Intelligent Design isn't falsifiable, plus we've already falsified it

[udontknowmickey]

Link (http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.php?p=807&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#more8 07)

If you need any more evidence of why teaching this rubbish as science should stop, this quote says it all. (And it was used to support the validity of the ID case!) Are we trying to teach children to jump to shaky and unfounded conclusions in science class? Beacuse the kind of argument made below is NOT proper use of the scientific method.

[ QUOTE ]
"It has been discovered that the structure of information in living systems is mathematically identical to that of written language. Since both written language and DNA have that telltale property of information carried along by specific sequences of 'words,' and since intelligence is known to produce written language, is it not reasonable to identify the cause of the DNA's information as an intelligence too? (Of Pandas and People, page 57)

[/ QUOTE ]

Or how about:

[ QUOTE ]
"If experience has shown that a certain class of phenomena results from intelligent causes and then we encounter something new but similar, we conclude its origin also to be from an intelligent cause." (Of Pandas and People, page ix)

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I didn't know that human experience was familiar with the creation of any other universe (or even solar system or galaxy) as a result of intelligent causes. In fact, I think it is safe to say that bhumans have NO experience with this class of phenomena.

[Jeff V]

From the same story/post

[ QUOTE ]
In friendly questioning from the plaintiff, Miller asserted that the theory of intelligent design was “not a testable theory in any sense” and so wasn’t science. Later, however, Miller argued that science has tested Michael Behe's bacterial flagellum argument and falsified it, by pointing to a micro-syringe called the Type III Secretory System, and arguing that it could have served as a functional step on the gradual, Darwinian pathway to the full flagellar motor.

Did the journalists covering the trial notice the contradiction? Miller tried to provide a fig leaf for it, but the fig leaf was itself a misrepresentation.


[/ QUOTE ]

So yes we can make not so great arguments on both sides. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
From the same story/post

[ QUOTE ]
In friendly questioning from the plaintiff, Miller asserted that the theory of intelligent design was “not a testable theory in any sense” and so wasn’t science. Later, however, Miller argued that science has tested Michael Behe's bacterial flagellum argument and falsified it, by pointing to a micro-syringe called the Type III Secretory System, and arguing that it could have served as a functional step on the gradual, Darwinian pathway to the full flagellar motor.

Did the journalists covering the trial notice the contradiction? Miller tried to provide a fig leaf for it, but the fig leaf was itself a misrepresentation.


[/ QUOTE ]

So yes we can make not so great arguments on both sides. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

That source has obviously a biased agenda and I don't believe it was any contradiction at all.

If I say "Unicorns created the universe". You can say that such a statement is not testable and there is no way of providing evidence beyond the universe to support it. But then say I add, "Oh, and seahorse skeletons support my argument because they are the same as horses and unicorns." You certainly could test that and refute that specific argument without admitting that the unicorn theory is testable.

Keep swinging, maybe you can at least make contact next time.

[ QUOTE ]
"It has been discovered that the structure of information in living systems is mathematically identical to that of written language. Since both written language and DNA have that telltale property of information carried along by specific sequences of 'words,' and since intelligence is known to produce written language, is it not reasonable to identify the cause of the DNA's information as an intelligence too? (Of Pandas and People, page 57)

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this ID argument remind anybody else of the kind of reasoning used here:

King Bedevere: "Quiet, quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch."
Angry Mob: "There are??? Are there??? Tell us. Tell us. Do they hurt?"
King Bedevere: "Tell me, what do you do with witches?"
Angry Mob: "Burn Them!"
King Bedevere: "And what do you burn apart from witches?"
Angry Mob: "More witches!" (peasant gets slapped)
Angry Mob: "Wood!"
King Bedevere: "So, why do witches burn?"
Angry Mob: "Because they're made of... wood?"
King Bedevere: "Good! So how do we tell whether she is made of wood?"
Angry Mob: "Build a bridge out of her!"
King Bedevere: "Ahh, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?"
Angry Mob: "Oh ya."
King Bedevere: "Tell me, Does wood sink in water?"
Angry Mob: "No, no, it floats."
Angry Mob: "Throw her into the pond!"
King Bedevere: "What also floats in water?"
Angry Mob: "Bread, apples, very small rocks, cider, gravy, cherries, mud, churches, lead..."
King Arthur: "A duck!"
King Bedevere: "Exactly! So, logically....."
Angry Mob: "If she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood."
King Bedevere: "And therefore?"
Angry Mob: "A Witch!"

(Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Keep swinging, maybe you can at least make contact next time.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's cute; especially from someone who doesn't understand the subject matter being discussed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Keep swinging, maybe you can at least make contact next time.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's cute; especially from someone who doesn't understand the subject matter being discussed.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/knowitall/knowitall.jpg

If you want to compare criteria for who is better qualified to discuss teaching of the scientific method and results based on it, I am open to it.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Keep swinging, maybe you can at least make contact next time.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's cute; especially from someone who doesn't understand the subject matter being discussed.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/knowitall/knowitall.jpg

If you want to compare criteria for who is better qualified to discuss teaching of the scientific method and results based on it, I am open to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. You illustrated my point very well. Thank you for that. Haha!

[goofball]

No rational person can claim that intelligent design is science. Period. Even my very religous friend is outraged by the teaching of id as science.

(does anyone else find it funny that the popularized abbreviation for this mythology is the same as the part of the psyche that exists to serve our immediate impulses and immediately satisfy our most primitive needs)

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
From the same story/post

[ QUOTE ]
In friendly questioning from the plaintiff, Miller asserted that the theory of intelligent design was “not a testable theory in any sense” and so wasn’t science. Later, however, Miller argued that science has tested Michael Behe's bacterial flagellum argument and falsified it, by pointing to a micro-syringe called the Type III Secretory System, and arguing that it could have served as a functional step on the gradual, Darwinian pathway to the full flagellar motor.

Did the journalists covering the trial notice the contradiction? Miller tried to provide a fig leaf for it, but the fig leaf was itself a misrepresentation.


[/ QUOTE ]

So yes we can make not so great arguments on both sides. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see any contradiction. It is true that ID is neither falsifiable nor a scientific theory. (Which doesn't necessarily imply it's false.) Behe meanwhile claims that the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved, and it therefore falsifies evolution. Miller has simply shown Behe's claim to be false, which has nothing at all to do with "falsifying" ID.

Suppose, for example, that someone claims astrology is a scientific theory, and as "evidence" in support of this theory, he or she further claims that stars exert a strong force upon humans which induce profound effects. If a scientist then counters that astrology is not science, and in any case that the gravity and radiation induced by distant stars on Earth is completely negligible, there is no "contradiction." The scientist has merely countered a false claim without conceding astrology is a falsifiable scientific theory.

[Jeff V]

This is partly why I thought kidluckee was younger than 33.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
This is partly why I thought kidluckee was younger than 33.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strangely, the only people who thought that were the people whose positions he is constantly point out as untenable.

[RJT]

I don’t really know much (anything) about Intelligent Design. But from what I read in the link inside the link here can it be describe like this:

ID is basically a theory that God ( or some thing) created a “computer program” and then he created the first cell to start evolution and that program is called DNA.

[usmhot]

Nope, the whole point of intelligent design is that it is supposed to discount evolution. They argue that the sort of complexity that we see all round us in plants and animals could not possibly have come about through evolution. The classic ID example of this is the 'eye' - they (the IDers) try to argue that it is only useful as a whole complete organ and so no evolutionary stage in between could have come about. I won't go into the counter arguments for this, as they are pretty straight-forward for anyone who has even a basic understanding of evolution.