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.
dazz,
Yes, me
Yes, let us be honest.
First, let’s stop conflating ID with Creationism.
Second, let’s stop conflating ID with theistic evolution.
dazz,
Behe says he accepts Common Descent and Creationism doesn’t
So?
Oh my:
And that is all Occam’s Razor needs. It is all Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning require. It means that using the EF we would never get to the design inference node
Close! Where Y is a designer with no entailments.
Somebody still doesn’t understand ID.
There are constraints on the designer. If the designer’s actions are indistinguishable from mother nature we don’t infer a designer was involved.
And saying a designer did it tells us there was intent and tat we are here for a purpose. It would also tell us that life is not reducible to matter, energy and emergence
Then it would be easy for you to paste this “testable hypothesis of ID”. I invite you to do so.
I’ve never taken a poll.
But let’s assume that ID is creationism, then the question you just asked becomes:
Do you know of a single creationist that is not a creationist?
The answer is no, but the question is stupid.
Do you know of a single ID proponent that is not a creationist?
The very fact that you can ask the question indicates ID and creationism are not the same.
Alan Fox,
Swearing in 3….2….1…. + ‘your position can’t explain’
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.
Now what? “That ain’t no testable hypothesis for ID!!11!!!”
It fits the definition of a testable hypothesis.
Any candidates? Any entailments for the “Intelligent Designer”? Is it still active? Is it real? Did it act once or many times? Is there just one or several? What can you suggest as tests?
What on Earth does that mean? 🙂
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. And that is superior to the stated falsification for evolutionism
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”
And that is also superior to evolutionism as evolutionism can’t even answer:Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?
Alan Fox,
What does that have to do with ID or the OP?
That there are systems that contain several different components and the function of the system is different from the components but relies on the correct configuration of the components.
Behe thinks the flagellum was specially created, so he counts as a creationist. Behe home-schools his kids, so yeah. As for you, well I don’t want to break the rules of the forum so I’ll leave it at that
Still embarrassing lacking at logic, eh Mung?
I know, right?
They can flat out say it yet not manage to follow it to it’s logical consequences.
Why is dazz is arguing that natural processes can bring about IC? It’s a complete waste of time if it would not impact the theory of ID in the slightest.
And why is Joe arguing that natural processes can bring about CSI? It’s a complete waste of time if it would not impact the theory of ID in the slightest.
These people talk out of both sides of their mouth. [Not Joe, he knows better.]
Do you know of a Jesus that is not a God?
The very fact that I can ask the question indicates Jesus and God are not the same
Yeah, what a waste of time when after cornering Joey, apparently I need to prove that mutations are not caused by baby jesus to falsify ID. ID is science, YAY!
This is just an assertion.
Irreducible complexity is a default argument from ignorance. Behe claims there is no evolutionary route for the flagellum. He was ignorant of research in the field, but had he been right at the time, it still does not justify a default to “a disembodied designer did it” rather than continuing scientific research.
Again the default argument. If we don’t know something, it doesn’t justify an assumption that a “designer” was at work.
Classic! What the F is that “best explanation”? “It was design” is no explanation at all.
You’re darn tootin’ there ain’t! 🙂
Apart from being testable and apart from being a hypothesis, I guess it does. 🙂
Moved some comments to guano.
Alan Fox,
No assertions, Alan, number 1 is a fact
That is you opinion and only an opinion. IC is being actively pursued by evolutionary biologists. Larry Moran says it exists.
That is not his claim. He claims that natural selection and undirected evolution cannot produce one. And no one knows how to test the concept.
You don’t know what “default” means. And if you had something then you could refute step 3. Your whining doesn’t do it.
That is exactly what was offered. And it beats anything that evolutionism can offer.
Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?
A question Alan Fox will not even attempt to answer
So Alan Fox thinks he can just hand-wave away the ID hypothesis. It is a given that he will never offer up a testable hypothesis for evolutionism. Heck he won’t even attempt to answer Behe’s question.
And that means Alan’s opinion on ID’s hypothesis is meaningless.
Frankie,
Prediction fulfilled! Thanks for being predictable, Frankie.
Alan Fox,
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
That is because every time we have observed “High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity” the cause was always via some intelligent agency- 100% of the time.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
That is just a fact of biology and science
That is also a fact of biology and science. No one how to test NS or other undirected processes producing IC or CSI. The concept doesn’t produce any testable hypotheses.
The filter, Richie, you are not making it past the noise filter. Perhaps you could try posting something of substance or start your own thread.
Frankie,
Uh-huh, Joe. Comedy deserves a laugh track. Still don’t understand CSI? I’m embarrassed for you!
About that ‘noise filter’… We can see your cards Joe! Bluffing doesn’t work!
Information and irreducible complexity are abstractions. They don’t exist in the physical world. They exist in the abstract world (if there is such a world) by virtue of human attribution.
So, yes, they exist only because of intelligent agency — the intelligent agency of the humans who ascribe those abstract properties — 100% of the time.
Like rainfall?
Acartia,
There are no false positives if everything is designed 😉
That list of purported predictions of ID are no such thing. Predictions must follow from the premises, from the theory itself. “Design” explains nothing and nothing follows logically from it. It’s false that “design” predicts lots of information. What in the design paradigm precludes simple systems with very little info from being designed? Nothing whatsoever.
Lets say I have this theory of Interdimensional Micro Fluctuation to explain life. Every time there’s an interdimensional micro-fluctuation, a new life form pops into existence (that already has more level of detail than design)
What does this nonsense predict? not much don’t you think? Well, I don’t care, I claim that it predicts cheeseburgers, and chicken nuggets. Those things are regularly observed in diners across the world so I count them as supporting evidence for my theory.
So IDists, before you can claim ID can be tested or falsified, and that it predicts something, you need a THEORY with some explanatory power. Nobody cares what you claim it predicts, it’s the theory that must predict stuff, like evolution predicts common descent and a nested hierarchy, and once that nested hierarchy is known to some extent, it can predict the characteristics of intermediates and progressively expand it’s explanatory power.
So time to get hard at work ID “theorists”. We’ve been waiting for a theory for ages. What’s taking so long?
There is no inconsistency in what I said. Are you suggesting that some observed “thing” cannot be the result of more than one process?
Where have I said either?
Neil Rickert,
And yet both are observed in the physical world. Both are used in the physical world.
True. They are not the same. Creationism (the YEC form, anyway) is falsifiable. ID is not. ID is such a big tent that it allows for everything from the designer only getting the ball rolling with the Big Bang and then leaving it alone, to daily and hourly intervention and maintenance.
Back on the first page faded glory posted:
And yet Darwin’s falsification criteria asks for that very thing:
whoopsie…
Then Patricked posted:
That is clearly false as new theories are always pitted against the existing paradigm or some null.
The provided hypothesis for ID is superior to anything evolutionism can muster. I am OK with that.
Moved a comment of Frankie’s to guano. Try and grasp the idea that the rules prohibit personal attacks.
dazz,
Your whining is not an argument. All you have is a falsification that demands we prove a negative and no positive case.
You guys love to say that attacking evolutionism will not prove ID and yet all you do is try to attack ID and think it proves evolutionism.
All of that is true and is not a personal attack. Sometimes the truth hurts. Deal with it
There, I corrected it for you. Statistically speaking, zero degrees of freedom has no predictive power. This makes your fourth point invalid.
Neil Rickert,
Bacterial flagella exist in the physical world. Cars exist in the physical world. Living organisms exist in the physical world. The physical world wouldn’t exist without information and it would exist regardless of us.
Frankie,
Attacking ideas is fine. Insulting other members is not.
Already been answered. Move on.
Frankie,
The physical world creates information, it is not a product of it.
LOL! Of course, because when one makes a positive case for something, the falsification consists in proving the negative! What is wrong with you?
Theory A makes positive case for X. X is testable and observable: X is tested:
If X is true, X counts as supporting evidence, if it’s false, theory A is falsified.
Note that if the prediction of A is powerful enough, it should be an event that would be highly unlikely to observe unless theory A was true.
What does ID do? Makes no positive case, just a negative case that if theory A is false, then ID is true. Then claim that to falsify ID one needs to prove A (prove a positive claim of A DIFFERENT THEORY)
That’s wrong, it’s an argument from ignorance. Do you get it now? It’s really not that hard
I am making an observation. Look, Alan, I know it hurts because the way to falsify ID is to actually have to support the claims of your position, but that is just how it is. Anything less than that is whining. And dazz has proven it doesn’t grasp ID’s concepts. So have you.
Congratulations- I am happy that the fact ID has more than evolutionism bothers you guys.
dazz,
ID doesn’t. ID asks for you to support the claims of your position.
The positive case for ID has been made. It is in the OP. And you cannot answer the simple question which proves you don’t have a positive case for evolutionism
Joe simply repeats a charge he himself has been found guilty of before. Joe failed to understand CSI in the same way as Barry.