ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
So to falsify ID all you have to do is show that undirected causes such as natural selection and drift can produce CSI and/ or IC.
The positive case can be simplified by:
Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: theordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.- Behe in “Darwin’s Black Box”
” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.” Ibid
The positive case for ID is very similar to the positive case for archaeology and forensic science- we look for signs of work and/ or counterflow.
Dr Behe responds to some critics:
Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.
In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum–or any equally complex system–was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.(1)
How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.
Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?
Even the explanatory filter demands a positive case for ID- one of specification on top of the elimination of necessity and chance. And the elimination of necessity and chance before considering a design inference is mandated by science- see Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning.
“Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.
In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed” Pg. 72 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education
Cause and effect relationships-> science 101.
Zero explanatory power.
Same old negative argument from ignorance: “Nature can’t do it, therefore god”
Same old shifting the burden of proof “Falsify ID by proving evolution can do it”. And of course the same old demand for outrageous level of detail from the opponent and if you can’t, I win. Yawn
For Specified Complexity, when you say that
is your argument that natural processes cannot put Specified Complexity into the genome? Or is the “origin” considered to be earlier than the time at which natural selection acts (the time at which there are differences between genotypes in viability or fertility)?
By starting with a genome you are starting with the very thing that needs to be explained. But I digress, present the evidence that you think shows natural selection producing specified complexity and we can have a look
That is not even wrong. It is our knowledge of cause and effect relationships that leads us to the design inference. Also it is evolutionism that claims to have a step-by-step process for producing the diversity of life. So we are asking for the evidence for that Don’t blame us for your failures.
Wow, I don’t want to get side-tracked into how “Testing intelligent design” morphed into attacking classical evolutionary theory so quickly, but it does highlight it is an unscientific argument.
My main point: Frankie, like Barry Arrington does not understand ID.
Frankie:
“So to falsify ID all you have to do is show that undirected causes such as natural selection and drift can produce CSI and/ or IC.”
Demsbki:
http://billdembski.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf
“Moreover, H, here, is the relevant chance hypothesis that takes into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms.”
So Frankie wants a demonstration of CSI being made by natural forces, whilst Dembski defines CSI as only to be ‘counted’ in the absence of them. Frankie doesn’t understand CSI.
Also, there are zero calculations of CSI. Not science (again).
Richardthughes,
There isn’t any evolutionary theory to attack. Science mandates eliminating necessity and chance. And I understand ID better than anyone here will ever understand ID.
Nonsense- Dembski’s paper referred to specification, not CSI. You lose.
Dembski does not, and never has, defined CSI only in the absence of undirected processes. Dembski has always maintained that CSI exists regardless of the cause. It is just that every time we have observed CSI and knew the cause it was always via some intelligent agency. And no one has a clue how nature can produce it.
Dembski’s paper on specification was just to use it as a warrant for design. Crystals are specified but do not warrant a design inference
You don’t falsify a scientific theory by somehow proving its opposite. Instead, you derive testable hypotheses as logical entailments from the theory, and then perform experiments or discover new observations that show these hypotheses to be wrong. You know, things like: If the theory is correct, it follows that a, b or c should be the case. In fact, neither a, b or c is now known to be true, therefore the theory is not supported .
The more often this happens, the weaker the theory until it becomes untenable.
If a theory doesn’t even lead to logical entailments it isn’t a scientific theory.
Can you give us some hypotheses that logically follow from the ID theory?
fG
faded_Glory,
Of course you can. Your position can’t even produce testable hypotheses with respect to the proposed mechanisms. Nor does it have any logical entailments.
This is the only objection worthy of note. The other two admit that ID can be tested.
So ID can be tested.
So ID can be tested.
Indeed. I have yet to see anyone here address this problem. It’s been raised repeatedly.
Frankie,
Spoiler alert, the ‘S’ in CSI is ‘specified’. You don’t understand ID.
If you’re saying evolution is untestable therefore ID is untestable I don’t think you’ll find Frankie complaining about that.
Mung,
I’m not. There are lots of real calculations in classical evolutionary theory – and no calculations of CSI. Why is that?
Do you know what an argument from ignorance is?
Frankie,
No, especially in this case since there is no scientific theory of Intelligent Design. Even if modern evolutionary theory were disproved this afternoon, it would supply no support to intelligent design creationism.
Even if this were true (hint: it’s not), that would provide no support for the IDC speculations.
Your claims have to stand on their own. If IDC is really testable, prove it by specifying a scientific theory and describing the testable entailments without reference to any other theory.
Tiktaalik. Infinitely more logical entailments than IDC.
There’s plenty evidence supporting gradualism. Of course you’ll always find examples for which no know exact pathway is known. As I said in the other thread you can demand the same nonsense from gravity or any other theory and all will fail. It’s disingenuous to demand this ridiculous level of detail when “design” offers none whatsoever
But as Richard said, you lose a bit more and more as the discussion inevitably gravitates around evolution because we all know there’s nothing to discuss about ID “theory”.
Yes, I know what the S in CSI means. Your claim is still nonsense
Patrick,
Tiktaalik is not a logical entailment of evolutionism. And thanks to te tetrapod tracks found in Poland the fossil succession now shows fish-> tetrapods-> fish-a-pods, whereas the logical entailment would have fish-a-pods before tetrapods.
The testable entailments for ID are in the OP.
Let’s see these alleged real calculations for this alleged evolutionary theory
Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?
Anyone?
Denial follows fail. You don’t understand ID.
Also ID is NOT anti-evolution. The equivocation used by evolutionists is very telling
Frankie,
No ID isn’t about only attacking evolution… 😉
The FAILure is all yours, cupcake. You can’t even make a case without misrepresentations.
Frankie,
I don’t see any, just some attempts to shift the burden of proof.
It’s difficult for you, I know, since there is no scientific theory of ID. That makes it difficult to come up with testable entailments.
I ought to. I see people doing it all the time here at TSZ. 🙂
It isn’t. ID attacks evolutionism. Do try to grow up
Frankie,
That’s all you’ve tried to do in this post — shift the burden of proof.
No idea. But the latest work in ID is based on Algorithmic Specified Complexity (ASC) and there are calculations of ASC.
. Patrick,
That is your opinion and it is wrong. But it does show that your position has nothing
The point, Patrick, is if your position actually had something then ID would be a non-starter. You guys have all the power and can’t use it.
Mung,
Exciting, but do come back with results! I suspect GAs will be able to increase ASC.
Patrick,
Behe provides a testable entailment. IC and CSI are testable entailments.
What does evolutionism have in comparison?
GAs are evidence for evolution by design.
The burden of proof is indeed on those who claim that ID is not science and that ID is not testable. No shifting needed.
Testable entailments for ID:
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
and
Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.-
Why would this even be an entailment for ID?
Frankie, have you tried thought?
Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning- read them. Obviously you have never tried “thought”.
If geological processes could produce Stonehenges we could not say that Stonehenge was designed. Science 101
Mung,
*sigh*. Like the burden of proof is on those who claim there is no God? Did you ever study (basic) logic?
The landscape is is so peculiarly arranged in three dimensions that the local river just so happens to bring melt-water from the mountains to the ocean in some particular location. Remove the mountains and the river stops flowing. It must have been designed.
Why can’t geologic processes produce Stonehenge?
Correct – design not needed so removed.
Funny that Frankie didn’t know that the S in CSI was specified, though.
Please describe what you understand an “entailment” to be. And then proceed to describe how it is that ID entails “Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.”
These threads are the best. I’m convinced ID proponents are largely proponents because they don’t understand ID, statistics, burden of proof etc. Well done chaps!
Newton’s Four Rules:
1.admit no more causes of natural things than are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances,
2.to the same natural effect, assign the same causes,
3.qualities of bodies, which are found to belong to all bodies within experiments, are to be esteemed universal, and
4.propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true until contradicted by other phenomena.
An alleged arson can be disproven by showing an arsonist was not required, ie happenstance occurrences suffice. An alleged artifact is disproven by showing geological processes can produce it, ie an artist was not required.
The point of IC and CSI are that in every case that we have observed them and knew the cause it has always been via intelligent agency intervention. Newton’s second rule applies when we observe them and do not know the cause.
Funny that Richard has to lie. Funny that Richard conflates specification with CSI.
Rumraket,
There isn’t any evidence that they can. And people have tried to demonstrate such a thing.