INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY EXPLAINED

ID for Dummies
TECHNICAL DEFINITIONS OF ID:

1. MECHANISM: ID as a mechanism in and of itself – Intelligent Design is the action and result of artificial intervention interrupting undirected natural processes, such as natural selection.

2. HYPOTHESIS: ID as a scientific hypothesis in biology – Intelligent Design is the proposition that evolution requires an artificial intervention in addition to natural selection and mutations.

3. SCIENTIFIC THEORY: Intelligent Design Theory in Biology is the scientific theory that artificial intervention is a universally necessary condition of the first initiation of life, development of the first cell, and increasing information in the genome of a population leading to greater complexity evidenced by the generation of original biochemical structures.

Authorities:

* Official Discovery Institute definition: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
* Stephen Meyer’s definition: http://www.discovery.org/v/1971
* Casey Luskin’s Discussion: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/misrepresenting_the_definition028051.html
* William Dembski’s definition: http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/

ID Theory does not recognize any designers per se because there are numerous sources of design. Whether there is an ultimate “designer” is a philosophical inference that has nothing much to do with science. ID is a study of information and design. The scientific issue is the source of information or intelligence that lead to design. Design does not necessarily infer a designer, it only is evidence that there is a source of intelligence, which could be entirely artificial.

There is an expanded discussion on the technical definitions of Intelligent Design here.

Conjectures as to Sources of Intelligent Design:

Such artificial sources include:

1. Natural Genetic Engineering, http://www.microbialinformaticsj.com/content/1/1/11

2. Quantum biological hypothesis, http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-scientists-erase-energy.html; and this article.

3. Reductionism, http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/2010-coming-down-from-the-reductionism-trip/

4. Problem Solving on a Molecular Level: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110125172418.htm

5. Although the front-loading hypothesis offered by theistic evolutionists is rejected by ID proponents, it is still plausible that information might enter in the universe in a similar manner, which would explain events such as the Cambrian Explosion.

6. Extraterrestrials: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUV55M_ncns&feature=related; and this article.

Definition of Irreducible Complexity:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” – Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Since the publication of Darwin’s Black Box, Behe has refined the definition of irreducible complexity. In 1996 he wrote that “any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.”(Behe, M, 1996b. Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry, a speech given at the Discovery Institute’s God & Culture Conference, August 10, 1996 Seattle, WA. http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm).

By defining irreducible complexity in terms of “nonfunctionality,” Behe casts light on the fundamental problem with evolutionary theory: evolution cannot produce something where there would be a non-functional intermediate. Natural selection only preserves or “selects” those structures which are functional. If it is not functional, it cannot be naturally selected. Thus, Behe’s latest definition of irreducible complexity is as follows:

“An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.” (A Response to Critics of Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe, PCID, Volume 1.1, January February March, 2002; iscid.org/)

Quotes taken from: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840

One thing that is glaringly evident about my immediately preceding comment is that the heart of IC goes straight to the falsifiability of Darwin as expressly stated by Darwin himself. So, attacking this issue is a delicate matter because otherwise Darwin’s theory could be held as not falsifiable science. If a theory is not falsifiable, then it is not science by definition of science.

A more comprehensive discussion on irreducible complexity is discussed here.

Definition of Information, or Complex Specified Information (aka CSI) :

Intelligence and Information with respect to ID theory:

The scientific method is commonly described as a 5-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, results and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). The basic protest of scientists to ID are the ambiguous definitions of information and complexity. When we see in the biological structure-producing DNA machinery the ability to create some structures, and not others, which perform some specific action and not some other specific action, we can legitimately say that we have complex genetic information. When we specify this information as necessary for some function given a preexisting pattern, then we can say it was designed. This is called “complex specified information” or “CSI”.

It is the work of William Dembski who was able to quantify information and complexity so that design and information can be studied in molecular biology as their own independent field of study. The quantified versions of these are specified complexity, and complex specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed. Irreducible complexity is falsifiable, and therefore a legitimate scientific hypothesis. Quotes taken from the Discovery Institute here.

The basic protest of scientists to ID are the ambiguous definitions of information, complexity, specified complexity, and complex specified information (CSI). To understand Dembski better, this is a good video to get a gist of what the mathematics are attempting to analyze: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV5vThBcz1g&feature=related The excellent mathematical explanation starts at about the 2:57 mark.  For more on Dembski’s work, see here and here.

So, in other words, when we see in the biological structure-producing DNA machinery the ability to create some structures, and not others, which perform some specific action and not some other specific action, we can legitimately say that we have complex genetic information. When we specify this information as necessary for some function given a preexisting pattern, then we can say it was designed. This is called “complex specified information” or “CSI”.

If a function vital to survival of an organism of a given structure (the pre-existing specified pattern) could occur only if a given set of parts (the complex information) were present, and this complex set of parts were to come into being, then we could justifiably infer it was designed.

Because we can observe intelligence being able to manipulate parts in an innovative manner to create novel CSI, the presence of CSI indicates design at some level, and removes the possibility that a chance-law mechanism such as the mutation-selection mechanism was responsible for it. Novel CSI itself cannot be generated by a chance-law based process, but rather can only be shuffled around. As Stephen Meyer says, “Because we know intelligent agents can (and do) produce complex and functionally specified sequences of symbols and arrangements of matter (i.e., information content), intelligent agency qualifies as a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of this effect.” Quote taken from: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/832

DEFINITION OF INTELLIGENCE:

There is no special ID definition of intelligence other than what is defined in Webster’s dictionary. ID refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof.

Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.

Definition of Intelligent Design Discussed:

What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.

Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. [Source: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php]

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

ID RESEARCH

You can access a more comprehensive list of about one hundred peer-reviewed pro-ID research published in science journals here.

Here’s a research paper done by University of Washington that was published in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7192/abs/nature06879.html and http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=40536. It’s significance to ID Theory is discussed here, http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-research-published-in-nature/

2. Here’s a more current one under peer review, http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/rjohns/spontaneous_4.pdf

The crux of ID Theory is a study of biological information. Up until the present time, ID faced the difficult dilemma of being able to identify “design.” Information must first somehow be quantified before design can be recognized because an unnatural, artificial intervention cannot be demonstrated unless complexity is defined.

Here’s a scientific paper that is up for peer review that might resolve this problem. The paper was published last month in Synthese, and is entitled, “Self-Organisation in Dynamical Systems: A Limiting Result.” The “self” means without external help. The paper shows that physical laws, operating on an initially random arrangement of matter, cannot produce complex objects with any reasonable chance in any reasonable time. The argument is based on a number of original mathematical theorems that are proved in the paper. For a more detailed explanation, see http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology/the-limits-of-self-organisation/#more-15265.

3. And another one very recent, http://www.physorg.com/news204810859.html.

This is a new Darwin-bypassing hypothesis for the evolution of shape, coined “morphogenesis” by Stuart Pivar of the Synthetic Life Lab in NYC. This hypothesis came from the field of research in astrobiology, a branch of aerospace engineering that does research in bionics, artificial bio-components and limbs used in the medical industry. The concept is that the formation of biological organisms might be driven more from developmental dynamics that occur inside the embryo than the genome. You can download the research paper from a link in the article. The article linked below states, “How life originated and evolved is arguably the greatest unsolved problem facing science. Thousands of scientists and scores of organizations and scientific journals are dedicated to discovering mechanisms underlying the mystery.” Although the hypothesis provides a fully naturalistic explanation for the development of form, the causation is entirely independent of genetics or natural selection.

The jury verdict is still not over yet with several hypotheses regarding irreducible complexity. For a comprehensive list, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=submitSearchQuery.

4. Here’s an interesting research paper. It’s entitled “The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds” – http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1/BIO-C.2010.1. It is discussed further in the ID blog linked here, http://www.idintheuk.blogspot.com/.

We are still looking to see if we can detect design in the first place. Since there is much to learn in molecular and cellular biology, we don’t know yet what we are going to find. What we do know is that DNA, purine, adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine, deoxyribose, and phosphate combine chemically to form information. That information is somehow processed. The question is how. It is as if there were at some juncture an intelligent computer programmer that set the computer software to run DNA sequencing in the first place. Perhaps the first cell that caused life on earth is extraterrestrial. We just don’t know. Somehow, the information was downloaded to begin with. The smallest single-celled organism there is requires 300 nucleotides to function.

How did the building blocks of information increase in complexity without guidance before a living organism might exist in the first place? How does Darwin’s theory operate on a molecular level? This is the kind of research that ID will be involved with. Your question is on the other side of the chain, at the result of species and a variation occurring in a population. I don’t think the answer will be found there. Species are a product of evolution. What ID is interested in studying is how the information increased in complexity because mutations alone have not been an adequate answer, but only lead to new hypotheses.

One might think of abiogenesis, but it seems as if that same process continues on throughout all life. In other words, it is my hypothesis that whatever the information processing is that directs cell division to reproduce reptiles, primates, and other life forms including humans is the identical process that occurred in the original abiogenesis event. I believe abiogenesis is very much testable because the information generation that takes place millions of times a minute in present life forms is the identical process that took place to form the original cell. In other words, in the same manner that we learned from embryology how the formation of an embryo portrays a picture of the evolutionary process so likewise the abiogenesis process is constantly reoccurring as well. ID’s search for design might end up being falsified, but I think there will be some surprise discoveries along the way. That’s often the case in the history of science.

ID predicts:
1. Information stored in DNA can be quantified and measured.
2. Biological complexity can be quantified and measured.
3. The blood clotting process is irreducibly complex.
4. Bacteria flagella are irreducibly complex.
5. The cilium is irreducibly complex.
6. The illuminating mechanism of a firefly is irreducibly complex (that one’s my own)
7. There are geologic processes that cause rapid fossilization to occur, probably in about 100 years rather than epochs of time.
8. The fossil record will show morphology as punctuated equilibrium instead of phyletic gradualization.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in ID THE SCIENTIFIC THEORY and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY EXPLAINED

  1. Hmm is anyone else experiencing problems with the images on this blog loading?
    I’m trying to determine if its a problem on my end or if it’s the
    blog. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

  2. To “our removals site”: I checked the links, and they’re all alive. The one and only pic loads just fine. I appreciate the feedback, but it appears to be your pc. Thanks

  3. ID IS for dummies! You nailed it.

  4. I’m truly enjoying the design and layout of your site. It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes
    it much more enjoyable for me to come here and visit more often.
    Did you hire out a designer to create your theme? Excellent work!

  5. I know this web page gives quality based content and additional information, is there any other web page which provides these kinds of things in quality?

  6. ID as a mechanism in and of itself – Intelligent Design is the action and result of artificial intervention interrupting undirected natural processes, such as natural selection.

    You have not explained the mechanism. How does it work?
    For example:
    “Magic is a mechanism in and of itself – Magic is the action and result of artificial intervention interrupting undirected natural processes, such as natural selection.”
    See? You’ve said precisely nothing.

    Intelligent Design Theory in Biology is the scientific theory…

    Ah, so you claim that it’s a scientific theory?
    Ok, how is ID a scientific theory?
    Do tell.

    ID refers to a scientific research program…

    How much does it cost?
    Where does it take place?
    Who is the head researcher?
    How many are on the staff?
    What research are they actually doing?

    Up until the present time, ID faced the difficult dilemma of being able to identify “design.”

    Ah. Yes.
    Bit of a problem that. Just a bit of a one.

    You can access a more comprehensive list of about one hundred peer-reviewed pro-ID research published in science journals.

    No, you can’t. Read the link. Check out the fine print. Remember your Ninth Commandment.

    We are still looking to see if we can detect design in the first place.

    Who is this “we”?
    How are you “looking for it”?
    What tests are being done?
    Or is this all wishful thinking on your part?

    What ID is interested in studying is how…

    This study part business suggests that work somewhere somehow is being done. What tests are being done? What observations? Specifics?

    ID’s search for design might end up being falsified…

    Unlikely. You must be able to define it first and propose a way of testing it. Otherwise it’s unfalsifiable. Completely unfalsifiable. Just like magic.

    • Cedric,

      You wrote, “You have not explained the mechanism. How does it work? For example: ‘Magic is a mechanism in and of itself – Magic is the action and result of artificial intervention interrupting undirected natural processes, such as natural selection.’ See? You’ve said precisely nothing.”

      First of all, magic is not a scientific mechanism. This article employs scientific reasoning, and you came back making a metaphysical comment that is not within the context of science. ID Theory involves the contemplation of additional mechanisms aside from natural selection and mutations that supplement evolution and contribute to diversity and complexity. There are several conjectures as to what these additional mechanisms might be. These include (1) Natural Genetic Engineering (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/epigenetics-iii-epigeneti_b_1683713.html; http://www.microbialinformaticsj.com/content/1/1/11), and (2) Quantum Particles (http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3748, http://wp.me/p1jYkQ-cg, http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-protein/).

      You asked, “Ok, how is ID a scientific theory? Do tell.”

      This is what the article discussed. Scientific theories explain phenomena. ID Theory explains complexity. For more discussion on this subject, I suggest this Facebook link, https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/465292663514340/.

      You asked how much does ID research cost. I don’t know, I never made any such investigation. I can tell you that there are multiple ID scientists that are involved in many different research programs. There is the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/), the Biologic Institute (http://www.biologicinstitute.org/), and the Evolutionary Informatics Lab (http://www.evoinfo.org/) to name a few. And, here’s peer-reviewed pro-ID science research that is published in science journals, https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/id-peer-reviewed-research-published-in-science-journals/.

      You scoffed at the idea of the existence of design in the biological world. The book that established there is design in life forms was authored by William Dembski, entitled “The Design Inference” (1998), http://www.designinference.com/desinf.htm.

      You asked, “Who is this “we”?

      Answer: Design theorists, scientists who work in the fields of bioinformatics and ID research. I study ID research on a daily basis.

      You asked, “This study part business suggests that work somewhere somehow is being done. What tests are being done? What observations? Specifics?”

      Answer: You were already directed to the ID research papers. You can also participate in live discussion concerning ID here, https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/?ref=ts&fref=ts.

      You wrote, “You must be able to define [ID] first and propose a way of testing it.”

      The definition of ID is provided at the top of the article. ID was defined as a mechanism in and of itself, as an hypothesis, and as a scientific theory. As far as testing ID Theory, the easiest and most simple way to falsify the irreducible complexity (IC) hypothesis. IC can be falsified by conducting the gene knockout procedure. The gene knockout experiment is very basic, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_knockout. ID scientist, Scott Minnich is famous because he testified at the Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) trial all the procedure he went through to determine that the bacteria flagellum is IC. Minnich used the gene knockout technique to draw his conclusion.

      Here’s how the gene knockout method works to falsify IC. As you most like are aware, irreducible complexity gets its name because the removal of any of the vital parts to the biochemical structure or molecular machinery disengages the function of the overall system. Michael Behe chose to use the famous classic analogy of a mousetrap to illustrate the concept. The removal of any of the parts (base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) renders this somewhat simple machine useless for catching mice. If the following is established:

      (a) Multiple part engines are found in nature, where the various parts are vital to the overall function of the biochemical apparatus, and

      (b) Upon lab research, e.g. employing gene knockout experimentation, it is determined no known evolutionary pathway exists,

      then the phenomenon is called irreducible complexity.

      The bacterial flagellum has many parts. We’re not talking about mousetraps anymore. Of those parts, some 35 were all isolated and individually removed with meticulous gene knockout work conducted by Scott Minnich in 2005. Each one of these 35 cultures were repeatedly examined generation after generation just to make sure that the isolated population would not evolve the missing gene to restore motility to the bacteria.

      So, falsifying IC can be done using gene knockout experimentation by molecular biology lab techs. It’s a falsifiable and repeatable procedure that can be applied to any biochemical protein structure you would like to confirm or disprove the presence of IC. You could falsify or confirm irreducible complexity (IC) by simple knocking out a gene to each protein part of the cellular machinery of the biochemical structure that has been proposed to be irreducibly complex. If the IC system still functions in spite of missing parts, then you falsified that biochemical structure to be IC. If it were a bacterial flagellum, then you would have falsified ID Theory, which is based upon on flagellar bacteria being IC. If on the other hand the molecular apparatus ceases to operate in its original function, then IC is confirmed.

      With respect to the bacteria flagellum, some 35 proteins were all isolated and individually removed with meticulous gene knockout work conducted by Scott Minnich in 2005. Each one of these 35 cultures were repeatedly examined generation after generation just to make sure that the isolated population would not evolve the missing gene to restore motility to the bacteria. In preparation for the Kizmiller v. Dover trial, Minnich also wrote a paper on his findings involved with researching the bacteria flagellum, This is the Scott Minnich paper:
      http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=389. For more consider Behe’s comments on the subject here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A.

      Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate your comments.

      • Guillermoe says:

        1. “First of all, magic is not a scientific mechanism.” Neither is ID, unless you explain why. That was the purpose of the comment. You can say anything is a “scientific mechanism”, but you can’t show anything to be a scientific mechanism.

        2. By the way, IC HAS BEEN FALSIFIED: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7381/full/nature10724.html

        3. Also, note that an explanation cannot be a scientific theory and a scientific hypothesis at the same time. A theory is an hypothesis that has been proved to be supported by empirical evidence. A theory is supported by evidence, an hypothesis isn’t. An explanation cannot be supported and unsupported by evidence at the same time. So, you don’t know what theory and hypothesis mean, do you?

      • Guillermoe,

        You raised 3 different topics of discussion:

        1. In re mechanisms of intelligent design (ID), I agree with you. Mechanisms that qualify as ID would be any biochemical process that increases specified complexity that defies gradual, stepwise, successive modifications. Such mechanisms include cell cognition (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/cell-cognition_b_1354889.html), quantum biology (http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n1/full/nphys2474.html ), and Natural Genetic Engineering, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/epigenetics-iii-epigeneti_b_1683713.html.

        2. In re whether IC was falsified. Even if IC were falsified, we would not know from the paper you referenced. Irreducible Complexity is defined as follows: AN IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX SYSTEM IS ONE THAT (a) THE REMOVAL OF A PROTEIN RENDERS THE MOLECULAR MACHINE INOPERABLE, AND (b) THE BIOCHEMICAL STRUCTURE HAS NO STEPWISE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAY. This is testable. In regard to part (b) of the definition, Michael Behe expands upon the meaning of an “evolutionary pathway”:

        “An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.” (A Response to Critics of Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe, PCID, Volume 1.1, January February March, 2002; iscid.org/; http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840). The hypothesis was championed by Michael Behe in 1996. Behe predicted that there are four (4) biochemical systems that meet the 2 qualifiers in the definition: (1) the bacterial flagellum, (2) cilia, (3) the vertebrate adaptive immune system, and (4) blood clotting cascade. Either these systems have an evolutionary pathway, or not. You can determine that by conducting the research in the lab.

        3. In re whether Intelligent Design should be elevated to a level of theory, as opposed to an hypothesis: First of all, I agree with you, in spite of the insults. If anyone is unwilling to accept ID as a scientific “theory,” I have no problem with that. I don’t mind calling ID a scientific conjecture or hypothesis. The Discovery Institute was founded in 1990. The ID hypothesis became a documented testable fact in 1996, upon the publishing of Michael Behe’s book, “Darwin’s Black Box.” If we recognize 1996 to be the beginning to count time, then ID has been now unfalsified for 18 years and counting, even though ID is very much falsifiable. So, it’s just about as close to a theory as you can get. But, I don’t demand others to recognize the status of ID as a theory. It just sounds better to say “ID Theory” as opposed to “ID Fact,” “ID Conjecture,” or “ID Hypothesis.”

  7. radaractive says:

    Science is a natural part of philosophy and is therefore part of the idea of searching for knowledge. Yes, ID science does not try to identify a designer. However, to say that the identity of a designer is not science is falling for the naturalist trap. Science as a discipline was arguably begun by the ancient Greeks, however, the methodological method of research and testing and most of the major scientific fields of study were invented/started by Theists. The idea that a Creator God made a logical Universe propelled men like Grossteste and Bacon and Maxwell and Newton and Kelvin and Copernicus to explore, and study and test in the belief that they would not be wasting their time. From Roger Bacon to Louis Pasteur to Wernher von Braun to John C. Sanford, many of the greatest scientists believed that God created.

    I do appreciate the work of the Discovery Institute and the great minds that work there or contribute efforts to the work done there, however, the idea that a Creator God was the designer is a valid question for science. Since Evolutionists have been driven to promote Atheistic Naturalism, I do maintain that Creationists have the same right and place in the discussion as do the proponents of modern Darwinism. There is nothing wrong with being a scientist and believing in God. There is nothing wrong with seeing evidence for God in nature. Until Darwinists stop promoting Atheism, I do believe that Theistic scientists should be glad to highlight any evidence that tends to support the Creation of everything by God. Ignorance of the BIble and the intentional censorship of any evidence that supports the existence of God is not a scientific effort, it is driven by metaphysical reasons and, if we are bringing the metaphysical into science (and for years it has been included by default) then both the idea of God and the absence of God therefore should be allowed to join the discussion and with equal standing.

    Science cannot truly prove the existence of God. Science is more about ruling things OUT rather than IN. The Discovery Institute has done a great job of ruling random chance as a creator out. Thank you for that!

  8. Pingback: Intelligent Design, QM & Information | Procrustes

  9. Guillermoe says:

    Sources of intelligent design you list are naturale mechanisms (except for extraterrestrials): where’s the “artificial intervention” coming from?

  10. Guillermoe says:

    1) “Mechanisms that qualify as ID would be any biochemical process that increases specified complexity that defies gradual, stepwise, successive modifications”

    Processes you list are natural. They are not artificial. They are not intelligent. They are not ID. They are plain biology.

    2) “Irreducible Complexity is defined as follows: AN IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX SYSTEM IS ONE THAT (a) THE REMOVAL OF A PROTEIN RENDERS THE MOLECULAR MACHINE INOPERABLE, AND (b) THE BIOCHEMICAL STRUCTURE HAS NO STEPWISE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAY”

    You can’t test (b). You can’t show the inexistance of an evolutionary pathway. All you can do is show you don’t know it. So, to show the inexistance of an evolutionary pathway you have to prove the ocurrence of conditions that lead to that. Behe proposed that condition (a) implies the inexistance of evolutionary pathway. The paper I mentioned proves that (a) DOES NOT IMPLY the inexistance of an evolutionary pathway.

    So, it is false that structures that fulfill (a) DO NOT necessarily fulfill (b). And (b) alone can’t be tested. Irreducibly complex structures we know fulfill (a), not (b). So, proving “THE REMOVAL OF A PROTEIN RENDERS THE MOLECULAR MACHINE INOPERABLE” DOES NOT PROVE “THE BIOCHEMICAL STRUCTURE HAS NO STEPWISE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAY”.

    3) “If we recognize 1996 to be the beginning to count time, then ID has been now unfalsified for 18 years and counting, even though ID is very much falsifiable. So, it’s just about as close to a theory as you can get. But, I don’t demand others to recognize the status of ID as a theory. It just sounds better to say “ID Theory” as opposed to “ID Fact,” “ID Conjecture,” or “ID Hypothesis.””

    What was there to be falsified, was already falsified. Other aspects of ID are ambiguous and unfalsifiable and not scientific, and that’s what remains unfalsified. But that was not my point. Anyone with academic instruction would not confuse theory and hypothesis as you do. So, either ID has no academic background or you are not instructed enough to talk about it.

  11. Guillermoe says:

    “An INTELLIGENT CAUSE is anything that is intelligent-like, regardless of whether it is actually conscious or not. We also use the term “artificial” to mean the same thing. It is an occurrence that happens of which interrupts a process based upon GRADUAL, STEPWISE, SUCCESSIVE MODIFICATIONS.”

    Millions of years ago an asteroid hit the Earth and interrupted a “process based upon GRADUAL, STEPWISE, SUCCESSIVE MODIFICATIONS.”

    So, a rock falling from the space is an “intelligent cause” to you, I assume.

  12. Guillermoe says:

    I correct an earlier comment.

    “So, it is false that structures that fulfill (a) DO NOT necessarily fulfill (b)”

    should say

    “So, structures that fulfill (a) DO NOT necessarily fulfill (b)”

  13. Guillermoe says:

    Is there any biological structure you can in detail explain how it get to exist? Can you give me an example, not a biological structure you can’t explain with evolution, but a biological structure you can thoroughly explain with ID?

    My point is this: in 18 years all you have achieved is to determine a number of structures you argue couldn’t have evolved. However, ID has failed to provide an explanation for the existance of any of those structures.

  14. Pingback: ARTIFICIAL INTERVENTION | Intelligent Design

  15. Pingback: STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS AGAINST ID THEORY | Intelligent Design

  16. Pingback: Intelligent Design Theory Explained | Stuff

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s