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.
Classic ‘painted myself into a corner’ behavior. Joe makes things up, unsupported by fact.
Richardthughes,
James Shapiro, “Evolution A View from the 21st Century”- the internal mechanism is its internal design.
Again you have all the power to refute that claim and yet you can’t. And that is very telling
You making things up is not an explanation.
The part you can’t show where you actually explained anything.
The missing bit where you claim you produced an explanation.
Hilarious! The same descriptive power (zero) as ‘God did it’. Are they related?
Alan Fox,
Read Darwin- read any textbook-
He wants us to prove a negative whereas ID wants you to demonstrate a positive. ID has a positive case whereas evolutionism does not as evidenced by the total lack of response to Behe’s question
It’s why we all love to follow FrankenJoe on the web. You can’t get entertainment like this on TV!
Read the OP, for the first time
The OP that shows you don’t understand ID?
The number one reason ID is not DIRECTLY testable nor is there a positive case for ID:
Adapa,
He should apply for Casey Luskins job. He’ll never be an ID leader but… Actually attack gerbil is likely beyond him also.
OK Mung, you win- they are ignored
This is great. I never have to read another comment by Richie, Sal or Adapa
Alan Fox, I will continue to refute your posts, though
Continue! The lulz.
Having seen my comments he’s replying to say he can’t see my comments. Such an intellect. Fridges you’ve met your match!
Frankie,
Explain an ID theory, what it predicts and how to test the prediction.
“Evolution can’t ….”
Richardthughes,
That gets a pass because it’s hilarious but don’t take advantage. 😉
Where’s Patrick?
Shouldn’t he be here advocating that we shut down comments in this thread?
Perhaps this thread exactly the sort of thing Elizabeth likes to see here at TSZ.
I’m confused.
Mung,
I’m still interested in how we could test an ID hypothesis.
Some ID claims are falsifiable, but they are not directly testable nor is there a positive case for those claims unless we see the designer.
That’s being straight with the way things are. Saying “ID is testable” and going into lengthy discussions like this is akin to Turbo Encabulator salesmanship.
Level with people, be straight with them. That’s the better route. Don’t pretend you’re holding cards you don’t have, your bluff will be easily called in this game.
PS
Reminds me of the poker player who stood on 12 vs. the dealer 10 in a blackjack game. The dealer rightly mocked him, “this is Blackjack, it ain’t poker, bluffing does you no good.”
PPS
Standing 12 vs. dealer 10 is the right move in blackjack however if the dealer flashed a 6 for her hole card and there is sufficient high card density. There was one dealer who was flashing her cards to me half the night. I cleaned out her tray of chips before running out of there. 🙂
You’re dense Sal. That was her way of telling you she wanted a date. 🙂
Yes, well, I didn’t get what I wanted for Christmas either. Santa sucked this year.
Mung,
C’est la vie.
I told you how to test ID. Read the OP. If you have a question ask it. If you want to play your game then please show us what evolutionism predicts and how to test it. That way when I tell you about ID you can’t just hand wave it away as you always do.
Read the OP. It contains an ID hypothesis and how to test it. OTOH your position still has nothing
petrushka,
That’s what he said during the Dover trial, but it’s not actually a test of any entailment of intelligent design creationism (of which there are none). Even if a flagella were observed to evolve under laboratory conditions, the fact that the IDCists refuse to place any limits on the capability of the Designer (pbuh) means that they could simply say “He inserted his (noodly?) appendage into the apparatus! It’s a miracle!”
Patrick,
Whatever Patrick. We said what will falsify ID. Don’t blame us because you can’t do it.
OTOH to falsify evolutionism requires us to prove a negative. You guys can’t even get the falsification right
“We… Us” I don’t think so..
Patrick, did you see the post in this thread with a link to a paper where they knocked a gene that expressed the flagellum, and the bacteria repurposed another gene to activate it back within a weekend?
Am I required to believe that someone who insists that intelligent design is creationism is posting in good faith, or is it sufficient that I just make a pretense of doing so?
We’re all willing to acknowledge purpose and teleology in living things, right?
Nah, it’s just a way to speak. Don’t get all caught up in semantics Mung. You know what I meant and what that paper means for IC
It’s an incredibly misleading way to speak if it’s not what you meant and if it does not accurately reflect the contents of the paper, and especially so if it conveys the exact opposite meaning to what was intended.
Based on what you said I concluded that the paper had nothing at all to say that challenges IC.
If you guys didn’t have that dumb fixation with testimony… maybe you could consider reading the paper so you can see for yourself what it’s all about instead of drawing conclusion from a 2 liner forum post.
There’s also a video if you’re not into reading
I read the paper and it has nothing to do with natural selection producing IC. IC is about all of the steps not just one.
No, all of Behe’s definitions of IC only mention systems and it’s parts.
It’s enough to present one precursor that is missing at least one part. This experiment did that.
Game over Frankie
Wrong- “Darwin’s Black Box” makes it perfectly clear that IC pertains to the step-by-step mechanism needed to produce it. And Behe also makes it clear it is about multiple parts- his mousetrap had 5.
Your ignorance betrays you
IC was a response to:
It has always been about the step-by-step process required to produce it
Which negative?
Citation?
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” – Darwin
That negative
Darwin’s Black Box- Behe 1996
Let me help you Frankie:
So there you have it. You’re the ignorant here and ID is dead
QED
What Behe did was constrain the nature of the steps in such a way as to disallow many if not most evolutionary developments. He required that scaffolding not be allowed. He required that no aspect of any organism perform multiple functions at any one time. He required that no aspect of any organism ever be repurposed. He ended up requiring documented (to his satisfaction!) historical records of every mutation however tiny. When the AVIDA program made this sort of examination practical (as an excellent model), he disallowed that too.
I think evolutionary biologists agree with Behe that, IF one disallows nearly every evolutionary pathway ever followed, THEN evolution is not possible.
The more of a reason to consider this experiment a valid refutation of IC because an unrelated gene was repurposed to express the flagella back
dazz,
LoL! You omitted the main part and ignored it when you quoted it.
First he quotes Darwin and his falsification. Then he asks:
“What type of biological system could not be formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications”?”
It is all about the process and you even quoted part that says so.
Flint,
Nonsense
Nope and you can’t even account for scaffolding.
But I digress- you have nothing and imagination isn’t evidence. You can’t even answer Behe’s simple question:
Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?
If Behe never lived and ID didn’t exist, you still wouldn’t have anything.