• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Is ID science?

I come back, and you people aren't discussing anything particularly interesting, so let's talk about this instead.

I...have always had a touch-and-go relationship with intelligent design. I see the evidence its proponents point toward, and am not disposed to reject the notion of the existence of an Architect, but the leaders of the movement all use it to advance the idea of a properly Judeo-Christian God, and I cannot follow them there. The idea is ridden to market by creationists of all stripes, and it is easy enough to reject it e manus—but let’s not.

Perhaps it seemed reasonable enough to follow Behe in concluding that the design extrapolation is scientific because it is and must be “based on physical, observable data and logical inferences.” Clearly, the matter is not so simple, or, rather, if it is, its simplicity eludes those whose banter clouds the issue.

In a book that disappointingly found itself under the radar, Bradley Monton manages to squeeze quite a bit of insight into a relatively thin volume. In this quote from his Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, you’ll probably see what I’m referring to:

“...Does intelligent design count as science? I maintain that it is a mistake to put too much weight on that question. Larry Laudan got the answer right:

‘If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’ and ‘unscientific’ from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us.’

If our goal is to believe truth and avoid falsehood, and if we are rational people who take into account evidence in deciding what to believe, then we need to focus on the question of what evidence there is for and against intelligent design. The issue of whether intelligent design counts as ‘science’ according to some contentious answer to the demarcation question [in said arena] is unimportant. Of course, with this approach it would be much harder to get a federal judge to rule that intelligent design can’t be taught in public schools. But sometimes it is more important to be intellectually honest than to do what it takes to stop people from doing something you don’t like.”

And by now, I hope, you’re properly equipped to tackle the issue at hand. If we’re honest, we should all admit that we have prejudices upon entering the discussion and attempt to rise above them. But I suppose you’ve now heard the whole of this debate—is ID science? Is that question one of particular import?

I’ve been pining to have this discussion for some time. Let’s keep things mellow.
 

cantab

Well-Known Member
Does Intelligent Design account for what we observe? Sometimes. It has been pointed out that there are numerous examples of what appear to be unintelligent design. Evolution can account for these, since there is no requirement for organisms to be as good as is physiologically possible, only for them to survive better than the competition. Intelligent Design is challenged by these flaws, with its only real answer to say that we are wrong in thinking there is a physiologically possible feature superior to that we observe.

Does Intelligent Design make any falsifiable predictions? This is considered to hallmark of a scientific theory. It's easy to explain what is already known. What a good theory should also do is "put its money where its mouth is", so to speak, predicting what we will learn in future. (Note that the predictions need not be of future events, they can instead be predictions of future observations about past events.) Evolution makes some fairly definite predictions. We can take a population of organisms, and subject them to an environment that is somewhat harmful to them. We predict that over generations, the population will become better capable of surviving in the environment. Intelligent Design as it stands can make few predictions, since it says nothing about the nature of the designer and what it will and won't design. The one prediction it can make - that organisms should be well designed - may already be falsified. Perhaps the theory needs modification, into Fairly Intelligent Design.
 
Last edited:

ebilly99

Americanreigon champ
We seem to forget that hypothesis have facts to support them. Even if in the future evolution as we know it is false that does not prove ID. Just b/c we currently know no other way does not make it either one or the other.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
PokeJustice said:
And by now, I hope, you’re properly equipped to tackle the issue at hand. If we’re honest, we should all admit that we have prejudices upon entering the discussion and attempt to rise above them. But I suppose you’ve now heard the whole of this debate—is ID science? Is that question one of particular import?
No, it isn't science in the traditional sense. We all know why.

Is the question important? I think it is in the fact that it can't be falsified. If it can't be falsified, anything is up for grabs.
 

meteor64

Show Me Ya Noobs
This topic makes things needlessly complicated.
Is ID a belief?
Yes.
Does it have any evidence to back it up?
No.
So its not a science.

...Its that simple. No matter how you think of it, until it has something to prove itself, it's not science.

Once (if) we have some proof of intelligent design, it will be accepted as a scientific theory.
 
Intelligent Design is not a science, but it tends to be dressed up as a science. It's a cute idea, but it's not a science. It's an attempt to cling to outdated beliefs while trying to seem modernized. Call it what it is: creationism. Maybe I wouldn't be so *****y about this if it weren't a blatant, euphemistic lie.
 

Hejiru

Rev up those fryers
I'd just like to point out that ID dosen't necessarily mean something religious. It could even imply an alien civilization or beings from a different dimension influencing life on Earth or something like that.
 

Auraninja

Eh, ragazzo!
NO!

As some people have probably seen me drone on, science is what we can prove and has nothing to do with the supernatural. It is therefore not a legitimate science. It is instead, a religious hypothesis, but don't confuse that for a legitimate form of science. Intelligent design is faith based, not fact based.
 

meteor64

Show Me Ya Noobs
I'd just like to point out that ID dosen't necessarily mean something religious. It could even imply an alien civilization or beings from a different dimension influencing life on Earth or something like that.

It doesn't change anything though- it lacks evidence, so it cannot be a science until it actually has evidence.
 

Hejiru

Rev up those fryers
It doesn't change anything though- it lacks evidence, so it cannot be a science until it actually has evidence.

I know, I know. I just wanted to say that before everyone goes off into an anti-religion rant.
 

meteor64

Show Me Ya Noobs
I know, I know. I just wanted to say that before everyone goes off into an anti-religion rant.

Although. tbh, isn't any belief in intelligent design religious to some extent? Whether its to a conventional "god" or not, you still have faith in the scientifically unsupported.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
The potential of ID isn't necessarily religious, but it's quite a coincidence that most people who support it happen to be theoreticians and most who reject it are scientists.

And to add further to the original post: I think the question IS important, because science is everything. Unless you can demonstrate how you can prove a natural world concept without testing or falsifiability.
 
I think the question IS important, because science is everything. Unless you can demonstrate how you can prove a natural world concept without testing or falsifiability.
Wouldn't demonstration of the production of specified complexity without intelligence and by exclusively Darwinian mechanisms be the falsification of ID?

I see that so many have polluted the thread with naturalistic invective. Mariya Shidou and meteor64 would have us rewrite the rules if so needed to keep the ID lot from a seat at their table. But this is neither fair nor necessary, nor, indeed, scientifically constructive.
 
Last edited:

meteor64

Show Me Ya Noobs
I'm sorry, what?
Science- The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

ID does not fullfill these criteria.
Please do not tell me that I would "rewrite the rules" when you seem to be rewriting the definition of science.

Wouldn't demonstration of the production of specified complexity without intelligence and by exclusively Darwinian mechanisms be the falsification of ID?
But how would you go about proving that? You could always argue ID could be determined by some other, undetectable force, maybe the universe itself, which chooses the path natural selection takes.
 
I'm sorry, what?
Science- The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

ID does not fullfill these criteria.
ID only fails to meet these criteria when you view the criteria through tinted lenses.
You could always argue ID could be determined by some other, undetectable force, maybe the universe itself, which chooses the path natural selection takes.
Such an appeal would be unnecessary if it could be demonstrated that natural processes alone are wholly adequate.

When you point out that the inference of apparent design as a general gleaning is unfalsifiable, I don't intend to argue with you.

"Attempts to locate methodological 'invariants' that provide a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for distinguishing true science from pseudoscience have failed. Most philosophers of science now recognize that neither verifiability, nor testability, nor the use of lawlike explanation, can suffice to define scientific practice."
 

Chris-kun

i still believe
ID only fails to meet these criteria when you view the criteria through tinted lenses.Such an appeal would be unnecessary if it could be demonstrated that natural processes alone are wholly adequate.

When you point out that the inference of apparent design as a general gleaning is unfalsifiable, I don't intend to argue with you.

"Attempts to locate methodological 'invariants' that provide a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for distinguishing true science from pseudoscience have failed. Most philosophers of science now recognize that neither verifiability, nor testability, nor the use of lawlike explanation, can suffice to define scientific practice."

ID fails to meet the criteria for science because there is no way to conduct an experiment to prove/disprove it. It is, however, a philosophy and has been argued using allegorical evidence(the essay "The Watchmaker" by William Paley that comes to mind most readily), but you can't argue deductively by allegory. It's a deductive logic fallacy. Science is completely deductive reasoning. This is why it is not science.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
Wouldn't demonstration of the production of specified complexity without intelligence and by exclusively Darwinian mechanisms be the falsification of ID?
Which.. is impossible to do because anyone could just state something was 'designed'; including Evolution.

This includes the fact that ID isn't even testable or experimental.
 

meteor64

Show Me Ya Noobs
ID only fails to meet these criteria when you view the criteria through tinted lenses.
Explain. I don't see where you're coming from. As far as I can see, the definition of science is pretty black and white.


Such an appeal would be unnecessary if it could be demonstrated that natural processes alone are wholly adequate.

When you point out that the inference of apparent design as a general gleaning is unfalsifiable, I don't intend to argue with you.
That was what I was trying to get across specifically. You could prove evolution to no end, but you cannot use it to completely disprove intelligent design. And whilst people like me and you(by the sounds of it) would apply Occams Razor to this, and say "well we've got evolution sorted, and I've yet to see evidence for an intelligence behind it, so pleh to that shenanigans", others wont. And because it hasn't been disproven, people are still valid in believing.

As a personal request, your writing style...confuses me. I often have to read your posts multiple times to understand what you're saying. I don't intend this as a personal insult, I'm just not used to how you structure your sentences. I'd greatly appreciate it if your reply is more...accessible... to me :p
 

legendarypokemonmaster

Well-Known Member
Intelligent Design is just a way to state that there may be a God through a hypothesis that avoids religion.
 
Top