ID falsifiable, not science, not positive, not directly testable

There was a time when people believed the moon craters were the product of intelligent design because they were so perfectly round “they must have been made by intelligent creatures living on the moon”. That idea was falsified. If hypothetically someone had said back then, “The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) made the moon craters”, the claim would have been falsifiable, but it really doesn’t make a positive case for the FSM, doesn’t make the FSM directly testable, doesn’t make the FSM science. Substitute the word “ID” instead for “FSM”, and one will see why I think even though ID is falsifiable, I don’t think ID has a positive case, and I don’t think ID is directly testable, and I don’t think ID is science at least for things like biology.

I accept stonehenge was intelligently designed because I’ve seen humans make similar artifacts. The case of design in life is a different matter because we have not seen a designer of such qualifications directly. If we saw God or some UFO sending flames down from the sky with a great voice and turning a rock into a living human, then I would consider ID a positive case at that point. For now there is no positive case, but a case based on some level of belief. One might redefine science to allow ID to be defined as science, but I prefer not to promote ID as science. I’m OK with calling ID science for man-made things, but not for God-made things, unless God shows up and gives us a visual demonstration.

NOTES:

Johannes Kepler

The invention of the telescope led scientists to ponder alien civilization. In the early 1600s, astronomer Johannes Kepler believed that because the moon’s craters were perfectly round, they must have been made by intelligent creatures.
Is Anybody Out There?

435 thoughts on “ID falsifiable, not science, not positive, not directly testable

  1. Alan Fox: Yet, oddly, Doug Axe reported that he had not used the explanatory filter in his work. Does Frankie know Douglas Axe’s mind better than Doug Axe?

    Way to ignore the argument, Alan

  2. Hi petrushka

    I don’t see nor have any problem with these images. I can see that these images are somewhat similar. But I suspect that if the same views of a maned wolf were to be placed next to these images, the grey wolf would be seen as the odd one out. (The maned wolf, although a canid, is not actually a wolf.)

    And any other placental mammal skull excluding canids would also be seen as the odd one out.

  3. No one who works with fossils would have any trouble sorting marsupials from placentals. I don’t understand your question regarding cladistics.

  4. petrushka:
    No one who works with fossils would have any trouble sorting marsupials from placentals. I don’t understand your question regarding cladistics.

    But what if you only had a few ancient fossils from long extinct animals to go by? If you didn’t have any examples of soft tissue or body parts to go with these fossils?

    If a few old fossils are all you have to go on then that is what you will have to use to construct your cladogram.

    What problems did you think I would have with the images you posted?

  5. CharlieM: Where does that leave cladistics?

    Below is comparison between half a maned wolf skull and half a thylacine (Tasmanian tiger) skull.

    No it’s not. That’s a CGI representation of a full thylacine skull. The colors are the stress areas the skull sees when biting. The pic comes from here:

    Tasmanian tiger’s jaws were too weak to kill sheep

    What other “science” do you have for us?

  6. Charlie,I have no idea why you posted these pictures. Your questions make no sense.

    It is true that a single bone of a new species presents problems. Until more samples are found, there can be disagreements. But mostly that occurs between closely related species. Not so often at the genus level. Things are more settled than they were ten or 20 years ago.

    Were you suggesting there could be confusion between marsupials and placentals, given just the skull part you posted?

  7. One doesn’t need fossils to establish there are gaps, one merely needs to look at existing living creatures and see that various creatures have features highly unique to them.

    The fossils are needed to establish possibly that there was a transitional.

    The problem is that lot of the necessary transitionals are in the soft tissue, and hence there won’t be fossils any way.

    So the fossils will be absent for two possible reasons:

    1.the transitional never existed
    2. the transitional didn’t leave a trace

    So now we are left using the data we actually have, and that is genes and organs and whatever.

    What is the rate of new genes (not alleles) arriving in the biosphere vs. leaving. A good estimate is that it is negative. Ergo, the necessary new genes for transitionals won’t arrive at a fast enough rate to construct transitionals.

    Next, is are transitionals possible even in principle?

    For apes to humans, yeah, the case does look good for the evolutionists with what little we actually know, but one could say the lack of a gap is due to our ignorance. 🙂

    The gap between non-life to life? Huge.

    The gap between prokaryote to eukaryote? Huge.

    The gap between unicellularity to multicellularity? Huge, especially for animals.

    There are other tough gaps in principle.

    Even assuming humans evolved from ape-like creatures, it doesn’t mean we can extrapolate that to other forms of macro evolution.

  8. Sal:
    What kind of fossil would you expect as a transitional between life and non-life?

    Prokaryote and eukaryote? Single and multi-celled?

    Why not start over?

  9. Ah, the good old days, when creationists with PhDs in biology couldn’t tell the difference between a marsupial and a placental.

    But wait. They still can’t.

  10. petrushka: You didn’t answer the question. Where in the fossil record are the transitional fossils linking wolves and teacup poodles?

    I’m sure you’re trying to make some point. But I’m not sure what it is>

  11. Ah, the good old days, when creationists with PhDs in biology couldn’t tell the difference between a marsupial and a placental.

    But that’s why they need sharp guys like you to set them straight. 🙂

    PS
    Hunter’s PhD was in biophysics and bioinformatics, not biology.

  12. Frankie:

    the positive case for archaeology, SETI and forensic science.

    There isn’t even a case for SETI much less a positive one.

  13. stcordova: But that’s why they need sharp guys like you to set them straight.
    PS
    Hunter’s PhD was in biophysics and bioinformatics, not biology.

    You and Hunter would make a good tag team.

    Perhaps he would complete the thought you started about missing fossils.

  14. PaV: I’m sure you’re trying to make some point.But I’m not sure what it is.

    Imagine my surprise.

  15. Petrushka:

    Sal:
    What kind of fossil would you expect as a transitional between life and non-life?

    None because it doesn’t work in principle, and even if it existed, it would be gone by now since such biological materials aren’t well preserved.

  16. stcordova: None because it doesn’t work in principle, and even if it existed, it would be gone by now since such biological materials aren’t well preserved.

    Whoosh.

  17. stcordova: But that’s why they need sharp guys like you to set them straight.

    PS
    Hunter’s PhD was in biophysics and bioinformatics, not biology.

    Funny that now Sal has no problems seeing my posts but all those others I made with scientific evidence that directly refuted his ID stupidity were invisible. Not that I’m the slightest bit surprised by IDer cowardice.

  18. stcordova: None because it doesn’t work in principle, and even if it existed, it would be gone by now since such biological materials aren’t well preserved.

    Sal, you started a post implying there were missing fossil transitionals, then inexplicably veered off into OOL and single celled evolution.

    Are you going to come back and tell us what fossil transitionals are missing?

  19. Are you going to come back and tell us what fossil transitionals are missing?

    I thought I listed them. Here are the gaps missing transitionals in the fossil record.

    The gap between non-life to life? Huge.

    The gap between prokaryote to eukaryote? Huge.

    The gap between unicellularity to multicellularity? Huge, especially for animals.

  20. Fossil. I don’t think that means what you think it means.

    Unless we are getting all metaphorical, all of a sudden.

  21. Fossil. I don’t think that means what you think it means.

    That’s possible. Not the first time I haven’t understood something. 🙂

  22. Sal, what would you expect the preserved remains of a transitional between prokaryote and a eukaryote to look like?

  23. petrushka:
    Sal, what would you expect the preserved remains of a transitional between prokaryote and a eukaryote to look like?

    Such a transitional exists only in one’s imagination

  24. Sal, what would you expect the preserved remains of a transitional between prokaryote and a eukaryote to look like?

    I don’t think a transitional can exist in principle, so I have no opinion.

    I would think that’s more a problem for an evolutionary view since evolution expects transitionals.

    I also said if they hypothetically did exist, they wouldn’t leave any remains.

    Andy Knoll claims he can find early life pre-Cambrian. He was supposedly digging in pre-Cambrian outcrops. Not to mention that this seems a little absurd to me, but granting he was digging up bacterial fossils, I don’t know how good the soft tissue is to make much of any analysis.

    So if there are remains, they aren’t going to be of much use.

  25. petrushka,

    Did you see my clarification about what I had in mind? “Feathers” and “amniotic eggs”, etc. You would need intermediates for those things. We don’t see them.

    And, to be very specific, this is in regard to the concept of common descent. Poodles and wolves are much more similar than no feathers and modern bird feathers: that is a break in continuity.

  26. stcordova

    Andy Knoll claims he can find early life pre-Cambrian.He was supposedly digging in pre-Cambrian outcrops.Not to mention that this seems a little absurd to me, but granting he was digging up bacterial fossils, I don’t know how good the soft tissue is to make much of any analysis.

    Life has been on the planet for over 3.5 billion years, almost 2.5 billion years before the Cambrian. The oldest multicellular life known dates back to 2.1 billion years ago.

    Oldest Multicellular Life Revealed In Detail

    Maybe if IDers spent less time flipping coins and more time reading the scientific literature we wouldn’t see these embarrassments by them.

  27. That’s why I asked for examples. Any examples more than five years old are worthless.

    But trend line is the important thing. Creationism is up for a margin call, and has leveraged its assets.

  28. Adapa: Life has been on the planet for over 3.5 billion years, almost 2.5 billion years before the Cambrian.The oldest multicellular life known dates back to 2.1 billion years ago.

    Oldest Multicellular Life Revealed In Detail

    I’d really like to hear the ID-Creationist explanation for these 2.1 billion year old fossils. I’m especially interested in hearing how they fit in with Meyer’s “Darwin’s Doubt” Cambrian claims since these animals were around some 1.5 billion years before then.

    Here’s the open access research paper describing the finds.

    The 2.1 Ga Old Francevillian Biota: Biogenicity, Taphonomy and Biodiversity

    I expect this will be one more case of the old adage – the quickest way to clear a room of Creationists is to start posting scientific papers. 😀

  29. Adapa: No it’s not.That’s a CGI representation of a full thylacine skull.The colors are the stress areas the skull sees when biting.The pic comes from here:

    Tasmanian tiger’s jaws were too weak to kill sheep

    What other “science” do you have for us?

    Well you’ve got me on that one. That image was on my computer and I don’t remember where it came from.

    But although you have exposed the image as being incorrect, my argument remains unaffected. Compared to the skull of a dolphin the skull of a maned wolf and the skull of a thylacine look remarkably similar. Marsupials moles and Cape golden moles even more so.

    IMO this is not because of external environmental forces, but it is due to the way that their bodily form follows the archetype. Animals have a group nature which dictates their form within the limits set by the archetype.

    Dogs are very plastic in their form as we can see by looking at poodles and bulldogs. But we can still recognise them as dogs. Canids have followed the archetype in a one sided way and humans have molded them into even narrower channels within this dog nature.

    I’d say that the “intelligence” in canid “design” has its source in the being of the group. The “intelligence” in tweaking the “design” to produce domestic dogs is human. The latter demonstrates that “intelligence” does not equate to wisdom.

    As I see it animals in their group nature have a higher intelligence and show greater wisdom than individual humans do.

    This is not science as it is generally understood but I don’t really care if it is or isn’t.

  30. CharlieM

    IMO this is not because of external environmental forces, but it is due to the way that their bodily form follows the archetype.

    Your opinion and $4.50 will get you a grande latte at Starbuck’s. It’s what you can demonstrate, not just assert, that counts.

    This is not science as it is generally understood

    New leading candidate for 2016 understatement of the year.

  31. Why is Sal still insisting that ID is not science because it’s not repeatable… because it ‘s about events that (pre-supposedly) only happened once and can never ever happen again? That’s not what repeatability means

  32. Irreducible complexity is directly testable and it is still a positive case for ID.

    To Sal he thinks only absolute proof is a positive case.:

    If we saw God or some UFO sending flames down from the sky with a great voice and turning a rock into a living human, then I would consider ID a positive case at that point.

    Unfortunately for Sal science disagrees

  33. Adapa: Your opinion and $4.50 will get you a grande latte at Starbuck’s.It’s what you can demonstrate, not just assert, that counts.

    New leading candidate for 2016 understatement of the year.

    Goethe’s way of science is a “gentle empiricism”. This means observing nature with care and with as few preconceptions as you can manage. The less you force her to reveal the more of her true self she will open up to you. Goethe coined the term “morphology” for the ever changing form of living beings. And the human mind is in the unique position to be able to “see” an organism in its more complete, living form and not just in the snapshot provided by our sense impressions.

    We must use our senses to gain the most exact picture of the organism we are studying. But then we contemplate how one form changes into another, how growth and decay play their part in the being jand becoming of the individual, of the kind, and of life as a whole. This leads me to a better understanding of the natural world. Modern science is very good at helping us with the first of these activities, but the second we must do for ourselves.

    And this I cannot demonstrate to you, nor would I wish to. Because we can only demonstrate this to ourselves through personal experience. And that is what counts.

    I sit in Starbucks with a grande cappuccino writing this post and I will gladly buy you a drink and listen to your opinions. But the flight you will have to pay for yourself.

  34. stcordova,

    What is the rate of new genes (not alleles) arriving in the biosphere vs. leaving. A good estimate is that it is negative.

    An even better estimate is that it is approximately steady state … 🙂

    Ergo, the necessary new genes for transitionals won’t arrive at a fast enough rate to construct transitionals.

    Ugh. There aren’t ‘necessary genes’ for organisms that don’t exist yet. There are just genes. Sometimes they change, and change is cumulative. Everything is ‘transitional’, between its ancestors and its descendants.

    Sometimes, we transitionals leave neither fossils nor descendants.

  35. PaV,

    Do you also consider complex organisms being poofed into existence by an invisible sky fairy to be “incredible”?

    This proposition makes a whole lot more sense

    This says all anyone needs to know about your critical thinking ability.

    than thinking random causes can bring about complex specified instances of information.

    Until you can demonstrate how to calculate the amount of complex specified information what you wrote is literally nonsense.

    So, in the case of those who say, “Oh, everyone knows that the earth is an open system and the energy of the sun is plenty enough to fuel the increased entropy of cellular life,” well, they’re simply wrong. You can’t come to that conclusion. You can only say that there’s enough energy available for something like that to happen; but is says absolutely nothing about how amino acids could align in the proper order—they’re not quantums of energy, but atomic systems.

    You should read what you write before hitting the send button. Or don’t, it’s more amusing this way.

    You say that “the energy of the sun is plenty enough to fuel the increased entropy of cellular life” is wrong.

    Then you immediately say “there’s enough energy available for something like that to happen” is correct. You are contradicting yourself in the space of two sentences.

    The whole point from the reality based community is that claims that the second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution are simply wrong because the Earth is not a closed system. That’s it.

    They are not simply wrong. They are, in fact, correct, properly understood.

    There is no way to understand the claim that the second law prohibits evolution that makes it correct.

    And yet you never managed to actually calculate CSI for any of the four scenarios provided. It’s almost like it’s an utterly useless metric. Care to try again?

    I explained myself sufficiently well up above. You simply don’t care to understand. It’s not ignorance on your part; it’s belligerence. I have no remedy for that.

    The remedy is to either provide a calculation or admit that CSI is a bogus metric.

  36. Much as Patrick and I disagree on just about every thing, he was right about CSI. I publicly took his side with the most tepid wording as I could and still agree a while back:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/siding-with-mathgrrl-on-a-point-and-offering-an-alternative-to-csi-v2-0/

    I now more forcefully agree with Patrick now that I decided to stand up to Arrington’s bullying.

    PS
    I only tolerated Arrington because I didn’t want the headaches of running and moderating an active blog — TSZ for example has quite a large volunteer staff relative to the number or actually commenters!

  37. Patrick,

    The remedy is to either provide a calculation or admit that CSI is a bogus metric.

    You have been provided with such a calculation of CSI. All you do is deny or ignore. That reflects poorly on you, not CSI

  38. Frankie:
    Patrick,

    You have been provided with such a calculation of CSI. All you do is deny or ignore. That reflects poorly on you, not CSI

    CSI is so big that when one googles “calculation of CSI” all one gets is “Customer Satisfaction Index” XDDDDDDDDDD

    Second page,
    Cost Schedule Index,
    Common source inductance,
    Chemical Shift Index,
    Cerebral state index,

    bwaaaahahahahahaha!!!

  39. stcordova: I now more forcefully agree with Patrick now that I decided to stand up to Arrington’s bullying.

    PS
    I only tolerated Arrington because I didn’t want the headaches of running and moderating an active blog

    LoL. Good for you Salvador! You’ll not stand up to being bullied here at TSZ for sure, and all you bullies here at TSZ are on notice!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.