Can ID be disproven?

[hammegk]

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

Indeed, with special attention to 'boundaries of this mode of inquiry'.

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

The assumption is tacit rather than explicit, and it should be made explicitly. It is an axiom -- not an inference, nor an implication -- but it certainly is an assertion.

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.

Why not just admit your axiom, like all axioms, is not subject to the scientific mode of inquiry?

 

[Tricky]

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.

Indeed if ID is compatible with evolution, then it merely adds the addendum "but God (or a director) did it", to all the evidence collected by science. As such, it may satisfy the needs of people who strongly desire to have a god involved, but unfortunately, it adds nothing but an extra layer which contributes nothing to the understanding of evolution. That is to say, Occam's razor should discard it as an unnecessary, if benign, complication.

 

[drkitten]

Theistic evolution is compatible with ID.

As has been pointed to you repeatedly, it is not.

ID requires hopeful monsters, theistic evolution excludes them.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why not just admit your axiom, like all axioms, is not subject to the scientific mode of inquiry?

Then what difference does it make which metaphysic my kids are (purportedly) brainwashed into? What mode of inquiry should we use to distinguish the various metaphysics, in the name of relaxing scientific hegemony? For that matter, what difference does it make to you which metaphysic you adopt?

How is this all not just idle chitchat?

~~ Paul

 

[sphenisc]

Indeed if ID is compatible with evolution, then it merely adds the addendum "but God (or a director) did it", to all the evidence collected by science. As such, it may satisfy the needs of people who strongly desire to have a god involved, but unfortunately, it adds nothing but an extra layer which contributes nothing to the understanding of evolution. That is to say, Occam's razor should discard it as an unnecessary, if benign, complication.

But not if the combination explains more of the observations than either does alone, Occam's razor only applies in cases of ... oh you know this already..

 

[Tricky]

But not if the combination explains more of the observations than either does alone, Occam's razor only applies in cases of ... oh you know this already..

I am unaware of any explanations that ID adds when combined with evolution. Could you give us a few examples?

 

[sphenisc]

I am unaware of any explanations that ID adds when combined with evolution. Could you give us a few examples?

The extra observations that ID would account for include organisms which are less well adapted to their natural environment than the ancestors from which the IDer(s) 'developed' them. This could alternatively be viewed as 'better adapted' to the artificial environment which exists as a result of the presence of an IDer(s).

[By IDer, I mean, of course, an intelligent designer, not a supporter of ID theory]

Does that answer your question? I may have picked it up wrongly.

 

[Meadmaker]

As has been pointed to you repeatedly, it is not.

ID requires hopeful monsters, theistic evolution excludes them.

Michael Behe and William Dembski think it is. I think they are better authorities on ID than you are. But if you would like to point out your "knowledge" again, who am I to stop you?

 

[Tricky]

The extra observations that ID would account for include organisms which are less well adapted to their natural environment than the ancestors from which the IDer(s) 'developed' them. This could alternatively be viewed as 'better adapted' to the artificial environment which exists as a result of the presence of an IDer(s).

Not sure I understand that. But ID would have to show the mechanism by which this occured, not just state that it did. They have to actually identify the hand of the creator. If it can be explained without direct evidence of the hand of the creator, then ID is not adding anything.

Does that answer your question? I may have picked it up wrongly.

No, not really. Could you give me some specific examples?

Of course there are lots of examples of organism being less suited to their environment than their predecessors (many of them are extinct now), but evolutionary theory suggests that it is because the environment is constantly in flux. An example is marsupials in Australia. Many of them are being wiped out by the much more efficient placentals which compete better. The environment changed when placentals were introduced. Evidence suggests that similar things have happened time and time again in biologic history. No IDer is required.

 

[Tricky]

Michael Behe and William Dembski think it is. I think they are better authorities on ID than you are. But if you would like to point out your "knowledge" again, who am I to stop you?

They may be better authorities on ID than the good doctor, but they are absolutely abominable at evolution. So it is understandable that they cannot see that ID is incompatible with evolution. They may not even understand the concept of "hopeful monsters". It is a little difficult for the layman, but Dr. Kitten explained it well enough that I can now understand it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Indeed if ID is compatible with evolution, then it merely adds the addendum "but God (or a director) did it", to all the evidence collected by science.

Not quite. Let's think about four sets of beliefs related to life's origin and evolution. Those four are evolution (Darwin's version), theistic evolution, ID by means of theistic evolution, and ID by means of creationism. Here's basically what each of them say about evolution.

Evolution: Evolution happened.
Theistic evolution: Evolution happened the way God wanted it to happen.
ID via Theistic evolution: Evolution happened, and we can demonstrate that it wouldn't have happened without God.
ID via creationism: Evolution didn't happen. We can prove it wouldn't have happened without God, and we think God just made the critters just like they are today.

So ID "adds" to theistic evolution the statistical arguments that say evolution couldn't have happened without the aid of God.

(As you all know, technically, they don't talk about God, but I think we all know what they mean. Whether that God happens to be Christian, Jewish, or Hindu, they are still talking about the character played by George Burns in the 1970s. Unless someone objects, I'll keep saying "God".)

Evolution is pretty well confirmed, although it lacks specific, step by step explanations of how one life form transformed into a different one. Theistic evolution is not scientific, and doesn't pretend to be otherwise. ID via TE is unconfirmed, and rejected by most of the people who have looked at it. Creationism is....well...at the very least it isn't scientific. If someone wants to defend it here, he can.

 

[Meadmaker]

They may be better authorities on ID than the good doctor, but they are absolutely abominable at evolution. So it is understandable that they cannot see that ID is incompatible with evolution. They may not even understand the concept of "hopeful monsters". It is a little difficult for the layman, but Dr. Kitten explained it well enough that I can now understand it.

From what I have read of Behe's writings, he believes life developed exactly and identically to the way the rest of us believe it developed. He just thinks it needed God's assistance, and he thinks he can prove it. I thnk he's wrong, but I'm certain I can't prove it.

I think ID is compatible with everything I ever learned in biology class in high school, and everything I've read subsequently, with one exception. Mainstream evolutionary theory teaches that it all came about as a logical consequence of natural laws, while ID says that isn't enough. As far as the actual, day to day events of what happened, such as what carbon chains formed in what creatures, I can't see the difference. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough.

 

[Roboramma]

Evolution is pretty well confirmed, although it lacks specific, step by step explanations of how one life form transformed into a different one.

Which is exactly what we would expect given what is predicted by the theory of evolution and our current knowledge.
Reconstructing ancestry exactly in many cases just isn't possible. It might be possible to concider possible lines of decent that could have led from a possible ancestor to a modern form, but that's about all we can do.

That's to be expected based upon what the theory says. So the fact that we can't do so perfectly can't be evidence against the theory. It's expected by the theory.
To suggest that because our knowledge of that ancestry is imperfect that maybe God played a role in there somewhere, without any specific evidence that God did play a role, is positing a God of the Gaps.

Philosophically I can admit maybe God did and maybe God did not play some role in those shadowed moments of prehistory. But a scientific theory of that requires evidence. More evidence than "We don't know if it's possible to go from A to B, or how it happened."
No, we don't. But the fact that we can think of plausible routes is something that adds to the already monumental support for the theory of evolution. Until a pathway can be shown to have been impossible, or so improbable as not to matter, there's no reason to call ID science.
Until then it's just a vague hypothesis.

If it's supporters want it to be taken seriously I suggest that they need to provide the evidence for it, rather than simply saying, "Well, you evolutionists haven't even looked for the evidence, it might be there!". Preferably published in peer reviewed journals.

Just felt like clarifying that.

 

[sphenisc]

Not sure I understand that. But ID would have to show the mechanism by which this occured, not just state that it did. They have to actually identify the hand of the creator. If it can be explained without direct evidence of the hand of the creator, then ID is not adding anything.

I think you've got it, since you manage to identify the weakness in my argument. I'm not sure that there is any onus on ID to show a specific mechanism given that there is no alternative explanation to account for the observation.[It's accepted in archaeology, for example, that some artifacts are 'intelligently designed', without specifying exactly who made them, when and how.] My suspicion is that there wouldn't be a single mechanism to account for such observations, an intelligent designer would presumably have a range of mechanisms available for developing organisms, otherwise it wouldn't be that intelligent?

No, not really. Could you give me some specific examples?

Of course there are lots of examples of organism being less suited to their environment than their predecessors (many of them are extinct now), but evolutionary theory suggests that it is because the environment is constantly in flux. An example is marsupials in Australia. Many of them are being wiped out by the much more efficient placentals which compete better. The environment changed when placentals were introduced. Evidence suggests that similar things have happened time and time again in biologic history. No IDer is required.

Specific examples.hummmm..............
If, for example, an organism could be shown to lack features which its ancestor possessed and which were beneficial in their otherwise similar environments. For example, some fossils of a rhinoceros are discovered which, while being discovered with all the associated fossils of a subtropical grassland etc, similar to its immediately ancestral fossils. Nevertheless they show evidence of the loss of sensory organs and regression of legs to small stumps. Its shown to be eating the same food as its ancestors, the same predators are present etc. I would suspect that these features are maladaptive in its environment and this might be an example of ID.

 

[hammegk]

How is this all not just idle chitchat?

~~ Paul

Perhaps it is. If so, what's your interest in these threads? You continue to participate.

 

[Meadmaker]

But a scientific theory of that requires evidence. More evidence than "We don't know if it's possible to go from A to B, or how it happened."
No, we don't. But the fact that we can think of plausible routes is something that adds to the already monumental support for the theory of evolution. Until a pathway can be shown to have been impossible, or so improbable as not to matter, there's no reason to call ID science.
Until then it's just a vague hypothesis.

Careful, there. Evolutionary theory, in its current state says even less. It says, "We don't know how to go from A to B, but we are sure it happened. " As for plausible routes, what Behe et al point out, repeatedly, is that there are no plausible routes given. The routes are vague and unspecific. I think that makes sense, based on the relative infancy of the field, but let's be honest. Not only can one not show how a bacterial flagellum did develop, no one can give more than a vague armwaving account of how one might develop. If I asked for directions to get me from the Statue of Liberty to the Santa Monica Pier, and someone said, "I'm pretty sure you ought to go through Pittsburgh." I would be disappointed.


More from Behe concerning the compatibility of theistic evolution and intelligent design:

But how could biochemical systems have been designed? Did they have to be created from scratch in a puff of smoke? No. The design process may have been much more subtle. It may have involved no contravening of natural laws. Let’s consider just one possibility. Suppose the designer is God, as most people would suspect. Well, then, as Ken Miller points out in his book, Finding Darwin’s God, a subtle God could cause mutations by influencing quantum events such as radioactive decay, something that I would call guided evolution. That seems perfectly possible to me. I would only add, however, that that process would amount to intelligent design, not Darwinian evolution.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Perhaps it is. If so, what's your interest in these threads? You continue to participate.

I was referring to our subtopic, not the entire thread. How is metaphysics not just idle chitchat?

~~ Paul

 

[Tricky]

I think you've got it, since you manage to identify the weakness in my argument. I'm not sure that there is any onus on ID to show a specific mechanism given that there is no alternative explanation to account for the observation.[It's accepted in archaeology, for example, that some artifacts are 'intelligently designed', without specifying exactly who made them, when and how.]

But as we know, you can't prove a negative. How is it possible to show that there is no alternative explanation and there can be none? That is an impossible burden of proof. There are many things which we don't yet know, but few if any of them are unknowable. So it seems to plug the gap in knowlege by postulating a designer is simply giving up on finding alternatives.

As for the archaelology, I would bet that any class of artifacts would have been shown to be man made at some time. You may not have to prove the origin of every pottery shard (though lots of archaeologists do exactly that thing) but you'd have to show at some point that pottery was man-made. I would have to see at least one clear cut example of IDer intervention before I could accept others.

My suspicion is that there wouldn't be a single mechanism to account for such observations, an intelligent designer would presumably have a range of mechanisms available for developing organisms, otherwise it wouldn't be that intelligent?

All I need is one, and you've got me convinced. But it can't be "we can't think of anything else it could be," because that just shows the limitations of what has been (so far) thought of. You have to show me evidence of the intercession.

Specific examples.hummmm..............
If, for example, an organism could be shown to lack features which its ancestor possessed and which were beneficial in their otherwise similar environments. For example, some fossils of a rhinoceros are discovered which, while being discovered with all the associated fossils of a subtropical grassland etc, similar to its immediately ancestral fossils. Nevertheless they show evidence of the loss of sensory organs and regression of legs to small stumps. Its shown to be eating the same food as its ancestors, the same predators are present etc. I would suspect that these features are maladaptive in its environment and this might be an example of ID.

Not sure I understand this. Being maladapted for its present environment is evidence for ID? Evolutionists consider that maladaptive features are strong evidence against ID. I suspect that I am misinterpreting you.

But what I would like is one real example, not a "what if" sort of example. Not trying to corner you here, but in order for me to understand what you are talking about, it would help to correlate the example to something that could be documented.

 

[PatKelley]

Careful, there. Evolutionary theory, in its current state says even less. It says, "We don't know how to go from A to B, but we are sure it happened. " As for plausible routes, what Behe et al point out, repeatedly, is that there are no plausible routes given. The routes are vague and unspecific. I think that makes sense, based on the relative infancy of the field, but let's be honest. Not only can one not show how a bacterial flagellum did develop, no one can give more than a vague armwaving account of how one might develop. If I asked for directions to get me from the Statue of Liberty to the Santa Monica Pier, and someone said, "I'm pretty sure you ought to go through Pittsburgh." I would be disappointed.

This is a specious analogy (no pun intended) as it could be used to demand intermediates at any stage. "You take the road through Pittsburgh" "Which one?" "This - the I95 corridor" "For how long? What exit do I get off at?" "I think it's the 38A" "AHA! You fail! I am lost but you are the loser!"

It is an old tired argument of demanding that all other alternatives be eliminated before making any assumptions, and it doesn't wash because we get back to the "Could have made the universe five minutes ago" argument and we're back where we started.

More from Behe concerning the compatibility of theistic evolution and intelligent design:

...It may have involved no contravening of natural laws...

In that wise it is the "Could have made the universe five minutes ago" argument. We can never say it didn't happen so it must be so? That's not science at all. We don't know currently, is science's answer, but we have a good idea. However, by placing the intelligent designer in the place of the unknowable, it is tantamount to saying my invisible friend is smart and pretty. How would you know otherwise, you can't see her, and only I know if you did. So I win.

 

[arias]

This is a little easy, especially if ID makes essentially hard to disprove claims.

An example: I challenge each and every single one of you to disprove this:

There is an invisible cat on that chair.
I cannot see anything on that chair (neither can anyone).
Therefore, there must be an invisible cat.


There are some things which are naturally impossible to disprove.