Questions I would like Intelligent Design Proponents to Answer

[Wowbagger]

This is a response, mostly, to this old article: http://www.uncommondescent.com/comment-policy/put-a-sock-in-it/


I would like to stick some I.D. proponents with some good "stumpers" not included in their list (or repeat the ones not adequately answered).

Here are just a few I have collected, so far:

How can I.D. be applied to medical science, to help us fight diseases?
How come the proponents of I.D. are incapable of using it as a framework to solve any real scientific problem, for that matter?

If Evolution was all a hoax, then how come those actively using it in fields such as medical research, agriculture, animal conservation, oil drilling, and organic materials research, etc. seem to think it is a real science? How they are the ones publishing new, innovative results, and not you?

Why is Evolution powerful enough to change what I.D. proponents think, over time. But, I.D. is not powerful enough to change what Evolution proponents think?

Where is the evidence that a Designer exists?
Why are you acting like the question is not even important, if you are going to claim you are doing science?

Why are certain characteristics of designed products absent in most life forms, such as detachable and easily replaceable parts, or "maker" labels, for example?

Why do ID proponents tend to define their terms in non-empirical or non-falsifiable ways?
If I were to claim that the "deducing of an Intelligent Designer" was nothing more than a type of paredolia phenomenon, how could you demonstrate otherwise?

Why do so many ID proponents often (but not always) get scientific concepts wrong, such as junk DNA, macroevolution, thermodynamics, Big Bang Theory, and the whole concept of Natural Selection, etc.?
How come so little effort is made to "do your homework, and "know your enemy" better, before debating these issues on scientific grounds?

Any comments or suggestions for additions?

 

[Perpetual Student]

This is a response, mostly, to this old article: http://www.uncommondescent.com/comment-policy/put-a-sock-in-it/
...
Where is the evidence that a Designer exists?
Why are you acting like the question is not even important, if you are going to claim you are doing science?
...
Any comments or suggestions for additions?

In my view, that's the biggest question of all. IDers apply a deep scepticism and demand totally irrefutable evidence for every aspect of evolution, but simply wave their collective hands when asked for evidence of a designer. It demonstrates a lack of intellectual honesty, IMHO.

 

[thull]

"If tomorrow ID replaced evolution as the standard theory taught and used across all scientific fields, how would humans benefit in the days and years to come?"

Another question to add, which may be a bit too leading as "ID is a science" and of course will greatly enhance all our understanding of the natural world and its history.

I really can't believe i read the whole list of Q&A in the link. Which to sum up was: I find the question faulty by design, so my answer will have very little to do with it.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

If Evolution was all a hoax, then how come those actively using it in fields such as medical research, agriculture, animal conservation, oil drilling, and organic materials research, etc. seem to think it is a real science? How they are the ones publishing new, innovative results, and not you?

Good work Wowbagger! I really like this question!

 

[Dr Adequate]

* Can you estimate approximately how many designers there were? We know from observation of design processes that this number tends to increase with the complexity of the project.

* Does not a study of the natural world suggest more than one designer? Consider, for example, the hummingbird and the hummingbird moth. Serving similar functions, they are based on very different technology. If we found such a situation amongst things that really were designed, would we not infer two competing companies holding different patents?

* Is the world designed well or badly? For example, it seems superfluous to produce both the cold virus and immune systems capable of fighting it off. Was this a cock-up? Or should we again infer two (at least) competing institutions with different and irreconcilable aims?

* Further to the question of whether the universe was designed well or badly, we need to know what constraints existed on the designer, in terms of available materials, labor, and so forth. As someone once said, "An engineer is someone who can do for one dollar what any fool could do with two". Before we can conclude that the Universe is a product of intelligent design, rather than a series of ghastly wasteful blunders, I for one would need to be convinced that, given the conditions obtaning, this was really the best the designers could do.

* Every time we can definitely identify the designers of an object and the means they used to produce it, we invariably find that they used natural and not supernatural means. Given this data, what should we conclude about the means used by the designers whose existence you hypothesize?

* What is the universe for? You claim it was designed. As what? It does not appear to be a means of transport ... or an eating utensil ... or a grouting tool ... or a sandwich toaster ... does not design imply purpose, and if so, could you identify it?

* As you are not aware, many industrialists nowadays don't so much design their "designs" as have them produced by genetic algorithms. Might not the hypothesis that the designers employed similar means explain many features of the natural world which would otherwise seem inexplicable?

 

[Wowbagger]

Good work Wowbagger! I really like this question!

I am tempted to add "economics" to the list, since (as Shermer loves to point out), evolutionary theory could give a lot of insight into economics models.

But, I didn't want to go overboard, with all that, just yet.

 

[Wowbagger]

"If tomorrow ID replaced evolution as the standard theory taught and used across all scientific fields, how would humans benefit in the days and years to come?"

That almost seems redundant to my first two questions. But, I suppose focusing on educational value might be a good idea.

How about this for a re-phrasing:
"If I.D. were to completely replace Evolution as the standard theory taught in U.S. schools, how would it give our students a competitive advantage in understanding the science of biology, in the world's stage?"

---------------------------------------

Dr. Adequate, you are no-doubt a wizard with words. But, if you don't mind, I would like to try re-rephrasing some of your suggestions. Let me know what you think:

* Can you estimate approximately how many designers there were? We know from observation of design processes that this number tends to increase with the complexity of the project.

Honestly, I don't think the number of designers matters, that much, if they cannot identify anything about even one of them, (and refuse to even try).

I probably should have numbered my questions. But, perhaps immediately below the "Why are certain characteristics of designed products absent in most life forms..." question, we could ask:

"Can you explain why life forms look as though they were 'designed by committee'? Or, perhaps 'competing contractors'?" And we can give examples of what we mean.

But, I will think some more on that one.

* Is the world designed well or badly? (snip)

I don't think this such a good one. It implies subjective judgment, rather than objective demands. It seems too easy to weasel out of.

we need to know what constraints existed on the designer, in terms of available materials, labor, and so forth. (snip)

I could probably add that one below "Where is the evidence that a Designer exists?".

Something like this:
"What constraints existed for the Designer, in terms of materials, labor, and so forth? If we cannot know that, then how else are we to assess the engineering skills of the Designer? (This would seem important, if we are going to replace Evolution in medical research, for example.)"

* Every time we can definitely identify the designers of an object and the means they used to produce it, we invariably find that they used natural and not supernatural means. (snip)

We can shorten this, a little:

"For every example of Intelligent Design given so far, how come Evolution has also discovered a perfectly natural way for it to emerge?
How come the natural method is usually the one making better predictions about the example's behavior?"

* What is the universe for? (snip)

Too easy to weasel out of. Maybe we are all here merely for the Designer's amusement.

Besides, it would be more important to identify the Designer, first.

(snip) Might not the hypothesis that the designers employed similar means explain many features of the natural world which would otherwise seem inexplicable?

If they answered "yes”, how would that help anyone?

 

[Wowbagger]

I am also considering asking:

"Why is it so difficult for I.D. proponents to distance themselves from religious fundamentalists?"

But, I think that steps outside the issues of pure scientific inquiry.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I think that the number one question that IDers should be required to answer is:
What is SCIENCE?

They appear to think that science is explaining things, not finding answers. They seem to think that science is a thing, not a process. They appear to teach that recitation of a litany written by someone else is somehow the equivalent of reevaluating evidence, revision of theories, and peer review.

They teach that, "it just makes sense that...," is the equivalent of, "diligent research shows...".

The second question... or task, more like... should be:
Design an experiment that will invalidate Intelligent Design.

I can do it for evolution: Find something (like authentic, undisturbed human remains) in a stratum where no such things should exist.

Scientists design experiments to invalidate their own theories all the time, because science is rigorous in its pursuit of truth, and invalidation is an important part of that rigor. ID CAN'T be invalidated because it doesn't observe, it merely explains, and explaining isn't science.

The Scientific Method is science! Science isn't knowing facts. Science is finding facts.

Evolution may be completely wrong. Intelligent Design may be absolutely right.
BUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN STILL ISN'T SCIENCE!

My last question for the IDers is:
If you're going to call it, "Science Education," then shouldn't it BE science?

(P.S. I'm still believe in God, but if God is Truth then denying the facts he has given us with his own hands is probably a bad idea.

God inspired men to write the bible. In that act, he gave Truth to a bunch of guys that couldn't explain how a fluorescent light works. We should expect scientific accuracy on exactly that level of rigor.

In the end, men wrote the Bible. God wrote, with His own hand, the testimony of the rocks.)

 

[Dr Adequate]

Honestly, I don't think the number of designers matters, that much, if they cannot identify anything about even one of them, (and refuse to even try).

But they do seem to agree on one thing about the designers, namely that there was only one of them. I should like them to consider whether this is the most likely belief given the data.

I don't think this such a good one. It implies subjective judgment, rather than objective demands. It seems too easy to weasel out of.

But it is a question that we can answer with respect to things that actually are designed.

We can shorten this, a little:

"For every example of Intelligent Design given so far, how come Evolution has also discovered a perfectly natural way for it to emerge?
How come the natural method is usually the one making better predictions about the example's behavior?"

But that's a completely different question.

My point is, when we look at things that we know were designed, say a helicopter or a potato-peeler, and we investigate the processes of its manufacture, we invariably find that it did not involve magic. Every time, without exception. And so on that basis if we come across a designed object where we have no knowledge of the mode of manufacture, such as the Antikythera Mechanism, we still feel justified in concluding that no magic was involved. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, then, we must conclude that if (for example) the duck-billed platypus was designed, the same applies to the duck-billed platypus.

Too easy to weasel out of. Maybe we are all here merely for the Designer's amusement.

I think that some sort of conjecture is required to give the hypothesis explanatory power.

Suppose that I find a funny-shaped rock.

Someone assures me that a rock with so complex a shape cannot be a product of nature but must be a Stone Age tool. Am I not then justified in asking what possible use it could have been to the cavemen?

If they answered "yes”, how would that help anyone?

We win.

 

[thull]

As you said my question was just a revamp of your question one and two, since it seemed like an easy cop-out answer for them just to say, "well since evolution has been the standard for the last ____ years, ID hasn't been given the chance to show what it can do." I was more curious if a question could be phrased to actually find out what exactly ID'ers think we're all missing out on.

However, such a crafted question will probably be answered with, "We will gain a better understanding of the world we are a part of". An answer that sounds good, but offers no information on why to have ID over evolution.

With that being said, i do like the question regarding why ID should be taught in our schools. As it is newsworthy battleground in the states, i would expect a longer answer even if not much is said.

 

[thull]

Design an experiment that will invalidate Intelligent Design.QUOTE]

This one i like the most.
For they will explain why they can't/won't give one which will show ID isn't science like gagglegnash said
or they will give an untestable example which will show it isn't science
or they will give an example that can be tested, but that they can deny if/when it is shown to be false.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I suspect the ID'ers answer will be something to this effect "God did it, and you're going to hell."

 

[Wowbagger]

I think that the number one question that IDers should be required to answer is:
What is SCIENCE?
(snip)

Yes, all that seems to be true, for them. And, that is an interesting approach: Get their feet wet with basic science questions, before hitting them with the specifics of ID.

But, for this thread I would rather focus on the ID-specific questions, for now. Thanks!

Design an experiment that will invalidate Intelligent Design.

That is one I shall consider! In fact, I wonder why I didn't think to place it on the list, already. (I guess that is what forums are for.)

P.S. I'm still believe in God, but if God is Truth then denying the facts he has given us with his own hands is probably a bad idea.

I wonder if I.D. advocates actually realize that Evolution does NOT rule out the existence of God?

Most of them seem to think that Evolution implies that there must not be a God at all. When, in reality, all it does is render God as an "extraneous entity".

But they do seem to agree on one thing about the designers, namely that there was only one of them. I should like them to consider whether this is the most likely belief given the data.

I still don't think it gets to the heart of the matter as deeply as the other questions. I would rather see a convincing argument that there had to be at least one creator, before we nag them about how many there really are.

They could simply give an answer that the Designer was experimenting with different designs. Perhaps he even put some of his own designs in competition for each other. Or, maybe his mood and skills simply changed over time. As a programmer, this happens to me: I look at some of my older code, and its "style" is quite different than it is for my newer code.

Obviously, they would have no evidence for their answers. But, then again, they have no evidence, yet, for there being any designer at all. So, I would like to see them establish at least one before moving on to the actual number.

But it is a question that we can answer with respect to things that actually are designed.

We would need something empirical to compare it with. We can measure the quality of engineering in cars by measuring specific criteria: fuel efficiency, safety, cost of ownership, etc. Perhaps we can rephrase the question with respect to that:

"Can we assess the quality of the Designer's work, by comparing it to other design candidates he might have had in mind?"

But, I still think it is a weak question, for some reason.

But that's a completely different question.

Ah, I see I accidentally misinterpreted your question, and managed to come up with another good one to add the list, anyway!

My point is, when we look at things that we know were designed, say a helicopter or a potato-peeler, and we investigate the processes of its manufacture, we invariably find that it did not involve magic.
(snip)

They would probably deny that they are trying to sell "magic". They would see this as a straw-man. We know better. But, I think the question is too easy to weasel out of.

I think that some sort of conjecture is required to give the hypothesis explanatory power.

How about something like this:

"How can we deduce the motives of the Intelligent Designer?
Does I.D. claim that there is supposed to be a specific purpose for life on Earth? If so, how do you know what it is? (Or what they are? There could be more than one.)"

I still think it is weak, because it is more important to establish the necessity of the Designer, before we get into motives. For the same reason I would rather not get into the number of designers.

We win.

Actually, I messed up that response. I meant to respond like this: 'What if they say NO? How would that help anyone?'

The next question would be: "Okay, what are the special, unnatural processes, then?" And, we are back to the more fundamental ones, I already asked.

 

[Wowbagger]

OOooooo!!! OOOOOOooo!!! OOOOOooooo!!! Here's another good one I just came up with (thanks, in part to Carl Sagan):


Scientists are usually motivated by the thrill of new discovery. If you want more scientists to take Intelligent Design more seriously, how would you appeal to that?


It is kinda redundant to some of my earlier questions. But, I think I like this type of approach better.

 

[Typicallucas]

"Intelligent Design" is a symptom of a serious learning disability

Why do so many ID proponents often (but not always) get scientific concepts wrong, such as junk DNA, macroevolution, thermodynamics, Big Bang Theory, and the whole concept of Natural Selection, etc.?
How come so little effort is made to "do your homework, and "know your enemy" better, before debating these issues on scientific grounds?

I call this a learning disability.

This is where I get stymied in discussions about ID vs. evolution with most of the "ID" people I know... for instance last week I was talking to a friend of mine about some sort of personal troubles and he started going on and on about how if I just "set an intention" the "universe will respond in kind." I jumped on this because it 1) he was basically saying "it's your fault because you aren't praying to the universe" and 2) it is a clear indicator of woo thinking.

I challenged him on this anthropomorphic universe idea and he started describing a "non-Christian" Intelligent Design belief. He kept saying that he didn't think that "all this" could be a result of "random chance," and each time he said that I explained to him that Natural Selection, for one, is the exact opposite of random chance. But he, like most ID believers, couldn't/didn't/refused to understand or remember. The fourth time he brought up the improbability of being so lucky I asked him if he was dropped on his head as a child.

Needless to say it went downhill from there.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I wonder if I.D. advocates actually realize that Evolution does NOT rule out the existence of God?

Most of them seem to think that Evolution implies that there must not be a God at all. When, in reality, all it does is render God as an "extraneous entity".

That may be true, however if one is advocating ID as a scientific theory, that forces the question of the existence of a creator to be a matter for scientific inquiry and discussion and would require evidence as would any other competing hypothesis.

 

[Earthborn]

How can I.D. be applied to medical science, to help us fight diseases?

Unfair question. What is applied in medical science is an understanding of natural selection, a part of evolutionary thinking that isn't disputed by IDers or even Young Earth Creationists. Also if all science had to have an practical application, we would have to throw away an awful lot of science.

How come the proponents of I.D. are incapable of using it as a framework to solve any real scientific problem, for that matter?

Probably because they aren't trying to solve any real scientific problem, but rather are attempting to find scientific problems that the Theory of Evolution can't solve. (Not much luck so far)

If Evolution was all a hoax, then how come those actively using it in fields such as medical research, agriculture, animal conservation, oil drilling, and organic materials research, etc. seem to think it is a real science?

Unfair question. Proponents of Intelligent Design aren't claiming that evolution is a hoax. It isn't even claimed to be a hoax by most Young Earth Creationists.

Where is the evidence that a Designer exists?

According to proponents of Intelligent Design, the evidence of a designer is in the biological structures that couldn't have formed without a designer. They don't necessarily claim there is more direct evidence.

Why do ID proponents tend to define their terms in non-empirical or non-falsifiable ways?

That is an easy question to answer: their whole "research program" consists of criticism of an empirical science.

 

[Earthborn]

I think that the number one question that IDers should be required to answer is:
What is SCIENCE?

I've got an idea. Let's ask them "What is Life? " or "What is the purpose Life?" or "What is Love?" or "What is Truth?"... By requiring them to answer philosophical conundrums that have baffled philosophers for -- well pretty much all of human history, we don't have to bothered by them again.

I can do it for evolution: Find something (like authentic, undisturbed human remains) in a stratum where no such things should exist.

You haven't been paying attention to this thread, have you? The Theory of Evolution is so strongly supported by evidence, that no single out of place discovery would invalidate it.

ID CAN'T be invalidated because it doesn't observe, it merely explains, and explaining isn't science.

It isn't? I don't think I understand what you are arguing here.

The Scientific Method is science! Science isn't knowing facts. Science is finding facts.

Meaningless.

Evolution may be completely wrong.

No, it may not.

Intelligent Design may be absolutely right.

Intelligent Design may be right, but that does not make the theory of evolution wrong.

 

[Fredrik]

Where is the evidence that a Designer exists?

It's all around you. Just open your eyes, and your mind.

OK, that answer wasn't serious, but the next one is.

Scientists are usually motivated by the thrill of new discovery. If you want more scientists to take Intelligent Design more seriously, how would you appeal to that?

Wouldn't a moron I.D. believer be a lot more thrilled about discovering evidence of creation than a science nerd would be about discovering evidence of evolution? I mean, many of them think that God is what gives meaning to their lives, so to them evidence of creation is something huge. It would make them feel important, and even loved.