutations would be beneficial.

Of course, this all gets swept away with the comment, "there is a 'director' but we don't know his plan." This is a cop-out pure and simple. How can you tell the difference between a plan that no-one can understand versus no plan?

 

[drkitten]

How can you tell the difference between a plan that no-one can understand versus no plan?

How can you tell the difference between a language that no one can understand versus no language?

There are lots of inscriptions out there that have never been translated because no one (now) knows the language in which they were written. You're setting the bar too high here. There are lots of things out there that we don't understand.

The problem isn't that the IDer's plan is not understandable. It's that it's not even detectable, because every proposed method for detecting design has so far proven to be unreliable and impossible to apply in practice.

 

[Meadmaker]

What he seems to be saying here is that the components appear gradually, but (presumably) have no function until assembled. Is this what you would expect to see in theistic evolution?

That's what I would expect to see in non-theistic evolution as well. More accurately, I would expect those components to serve a different function until they were assembled. Feathers kept dinosaurs warm, and then all of a sudden a small glider, or something, "discovered" they also kept him in the air longer.

But now, after some evolution, the birds feathers are part of an irreducibly complex system to keep the bird in the air. If you pluck the feathers, the bird falls.

Dembski asserts that such a thing can't come about through non-directed evolution. Want to prove him wrong? We've been over that path before.

 

[Iacchus]

But now, after some evolution, the birds feathers are part of an irreducibly complex system to keep the bird in the air. If you pluck the feathers, the bird falls.

What does this say about birds which are land bound though or, can barely fly?

 

[Iacchus]

How can you tell the difference between a language that no one can understand versus no language?

Do you mean like the laws of physics?

 

[Meadmaker]

The problem isn't that the IDer's plan is not understandable. It's that it's not even detectable, because every proposed method for detecting design has so far proven to be unreliable and impossible to apply in practice.

And so, if anyone were to assert that Dembski had proved his case, they would be wrong.

But, if they asserted that it was a possibility, what then? Dembski's argument, and he is correct, iz that every proposed model for evolution is also undetectable. We can't say, "Here is a possible sequence that turns a swim bladder into a lung." The closest we can get is to show a swim bladder, and then a thing that is somewhat more lunglike, and then a lung, and say that the intervening steps are simply lost to us.

Meanwhile, what would be the harm in presenting Dembski's paper to a group of 14 year old biology students? I, personally, think that the effect of exposing them to the controversy in a classroom setting would prompt discussion and allow students to see the weak points in the theory. They would also see the weak points in evolution, but it might prompt a few of them to study biology so they can either patch up the weak points, or hope to completely disprove evolution by further exposing the weak points. Either way, they are doing science.

As it is, what happens is evolution as presented. Someone asks a question related to ID, and the answer is either, "That's pseudoscience." or "The government won't let me talk about that." I think that drives students toward acceptance of ID. They are never exposed to actual analysis of the theory.

People really do believe ID. If you want them to stop, you will have to talk about it in a classroom.

 

[Meadmaker]

What does this say about birds which are land bound though or, can barely fly?

That ostriches don't have an irreducibly complex flight system.

 

[Iacchus]

That ostriches don't have an irreducibly complex flight system.

What about chickens then, or turkeys, which can only fly short distances at a time? Obviously, it does show a connection between birds which can fly and, those which are flightless.

 

[Tricky]

But now, after some evolution, the birds feathers are part of an irreducibly complex system to keep the bird in the air. If you pluck the feathers, the bird falls.

The evolution of feathers probably had nothing to do with flight. They became adapted to that purpose (by natural selection), much as did the hollow bone structure of birds. This is exactly what would be predicted by evolution.

Xu, Zhou, and Prum (2001) describe filamentous skin structures in fossils of Sinornithosaurus millenii, a non-avian theropod dinosaur that lived about 125 million years ago. The fossils were found in north-eastern China. The filamentous structures show two characteristics that are otherwise considered to be unique to bird feathers: filaments joined in a basal tuft, and filaments joined in series along a central filament. They resemble contour feathers, and no flight feathers are apparent. In another find at the same location, a nearly complete specimen has been found of a small theropod dinosaur, the body, limbs and tail of which is densely covered with feather-like structures (Ji et al, 2001).

So if other feather-like structures are found in pre-flight bird precursors, will ID then be disproved? No, because ID proponants will simply move the goalposts.

Just as Dawkins completely debunked the idea of the irreducible complexity of the eye in his book The Blind Watchmaker, all other examples of IC will be debunked. Some were debunked even before they were proposed, but the ID'ers simply had not done the proper research.
​

 

[Meadmaker]

The evolution of feathers probably had nothing to do with flight. They became adapted to that purpose (by natural selection), much as did the hollow bone structure of birds. This is exactly what would be predicted by evolution.

And also by theistic evolution. And since theistic evolution is compatible with ID...

Nothing to see here.

 

[drkitten]

And so, if anyone were to assert that Dembski had proved his case, they would be wrong.

But, if they asserted that it was a possibility, what then?

Well, then we would discuss what the expected consequences of Dembski's "hypothesis" are.

If Dembski's model were truly compatible with theistic evolution and with natural selection, then
there would be no philosophical reason to give Dembski's hypothesis more than a passing glance,
because it predicts nothing that can't be predicted under a more parsimonious ontological framework. Occam's razor, in this case, would cut his throat.

On the other hand, Demski does make "predictions," although I hesitate to call them predictions, because, when phrased as simple declarative statements, they're not only untrue, but
have been known to be untrue for years and in some cases, decades.

Meanwhile, what would be the harm in presenting Dembski's paper to a group of 14 year old biology students?

Absolutely none, aside from lying to them, damaging their undersanding of science, epistemology, the nature of truth, and the moral responsibilities of teachers.

Why put them in school at all if you're not going to teach them?

As it is, what happens is evolution as presented. Someone asks a question related to ID, and the answer is either, "That's pseudoscience."

Good. They asked a factual question, and they get a factual answer. Or would you prefer, if they asked a question about why the sun appears to go around the Earth, that I tell them about Helios' chariot?

 

[drkitten]

And since theistic evolution is compatible with ID...

Do you think that if you repeat this statement often enough, it will suddenly become true?

ID is NOT compatible with theistic evolution. ID relies upon hopeful monsters, which theistic evolution denies. Dembski himself states that ID relies upon hopeful monsters. Behe himself states that ID relies upon hopeful monsters. Any "partial" (and by definition non-functional) precursor system to an irreducibly complex system is, by definition, a hopeful monster.

Natural selection and theistic evolution both deny the existence of hopeful monsters.

Do hopeful monsters exist or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[drkitten]

Do you mean like the laws of physics?

Q. What's the difference between the laws of physics and Iacchus' posts?
A. It's possible to understand the laws of physics.

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week....

 

[drkitten]

That's what I would expect to see in non-theistic evolution as well. More accurately, I would expect those components to serve a different function until they were assembled.

Which means you don't believe in ID, since "irreducible complexity" specifically denies this possiblity. (Read the Behe testimony in Dover.)

 

[Iacchus]

Of course, this all gets swept away with the comment, "there is a 'director' but we don't know his plan." This is a cop-out pure and simple. How can you tell the difference between a plan that no-one can understand versus no plan?

How can you tell the difference between a language that no one can understand versus no language?

Do you mean like the laws of physics?

 

[Iacchus]

Do you think that if you repeat this statement often enough, it will suddenly become true?

ID is NOT compatible with theistic evolution.

Except to say, that both facilitate the need for an Intelligent Designer ... in which case both are really variations of the same thing.

 

[Mojo]

That's what I would expect to see in non-theistic evolution as well. More accurately, I would expect those components to serve a different function until they were assembled.

In that case (i.e. if the components of the structure can have a function without the rest of the structure) the structure is not irreducibly complex.

 

[Tricky]

And also by theistic evolution. And since theistic evolution is compatible with ID...

Nothing to see here.

The idea of irreducible complexity is incompatable with evolution. So if your concept of theistic evolution includes IC, then it is most certainly not compatable with evolution.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You know, it's interesting. The conversations on ID here are just like the ones in the real world. They go round and round, definitions a-flyin', goalposts a-movin'. IDers hear criticisms and either ignore them or finagle the definitions of terms to accommodate them. There is no coherent theory to keep the definitions and claims reigned in.

It's as if all the big players in the ID movement are a bunch of trolls.

~~ Paul

 

[Iacchus]

I personally subscribe to the Cosmic Egg theory myself.