Claudia, I’m disappointed that you can’t write this stuff without it being a rant (which you basically admit in your opening.) You continually just call ID idiocy but you never prove your claim.

In fact the end part has me feeling more in agreement with the opposite of your opinion. You talk about ID proponents as though they’re dishonest shysters who disingenuously try to present points of doubt in evolutionary theory, and then act as though it’s wrong of them to move on to another possible chink in the theory if the science is able to address their initial question (I’m referring here to your rant about the irreducible complexity argument about the eye.)

But all they are doing is doing what the evolutionary theorists themselves should be doing- which is to constantly question whether or not the theory holds up to scrutiny. The ID theorists aren’t "cravenly running away" when they find a new point of weakness in evolutionary theory- instead, it’s the evolutionary theorists who are cravenly running away from having to defend their theory.

I’ll be away from my computer for a bit but will check back with you later.

According to Ben Stein, intelligent design is the "hypothesis" that an "all-powerful designer" created the ancestors of the forms of life that exist today, and that those ancestors were not significantly different from their living descendants.  (See "a discussion between R.C. Sproul & Ben Stein about evolution, and the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4609561480192587449&q=Expelled%3A+No+Intelligence&ei=-csSSNigCZDCqAP65aDFBA )  Mr. Stein believes that the all-powerful designer is the god of The Holy Bible.   By this belief, he has transformed his god into an untestable hypothesis.  God is no longer something to have faith in; God is now a hypothesis that cannot be proven to be true.

Whoa, hold on here. Can we back up a bit?

Can we put aside the actual people who call themselves ID proponents and those who call themselves evolutionary theorists (both of which include people who go beyond the realm of real science at times, and I’ll concede that a greater number of the ID proponents do that.)

What I’m trying to get to is the abstract- is it or is it not possible for a theory which includes a designer to be considered a falsifiable theory? Why or why not?

I feel that it is, because if there are pieces of evidence which fit better with a theory of deliberate change rather than spontaneous change, then the ID theorists have a better hypothesis.

If, as they present these pieces of evidence as a test of the status quo theory of evolution (and posit that their theory of an intelligent designer is a better fit) and then the evolutionary theorists demonstrate that they are incorrect and that the status quo theory actually can sufficiently explain the pieces of evidence that were brought into question, then what has happened there? The challenging theory has been falsified. Isn’t that the bar that has to be met to be considered a valid scientific hypothesis?

It seems that you are saying that eventually ID reaches a point in it’s broader theorizing where the ideas will not be falsifiable. But that’s true of "non-intelligent design" theory too, as we all pretty much accept that neither the existence or absence of God is a falsifiable hypothesis. It seems to me that it’s perfectly possible for some parts of "non-ID" evolutionary theory to be challenged on a scientific basis, even if that will reach a limit beyond which science can’t really go. And that’s the point really, IMO- ID theorists are attempting to keep science within its proper bounds.

Here’s the fundamental problem, Christine. You say "if there are pieces of evidence which fit better with a theory of deliberate change rather than spontaneous change."

The only evidence offered by I.D., the actual theory promoted by the people that started it, is "we can’t think of any other explanation for how this part could have evolved." That’s not "evidence." In fact, much of their specific claims in this regard can and have been falsified, by demonstrating proto-eyes or proto-bacteria filia, either directly or by hypothetical explanations of how those parts may have arisen through natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.

The BROADER "ID" which is simply that evolution doesn’t disprove the existence of a creator, is not a proper use of the term I.D., and using it as such, as I explained over at SF recently, gives aid and comfort to the ID folks, who use support for that "broader ID" to claim support for their specific ID assertions.

In fact, much of their specific claims in this regard can and have been falsified, by demonstrating proto-eyes or proto-bacteria filia, either directly or by hypothetical explanations of how those parts may have arisen through natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.

But I think you are proving my point, Pat. What I’m saying is that the arguments being made then are falsifiable- you just said, they’ve been falsified. Thus they meet the bar for being considered scientific arguments.

If you, or Claudia, Tully, whoever- want to then say that ID as a theory is close to being disproven because the challenges it has made have been shot down- then fine, I don’t have a problem with that. But what I find arrogant and annoying is Claudia’s assertion that the challenges were never worthy of scientific scrutiny to begin with. To me it seems obvious that they were- and that scientists should welcome that kind of questioning which will either continue to lead to strengthening of the evidence in favor of ‘non-ID’ evolution or potentially eventually expose a weakness that will take the theory in a new direction.

 If and when proponents of alternative medicine have evidence to back their claims, I take them very seriously. I also find that having an open mind helps prevent the stilted thinking that has adversely affected our Western system of medicine, because we’ve unfortunately developed tunnel vision in thinking that we need to attack illnesses rather than assisting in the body’s own natural defenses aginst them.

Here, here Christine! (Not that I am a proponent one way or the other for alternative medicine) But it is all about what evidence comes about, and how we react to that evidence.  We shouldn’t just say ”all alternative medicine is hogwash", some is, some may not be.

A further point to add to my last alternative medicine comment.  Just because science may say they don’t have the time, resources, or desire to research something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, nor does it mean it does exist.  We choose science as our tool to determine what "is" and what "is not" In and of itself t is not all knowing, it is just a tool.

First off, you have to define "a designer." And when you get to "Sumpreme Being possessed of supernatural abilities," you’ve already stepped beyond the borders of science, which is concerned with knowledge of the natural, not the supernatural.
Hogwash!

Did Mendel have to define genes before he could hypothesize about inheritence?

We should be open to following the evidence wherever it leads. What you are saying is that anyone who thinks the evidence MIGHT lead to fingerprints of a creative force or being has to be silenced because eventually that will lead beyond the scope of science. And increasingly that is what I hear the evolutionary scientists saying- that they’re ONLY willing to consider the parts of the evidence that lead to things that can continue to be explained by science. Thus they’re already stamping a seal of approval ONLY on those theories which don’t lend credence to a designer being part of the process. When they do that, they are the ones who are crossing a line.

It’s like the heliocentric controversy in reverse; instead of the Church being unwilling to support scientific exploration of ideas that didn’t keep theology as the fundamental way of viewing man’s place in the universe, today’s scientists are refusing to consider any theorizing which might eventually threaten science’s supremacy.

If you, or Claudia, Tully, whoever- want to then say that ID as a theory is close to being disproven because the challenges it has made have been shot down- then fine, I don’t have a problem with that. But what I find arrogant and annoying is Claudia’s assertion that the challenges were never worthy of scientific scrutiny to begin with.

As I said, ID "theory" simply can’t be scientifically disproven (or proven!) because it relies on non-falsifiable assumptions that are inherently beyond the boundaries of scientific inquiry.

Challenges to the less-evidenced areas of evolutionary theory are peachy-keen. That’s what leads to more inquiry and greater knowledge*. What’s NOT valid is to challenge them on claims of "better explanations" that are themselves completely unsupported in science and essentially unprovable. Poking holes in a sheet at the weak points does not provide the threads to repair the gaps. When you go the "better explanation" route you have to be able to scientifically prove the better explanation–you have to be able to (scientifically, using valid scientific method) repair the gaps. And ID can’t do that.

And when you can’t repair the gaps, you’re not improving the state of the knowledge.

[*--N.B.: "Greater knowledge" is NOT synonymous with "greater certainty." Often it just means a better knowledge of how great the uncertainties are.]

or rather we can fail to disprove with the current tools we have in the scientific arsenal.

Not "better explanations" "possible explanations" that as of yet cannot be proven with the current tools we have in the scientific arsenal.

An irrelevant distinction, Jay. When you have those better tools you can use them. Science does not preclude alternative explanations. Science requires they be proven to be better than the current best explanation in order to be accepted in place of the current explanation.

ABSOLUTELY NOT, and I would thank you sincerely not to put words in my mouth unless I actually said them. I have not suggesting "silencing" anyone. 

Tully, what I was getting at is that I see that as being the effect of your words because you opened by saying that anyone who hypothesizes about a design based theory MUST FIRST define who or what the designer is. You didn’t respond to my rebuttal to that- what of Mendel, was he out of line in hypothesizing about inheritance even though he had no idea of what genes were like?

Perhaps not, but I think Christine and I are roughly saying the same thing.

What is the non-supernatural creator theory, Christine? Are we in the realm of little green men here?

And once again, you are REDEFINING ID. It’s very annoying. The ONLY people who actually promote ID, the people who created the theory of ID, define ID to mean far more than you do. If you want to create some other theory, with some other name, fine. But that is not supporting "ID."

Also, if they frame the argument to say that ID necessarily includes the supernatural, then my argument still stands. What may have appeared "supernatural" before using the tools they had at their disposal then, we may now have a hypothesis for that we can fail to disprove with the tools we have now.

What is the non-supernatural creator theory, Christine? Are we in the realm of little green men here?
Theoretically, that’s possible, is it not, Pat? And it would be perfectly consistent with science if the evidence led us there, but under the guidelines that Tully is establishing we’d be unable to follow that line of evidence if someone uncovered a bit of it.

It’s funny you say that, actually, because there is a well known scientist who now says he thinks that might be a valid theory and I was just trying to remember his name.
All I’m trying to say is that you guys are cutting off this line of thinking at the pass and I don’t think that you are correct in the way you are doing that. At some point, yes, once one begins to speculate about a supernatural guiding force, that speculation cannot be considered scientific theory. But when one begins that line of thought, what one is basically saying is that on this particular part of understanding the universe, we think that inferring the supernatural is more rational than insisting that the universe remains completely natural and open to scientific understanding. Again, it’s a matter of accepting the boundary of science. There’s a difference between scientists saying that any potential supernatural aspect to the universe can’t be studied through scientific exploration, and saying that the supernatural explanations aren’t rational.

As have those studying and demonstrating micro-evolutionary processes.

I didn’t miss that you inserted the ‘micro-’ prefix there, because of course there’s much less support for macroevolution.
As for the Mendel analogy, what I’m suggesting is that the ID theory is that in certain areas of macroevolution, the living systems behave more like designed systems than like nondesigned ones. I’m not sure to what extent that’s demonstrable or replicatable, but I’ve already stated that the ideas were obviously falsifiable to the extent that the evolutionary scientists DID falsify them. The ID side suggested that the eye was a system too complex to have evolved through the process previously described, and then the initial theory was modified to explain that. Thus, in that instance, there’s falsification of the hypothesis of the system demonstrating signs which could only be consistent with design.

But if you confine ID to simply being the theory that takes note of certain pieces of evidence which seemingly indicate that living systems behave in some ways more like designed things than like nondesigned things

That still requires assuming a designer (among other things–it actually includes a WHOLE lot of other assumptions about the nature of "design" itself). If you can prove that designer hypothesis using the scientific method, please, by all means, go right ahead. I’m all ears! State the falsifiable hypothesis, and the means of falsification.

As Pat said, you’re trying to redefine the doctrine of ID that is actually being promoted for inclusion in science education. Science neither affirms nor denies that which is beyond its scope. Nor can it. (Though some scientists do–but that’s human behavior, not science.)
 
And it would be perfectly consistent with science if the evidence led us there, but under the guidelines that Tully is establishing we’d be unable to follow that line of evidence if someone uncovered a bit of it.

Bull, Christine. Produce evidence, produce a falsifiable hypothesis relating thereto, and you’re in business! Until you do that you have nothing to follow. Your speculations about the nature of design are just that–speculations. One can speculate anything, including that entire universe was vomited up by a galactic cane toad three seconds ago, including us and all our memories.

And that’s close to the way ID proponents work. Offer speculation, but never ever ever produce a falsifiable hypothesis.

Jay C, I don’t generally engage in teleological arguments in relation to science. They’re pointless. I will simply note that the concept of a Supreme Being possessed of the omnipotence to create natural law is categorically beyond the simple exploration of natural law by non-omnipotent non-Supreme Beings subject to said natural law. If such an omnipotent Supreme Being wanted us to find Him, He need not play hide and seek. Nor need He write post-dated reality checks.

The ID side suggested that the eye was a system too complex to have evolved through the process previously described, and then the initial theory was modified to explain that. Thus, in that instance, there’s falsification of the hypothesis of the system demonstrating signs which could only be consistent with design.

BS again, Christine. How do you know what evidence of design is? How do you know that design requires intelligence? How is it that what you consider "design" cannot arise from the laws of the universe itself? Why do you believe the very existence of physical constants requires or even implies a designer?

It’s a circular and emotional argument, not a scientific one. "It’s more complicated than I can currently explain, therefore it must have been designed by some superior intelligence."

There is nothing teleogical about my argument.  I’m talking about what was in science, and what is in science, not what may or may not be in the future.If science couldn’t create hypotheses capable of falsification for X in the past, but can now, does that mean X didn’t exist then, but does now?

Simple question.  Answer should be a simple yes or no I would think.

Sorry, Christine, but ID is not a scientific theory even if you postulate a non-supernatural creator. It would require actual evidence to support such a theory. "I don’t know how that happened" does not support a theory of either a natural or a super-natural creator. You’ve been consistently avoiding addressing that point, which I’ve made repeatedly now.

As I’ve said elsewhere, there is a real debate to be had with the militantly atheistic scientists who hold to the extreme opinion that science somehow proves the lack of existence of God. But that debate cannot be had on the tails of "Intelligent Design." The fundamental principles of "Intelligent Design," its vary fundamental approach to analysis, has absolutely nothing to do with science, and yet they insist that it does. I urge you to drop that label and have nothing more to do with it. It doesn’t mean what you would like it to mean, and trying to redefine it to mean something else causes confusion which provides benefits to the militant religionists who promote it.

Tully, I will say that my own opinion is being honed by this discussion.

I guess ultimately what I’m trying to say is that you may be absolutely correct about the inability to put forth a scientific argument for the existence of a designer. But what I still believe can be done is to show the weaknesses in evolutionary theory that might give more support for the concept of a designer-  a concept which would be better defined and understood through philosophy rather than science.
What I don’t think you leave enough room for is the inferential theorizing rather than just observational. This gets to what Jay was saying- that the question could be raised based on an inference of the potential existence of something that we can’t yet explain or observe. Or potentially in this case, it might even be an inferrence of something which we think we never will be able to observe (sort of a macro version of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.)

wj: Fair enough, but it still remains that the questioning itself was legitimate and then an answer was supplied.

 How do you know what evidence of design is?
Um, observation? Designed things have purpose built into them, while non-designed things are organized randomly and haphazardly so that any usefulness (to the object itself or the system) occurs only at a rate that’s consistent with statistical variation. That’s why the macro jumps are relevant to this scrutiny- like the Cambrian fossil record suddenly showing existence of all of the current phyla, and no new phyla developing since then. Until or unless the evolutionary biologists can explain that, why isn’t the ‘design’ model a better explanation for (relatively speaking, of course) sudden explosion of macroevolution?

Science uses inferential theorizing all the time, Christine, to generate new ideas. But then that new idea must be crystalized into a hypothesis which is "falsifiable."

OK, Pat, but I’m arguing from the POV that ID could be an idea rather than a theory. You all may be completely correct that the current proponents of ID are presenting it that way and that this is wrong- but that’s not what I’m arguing against.

I know the definition of supernatural just fine, thanks. And you used that word not, me.  What I should have added is that "supernatural" is just a convenient label for "the buck of stuff that can’t be explained".  Over time, as science has gained more tools, hasn’t that "bucket" had less and less in it? (Other than the new unexplained questions that we come up with)

Hah, you actually provide me with a good analogy, Pat, with the drunkard’s walk.

We observe that the drunkard has progressed, say, half a mile. We can infer that this didn’t happen randomly because probability would have him wandering in various directions without forward progression during that period of time. You correctly point out that the real reason might be a wall on one side- but what if there is no visible wall? Would it be unscientific to propose that there might be something there that made his movement nonrandom? That’s an inferrence, which might not be accepted without some observational proof- but in the absence of some other satisfactory theory, the inferred theory might be perfectly rational and might stand.

And if there is some other theory then Occam’s razor might apply, so that if the other theory is simpler and includes *some* observations to verify it, then the other might be more accepted. But then the proponents of the initial theory might find observations which push Occam’s razor in the other direction- if there are more doubts in the theory which has some observational proof, then it might become more rational to accept that the "invisible wall" theory really is a more simple explanation of the facts at hand and that there is some reason that we’re just not able to gather the observational proof.

Jay C, I’m not going to bite on the "higher nature" teleological argument either. Your argument still contains the unresolvable higher being. When you can trot it out for inspection, please do. Until then, you’re arguing metaphysics, not physics.

Occam’s Razor does not, I don’t believe, inherently assume that the supernatural (be that a god or a space alien) is the "simpler" explanation.