Can ID be disproven?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

[Analogy warning] I'm went home last night, one explanation of how I did it is "The theory of bus", an alternative theory is "The theory of car". This isn't meant to imply that everybody in the world went home last night according to only one of these theories (though in the ID/evolution case its probably true - guess which?).

But no one bothered to make up those stinking theories until they had at least one verified sighting of a bus and a car!

~~ Paul

 

[Meadmaker]

Shall I keep digging out quotes? There's three days of Behe's testimony alone, plus all the other writings.

That doesn't seem necessary, since you don't seem to understand them anyway.

Behe is using "Darwinism" to refer to undirected evolution. Behe believes in theistic evolution. Theistic evolution is compatible with ID.

The reference to "Pandas" describes the argument made in "Of Pandas and People", a book which he contributed to, but which, elsewhere in his testimony, he indicated he did not agree with in its entirety.

 

[Meadmaker]

Notice how I didn't even have to mention irreducible complexity in my ingenious summary of the entire ID debate.

~~ Paul

I think Behe's continued use of the term and emphasis of it clouds the debate. In his earlier writings (yes, I have read more of them in the course of this thread) he seemed to indicate that IC structures could not evolve via natural selection at all. In his later writings, as in Dembski's, he clarifies that such a structure couldn't evolve through a "direct Darwinian pathway", which is very close to saying without cooption. (It may actually be the same thing, which is what I thought when I first read it, but I'm not absolutely certain.)

At any rate, it is entirely possible to summarize ID without the use of the term "irreducible complexity". The whole summary really is, "We don't think it's very likely for all this stuff to be made without intelligent assistance." The rest is explanation.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The whole summary really is, "We don't think it's very likely for all this stuff to be made without intelligent assistance." The rest is explanation.

If only that explanation included a proof, they'd have something.

~~ Paul

 

[Tricky]

Behe is using "Darwinism" to refer to undirected evolution. Behe believes in theistic evolution. Theistic evolution is compatible with ID.

No evolution is compatible with ID if ID requires the concept of irreducible complexity.

So tell me, what are the differences between theistic evolution and undirected evolution (other than the assumption that it is guided)? How could anyone test whether evolution is theistic or undirected? If you can't tell the difference, what is the point of adding a level of complexity, i.e. a guider? If the science is exactly the same with or without the God, why add in the God?

 

[Tricky]

At any rate, it is entirely possible to summarize ID without the use of the term "irreducible complexity". The whole summary really is, "We don't think it's very likely for all this stuff to be made without intelligent assistance." The rest is explanation.

It sounds then that ID is based entirely on statistical analysis. Such analysis implies that they know all the variables and that all of their assumptions are correct (and many of them are more than a little questionable). As such, it is nothing but critique of evolution. Critiques are good. That is exactly what science should do. But a critique is not enough to qualify as a theory. For that, it must provide an alternate explanation that fits the evidence. ID does not even pretend to do that.

Still, I don't object to having evolution challenged. That is how we learn. What I object to is having a challenge called an "alternate theory".

 

[Meadmaker]

No evolution is compatible with ID if ID requires the concept of irreducible complexity.

So tell me, what are the differences between theistic evolution and undirected evolution (other than the assumption that it is guided)? How could anyone test whether evolution is theistic or undirected? If you can't tell the difference, what is the point of adding a level of complexity, i.e. a guider? If the science is exactly the same with or without the God, why add in the God?

The fruit fly experiment. Or something similar.

Put some organisms in a place where "Darwinism" predicts rapid evolution. See if they evolve. If they do, either God was unnecessary, or God is very predictable, in which case we can just call it natural law, and leave God out of it. Of course, the problem with that approach is that "rapid" is generally measured with respect to geologic time. Back several pages ago, when I suggested the fruit fly experiment, I posed it as an eccentric billionaire who could establish a foundation that would last at least several hundred years.

One of my reasons for starting this thread was to see if I had missed any evidence of this sort. I had googled on "speciation", and related word searches, but hadn't found anything remotely like real proof of significant evolutionary change that had been observed in a laboratory. The best I had seen were drosophila flies that didn't like to mate with each other. That isn't exactly firm evidence. I figured if such a thing had happened, I would hear about it. Well, I didn't. Until you can provide that, people will continue to believe ID.

Short of that, you could deal ID a severe blow if you gave an extremely detailed path by which one species evolved into another, documenting a series of genome modifications at the level of DNA molecules that could have caused the transformation. That is way beyond the limits of our knowledge right now, but I don't think it will always be so. Until then, Behe, Dembski, and others that come after them, will continue to pepper their papers with observations that none exist.

 

[Meadmaker]

It sounds then that ID is based entirely on statistical analysis.


Still, I don't object to having evolution challenged. That is how we learn. What I object to is having a challenge called an "alternate theory".

As best I can tell, that's all there is. And calling it "analysis" is generous. There are no actual numbers. It's more like conjecture. I would love, though, for a high school biology teacher to be able to discuss it, so that he could point out that it was actually an unverified hypothesis that did not actually contradict the findings of modern biology, genetics, biochemistry, or related fields.

 

[Tricky]

As best I can tell, that's all there is. And calling it "analysis" is generous. There are no actual numbers. It's more like conjecture. I would love, though, for a high school biology teacher to be able to discuss it, so that he could point out that it was actually an unverified hypothesis that did not actually contradict the findings of modern biology, genetics, biochemistry, or related fields.

LOL. Yeah, that would cover it. If we can limit ID to the obligatory 5-minute disclaimer as you have outlined, then I'm willing to compromise.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We could teach ID on the same day as Lamarckism, Lysenkoism, and morphic fields.

~~ Paul

 

[Meadmaker]

LOL. Yeah, that would cover it. If we can limit ID to the obligatory 5-minute disclaimer as you have outlined, then I'm willing to compromise.

5 minutes is not enough. If you do that, they'll think you are brushing them off. If I were a biology teacher, I would spend at least two days on the subject, examining the claims, looking for the evidence (which of course you won't find) and making a fair assessment of the claims. Of course, those two days would be mixed in with the two or three weeks of evolutionary theory, and in the end, the message would be, "So, we are absolutely certain that there is a mechanism that provides for evolution present in nature. Some people say that there is no way it could have happened without God's assistance, but that was based on statistical arguments, and they didn't supply the statistics. As such, their claims remain an unverified hypothesis, with no experimental support."

The way I see it, these kids are going to be voters in four years. It's worth the time to make sure they make a truly informed decision.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That might work if the science teacher was particularly good. And then, of course, there would be the science teachers who think ID is swell.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

That's true. And others worry about the school preaching the axiom of your faith 'the monism is material' to their children, that also being an assertion impossible to disprove.

 

[Tricky]

5 minutes is not enough. If you do that, they'll think you are brushing them off. If I were a biology teacher, I would spend at least two days on the subject, examining the claims, looking for the evidence (which of course you won't find) and making a fair assessment of the claims. Of course, those two days would be mixed in with the two or three weeks of evolutionary theory, and in the end, the message would be, "So, we are absolutely certain that there is a mechanism that provides for evolution present in nature. Some people say that there is no way it could have happened without God's assistance, but that was based on statistical arguments, and they didn't supply the statistics. As such, their claims remain an unverified hypothesis, with no experimental support."

The way I see it, these kids are going to be voters in four years. It's worth the time to make sure they make a truly informed decision.

That would be great, but something tells me that those school boards and parents who want ID to be taught in science class are not going to take kindly to having it demolished there. Their aim is to have ID refute evolution, not the reverse. I suspect that if it were taught as you suggest, the outcry would be immediate and furious.

They really don't want a comparison between the two, of if they do, they should be careful what they wish for.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That's true. And others worry about the school preaching the axiom of your faith 'the monism is material' to their children, that also being an assertion impossible to disprove.

Hmm. My kids have never come home talking about monism or materialism. Perhaps they are not good listeners. Or perhaps the teacher couldn't come up with a testable hypothesis to distinguish the various monisms, and so just gave up on the subject. You know teachers these days.

~~ Paul

 

[Meadmaker]

That would be great, but something tells me that those school boards and parents who want ID to be taught in science class are not going to take kindly to having it demolished there. Their aim is to have ID refute evolution, not the reverse. I suspect that if it were taught as you suggest, the outcry would be immediate and furious.

They really don't want a comparison between the two, of if they do, they should be careful what they wish for.

Ahh, but would it be demolished? And if so, how?

First, it wouldn't be "demolished" logically, because it cannot be disproven. You can show that it is an untested hypothesis, but you can't disprove it, at least not with our current level of knowledge.

Second, it's true they want it taught as an alternative to evolution, but how can that be? Its most prominent supporter, Michael Behe, is an evolutionist. It's time to educate ID supporters about what their "theory" really says.

I think it would be undermined by pointing out that 1) it isn't an alternative to evolution and 2) while it is a valid hypothesis, it is only an hypothesis.

Of course, there are teachers who will teach it uncritically. They will say that the statistical arguments of Behe et. al. are ironclad and that their is strong evidence of design in the universe. However, in order to do that, they will have to show the kids the arguments. The bright, unbiased, ones will see the flaws. Those with a with a will to believe will believe, regardless of what you tell them. At least the argument will be presented.

It all goes back to the question, "What do we fear?" Do we fear that our children, presented with the data, will follow a teacher, zombie-like, unable to make up their own minds. Maybe I should fear that, but I don't. But that's probably because my child is extraordinary in every way.<g> I just think there is more to fear from not presenting the data than from presenting the data, even if the presentation is biased. Maybe I'm naive.

 

[hammegk]

Hmm. My kids have never come home talking about monism or materialism.

Indeed, many never understand what they were taught, even unto death.

Perhaps they are not good listeners. Or perhaps the teacher couldn't come up with a testable hypothesis to distinguish the various monisms, and so just gave up on the subject. You know teachers these days.

Perhaps most teachers don't understand the implications of their teachings either, or if they do are proscribed from mentioning them.

It all goes back to the question, "What do we fear?" Do we fear that our children, presented with the data, will follow a teacher, zombie-like, unable to make up their own minds? .... I just think there is more to fear from not presenting the data than from presenting the data, even if the presentation is biased.

I just wanted to see that comment in bold type ...

 

[chipmunk stew]

Indeed, many never understand what they were taught, even unto death.

Perhaps most teachers don't understand the implications of their teachings either, or if they do are proscribed from mentioning them.

Look, most science teachers could do a better job at communicating three things about science:
--its nature as a mode of inquiry, rather than just a set of facts
--the boundaries of this mode of inquiry
--and the way its terminology differs in use (strict and formal) from the way the same words are used colloquially

But, hammegk, be honest. "The monism is material" is pure inference, not implication (much less assertion).

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Indeed, many never understand what they were taught, even unto death.

Ah yes, the curriculum of the sooper sekrit Materialist Monist Hegemonic Society.

I'll make you a deal. If you can offer me one experiment that we could run to distinguish the various forms of monism, or even monism and dualism, I will personally compose a letter to the science ombudsman at my kid's school.

~~ Paul

 

[sphenisc]

Ah, so you state that it --- wait, you didn't say anything.

How is it under that bridge, hmmm?

Meadmaker had stated

Did you read the Dembski quote talking about Behe? ID is not an alternative to evolution. At least according to Behe and Dembski.

Dr Kitten had stated

The idea of common descent does not go, in my view, so directly to the question of the purposeful arrangement of parts. But nonetheless, as a part of Darwinian theory, it is required much more for Darwinian theory.... Pandas is making a negative argument against common descent to show the plausbility to greater -- more greatly enhance the plausibility of the alternative of intelligent design

My suggestion was that there is a way of reconciling the these two statements, and in doing so it was intended to enhance the communication between these participants. I may be wrong; I may have failed in my intent. But it was not a delibrate act of trolling, indeed quite the contrary - and I reject your accusation entirely. Have a nice day.