Does intelligent design make testable predictions?

Intelligent design (ID) proponents will often claim their ideas are well supported by science. When pushed for evidence they will sometimes list peer-reviewed scientific papers they claim support ID. I think that’s a step in the right direction as peer review does make these papers far more credible than the usual book or magazine article which receives no peer review at all.

The provision of peer-reviewed papers also enables them to be checked. That is, we can see for ourselves if the initial claims made by the ID proponent are really true.

A recent blog post (Does Intelligent Design Make Testable Predictions?) claimed “Intelligent design makes numerous predictions, which can be tested. In fact, much recent evidence supports intelligent design…”.

Testing the predictions?

The blog’s author provides a short list of papers in support of this. I have had a look at the papers and don’t find any evidence for these claims at all. In fact the papers don’t mention any prediction of ID at all – they all deal with issues within evolutionary science. The papers and my comments on each follow:

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.
Comment: This is a review paper with no empirical evidence. Stephen Meyer is one of the original fellows, and is currently the director of, the Centre for the Renewal of Science and Culture which is part of the Discovery Institute and the main Wedge organisation. He is not a working scientist. The peer review of the paper was criticised by the journal’s editorial board. The board believes that their review process had been subverted in this case and has taken steps to ensure proper reviews in future. (See the case of Richard Sternberg who was responsible for approving the paper’s publication).

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues, Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.
Comment: This discusses a mathematical model for evolutionary genetic changes and makes conclusions about the population sizes required. It does not discuss ID and the authors stressed that it did not support “triumphant views in some circles that our paper disproved Darwinism” (see M.J. Behe & D.W. Snoke, A response to Miceal Lynch. Protein Science 14 (2005): 2226-2227 ).

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements, Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.
Comment: Again this doesn’t mention ID but reports work on gene mutations and chromosome reorganisation during evolution.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.
Comment: This is listed only as a citation and no abstract is available. The title doesn’t appear to suggest that it concerns ID.

M.J. Denton & J.C. Marshall, “The Laws of Form Revisited, Nature, 410 (22 March 2001): 417.I.
M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law, Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002):325-342.
Comment: These two papers don’t appear to discuss ID at all. The second paper discusses protein folding as a natural consequence of chemical properties of amino acids.

The authors of these papers may believe in intelligent design. They may actively promote these ideas politically. But, the papers in themselves are not about ID and do not provide any evidence to support the claim that ID predictions have been tested and that the evidence supports these predictions.

It’s just disingenuous for ID proponents to claim these, and similar, peer-reviewed papers as evidence supporting ID.

Giving Behe the last word

The lack of credible published peer-reviewed papers testing ID predictions is telling. ID proponents should take to heart the statement by one of their key activists Michael Behe in his book “Darwin’s Black Box”. He was criticising “Darwinian molecular evolution” theory – but the statement is surely valid for ID “theory”:

‘”Publish or perish” is a proverb that academicians take seriously. If you do not publish your work for the rest of the community to evaluate, then you have no business in academia (and if you don’t already have tenure, you will be banished). But the saying can be applied to theories as well. If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should be banished.’

For your entertainment “Creation Science 101” by Roy Zimmerman (Thanks to Glen Laden).

Similar articles

47 responses to “Does intelligent design make testable predictions?

  1. THE BIGGER PICTURE IN THE DEBATE ON DARWINISM IS NOT INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

    The reason is elementary: the Discovery Institute and other ID proponents leave out the Triune God, Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Hence, Richard Dawkins can make the case for “aliens” seeding the earth.

    The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

    “I am amazed at the breadth of the investigation – scientific history, biblical studies, geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and so forth – and find the style of writing to be quite lucid and aimed clearly at a general, lay audience.” ― Mark Roberts, former Editor of Biblical Reference Books, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

    The Quest for Right series of books, based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect, has effectively dismantled the quantum additions to the true architecture of the atom. Gone are the nonexistent particles once thought to be complementary to the electron and proton (examples: neutrons, neutrinos, photons, mesons, quarks, Z’s, bosons, etc.) and a host of other pseudo particles.

    To the curious, scientists sought to explain Atomic theory by introducing fantastic particles that supposedly came tumbling out of the impact between two particles, when in fact, the supposed finds were simply particulate debris. There are only two elementary particles which make up the whole of the universe: the proton and electron. All other particles were added via quantum magic and mathematical elucidation in an attempt to explain earthly phenomena without God.

    Introducing the scheme of coincidence, which by definition, “is the systematic ploy of obstructionists who, in lieu of any divine intervention, state that any coincidental grouping or chance union of electrons and protons (and neutrons), regardless of the configuration, always produces a chemical element. This is the mischievous tenet of electron interpretation which states that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.

    The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a consequence, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.

    The Quest for Right. http://questforright.com

    Like

  2. “The Quest for Right.”

    Oh please, please check out the site.
    It’s truely wonderful.
    There are some real howlers there.

    ………………………………………………….
    I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it.
    Voltaire

    Like

  3. A short poem – inspired by annoying cut-paste would-be bloggers…

    See David Parsons

    C. David Parsons…
    C. David Parsons select text on his computer…
    C. David Parsons skillfully press Control-C…
    C. David Parsons search the internet for blogs with I.D. in them…
    C. David Parsons ingeniously press control-V…
    C. David Parsons not actually engage with any real people or ideas…

    Like

  4. yes indeedy, I remember seeing a mention of Mr Parsons & his books on Pharyngula a while ago… I’m astounded that he thinks that science teachers would find a review by an editor of biblical reference books useful.

    Like

  5. Ha! Nice one Dale.
    Perhaps he should be called “Ctrl-C David Parsons”?

    Like

  6. I have a fairly detailed knowledge of some of these areas and with the exception of the Meyer and Behe works, none of these support ID in any way. Behe’s work apparently contains a number of rather silly assuptions which render it useless from what I’ve read.

    In particular, the Denton papers (University of Otago scientists, incidentally) have nothing to do with ID. By “lawful” properties, they are referring to physical-chemical properties. No doubt ID twits have insisted on reading their own meaning into “lawful”. (I believe these build on the excellent computational/mathematical work of Taylor, but I’d have to (re-)read Denton’s papers to see how they built the argument up. None of the people involved support ID, Taylor included.)

    Likewise, Chiu’s paper present a new computational technique. Its got nothing to do with ID.

    The following is snipped from a comment on RichardDawkins.net, to spare you the need to register (yes, I’m guilty of cut’n’paste here!):

    Behe and Snoke (2004) argues against one common genetic mechanism of evolution. It says nothing at all in support of design. Its assumptions and conclusion have been rebutted (M. Lynch 2005).

    Denton and Marshall (2001) and Denton et al. (2002) deal with non-Darwinian evolutionary processes, but they do not support intelligent design. In fact, Denton et al. (2002) explicitly refers to natural law.

    Chiu and Lui (2002) mention complex specified information in passing, but go on to develop another method of pattern analysis.

    Meyer (2004) apparently subverted the peer-review process for the sole purpose of getting an “intelligent design” article in a respectable journal that would never have accepted it otherwise. Even notwithstanding its poor quality (Gishlick et al. 2004, Elsberry 2004a), the article is clearly not appropriate for the almost purely taxonomic content of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and the Biological Society of Washington repudiated it (BSW n.d., NCSE 2004). For more information, see Elsberry (2004b).

    Like

  7. Since I don’t have my own blog, maybe you could take a look at this:http://stuff.co.nz/4625561a1861.html “Scientists called to account”. Heaven knows how Bob thinks he’s promoting science or scientists with this very peculiar piece. And scientists are somehow supposed to be special in this because…? I have little doubt the local anti-science brigade are going to love him to bits for supplying them with fuel.

    Anyone know Bob’s reputation? (I don’t read the Dom Post and I have no idea who he is other than wikipedia says that his writing includes science pieces.)

    Like

  8. Heraclides said…”No doubt ID twits have insisted on reading their own meaning into “lawful”.”

    Oh yes. I know this one.
    Let me just channel the spirit of an ID supporter for a moment…

    Om. Om. Om.

    Lawful properties? So there’s laws!
    So….who created the laws then, huh?
    HUH?
    Gotcha, you little science-worshipping Darwinist Atheist.
    See you in church next Sunday.

    Om. Om. Om.

    (Note to self: Never “channel” on an empty stomach.)

    Like

  9. Darn. My attempt at funniness has totally been out-done! 🙂 First by Damian (“Ctrl-C David Parsons”!!!) and then Cedric! 🙂

    Like

  10. I take a bow.

    (Though it’s possible I’ve probably stolen the idea from some wag at the pandasthumb.org.)

    Your cut’n’paste is plagiarism worthy too.
    I steal only the best stuff.
    You have been warned.
    🙂

    P.S.
    Oh, I checked out your site. Kudos on your comment on Todd Bently. Left you a post.

    Like

  11. Heraclides (#7) – what on earth was Bob Brockie thinking when he wrote that bit? It really begs a response – why did he feel it necessary to highlight the fact that these naughty people also happened to do science for their day job? How many people who aren’t scientists also do naughty things? Honestly! And sadly, as you say, the anti-science brigade will probably mine it for all it’s worth 😦

    Like

  12. Thanks Cedric. 🙂

    Like

  13. By the way, just out of interest, I did a simple google search using two things from C. David Parsons – 1) his second paragraph and 2) his unparalleled cut/paste maneuver… 🙂

    …that entire paragraph (and presumably the rest of the comment!) got 477 hits… he’s been busy… 🙂

    Like

  14. but wait – there’s more…

    C. David Parsons here –>

    Like

  15. If Bob Brockie actually looked at the courts data he would find that one of the most common professions given for people before the court is ‘company director’. (I think he would find ‘scientist’ relatively poorly represented.)

    Imagine the powerful protests if he wrote a similar article impuning the honesty of company directors!

    Like

  16. Leroy Glinchy

    I’m interested in their take on atomic theory and on neuroscience. These are the two fields that made me become an atheist more so than evolution. At my school, they just said that God allowed evolution, and moved on.

    Neuroscience is the deadliest. I think that they are focused on evolution because other religious people told them to focus on evolution not because evolution is a particular threat to God. Due to their focus on evolution, they try to waste the time of other scientists and science teachers. The whole thing is an enormous non-issue.

    The real question is, “if you can change someone’s mind by tinkering with their brain, where is the immortal soul that is responsible for its behavior?” Look at Phineas Gage. These are the real spoilers to the religious show.

    I am eagerly awaiting the ID response to neuroscience complete with experiments, MRI, and dissections.

    Like

  17. The universe indeed is designed in a rational and intelligent manner. The problem with ID is that it cannot identify the appropriate underlying principle or cosmic scheme that this design is following.

    Without having identified the causal first principle, and, not knowing where bio-complexity is headed, there is no way that ID theory can be equipped with explanatory or predictive powers.

    Evolution is not a threat to God. It is a threat to the religious institutions that have been based on a linear and corporeal/sensual interpretation of Scripture.

    In evolution we see a progression of increased intelligence and consciousness. Human bio-complexity is so advanced, that our species can forage on information and data. This means that for our species, the whole universe, with all its information, can serve as a cosmic breast and nurture us.

    The information we each seek comes from the things we value most. So evolution ultimately leads to an intelligent creature who embraces values (which act as first principles in our life). Religion is God’s strategy for evolution to continue within the non-material operations of the human heart and mind – by our adopting noble and spiritual principles into our lives.

    The human race provides God with the mechanism to extend the biosphere beyond the constraints of time and space (called heaven).

    I plan to have a book out this fall which goes more deeply into these issues (including neuroscience). You may be interested in checking my blog and a short post entitled “The Purpose of Creation.”

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

    Like

  18. “The universe indeed is designed …” is a stating an assumption, not a stating a fact. As result, your argument rests on an assumption.

    A bigger problem with ID, etc., is that it refuses to acknowledge that the only “positive” lines of argument it presents it rests on an preset assumption, rendering them worthless.

    But that’s never really the point. Techno-sounding babble is. Its just noise to reaffirm a preset notion and try drown out anything against it. Its clever in that in basing it on techno-babble, to someone not honestly thinking about the argument, or understand science, it superficially “sounds” the same. (Hence why I called it “noise”. Also why I called it a new way of “selling” Creationism, rather than something new in itself.)

    Like

  19. Heraclides,
    Don’t hear this as me defending ID as testable science (because I’m not), but the assumption a) that ‘the universe indeed is designed…’ is no larger assumption than your assumption b) that the lines of argument based on assumption ‘a’ are rendered worthless…

    ‘Worth’ is not a empirically based category.

    Like

  20. Hey robot man. Would it have helped if he’d written “…worthless as a logically valid argument”? Are you going to pick holes in every word that doesn’t contain an explicit explanation of the context?

    Sheesh 😉

    Like

  21. Thanks Damian,
    Just wanting to keep the distinction between empirical science (with testable predictions – see post title), and philosophical and/or logical judgments…

    Heraclides seemed to be making a critique about someone else’s statement not realising that his critique applies to his/her own critique as well…

    Like

  22. #17 – nurturing at a cosmic breast? Wow. You have some serious issues and write what can be kindly described as cosmic poop.
    Spiritually not
    pkiwi

    Like

  23. Dale,

    I never wrote “that the lines of argument based on assumption ‘a’ are rendered worthless…”

    Read more closely, please.

    I wrote “it refuses to acknowledge that the only “positive” lines of argument it presents it rests on an preset assumption”.

    “Heraclides seemed to be making a critique about someone else’s statement not realising that his critique applies to his/her own critique as well…” No, I’m not. You’ve altered my words, put your altered words in my mouth, then said this. You criticism only applies to your words, not my original ones.

    It is the later “forgetting” or refusing to acknowledge the original assumption that makes the line of argument worthless.

    You can build arguments on assumptions, but you can’t throw away or “forget” or slyly “remove” the assumption later. Arguments built on an assumption, rest on that assumption.

    Please don’t re-work my words again. Its a very low form of argument.

    Like

  24. “…nurturing at a cosmic breast?”

    I thought this comment was rather ‘tittlating’.

    (Ba-da-bump. Ching.)

    Thank you, thank you. I’ll be here all week. Try the veal!

    Like

  25. I’m afraid that Edward Sylvia is just like C. David Parsons – they are promoting their books rather than participating in discussion. (I’m happy to be proved wrong – e.g. by their responding to any of the other comments here).

    Parsons seems to do this mechanically – he appears to have an automatic comment set up for any blog post including key words (ID?).

    I have decided to filter him out to spam (which is what it is) – but I’ll despam any comments which appear non-mechanical. After all, I would welcome the chance of really interacting with him.

    It’s not that I’m interesting in preventing Parson’s message – I just think he should get the message (I know he monitors his comments) that automatic commenting is not acceptable – it’s spam.

    Like

  26. Heraclides,
    I’ve certainly not intentionally re-worked your words, and it’s questionable if I’ve re-worked them at all.

    Here’s how I’ve seen the exchanges – and to be especially (and no doubt annoyingly to some!) accurate, I’ll copy the relevant section of your comment…

    “The universe indeed is designed …” is a stating an assumption, not a stating a fact. As result, your argument rests on an assumption.

    A bigger problem with ID, etc., is that it refuses to acknowledge that the only “positive” lines of argument it presents it rests on an preset assumption, rendering them worthless.

    In the first paragraph, you stated a) that the idea that “the universe indeed is designed” was an assumption, and that b) the further argument in comment #17 was based on that assumption.

    Then you claim that c) because “ID, etc” refuse to aknowledge the present assumption on which they rest, d) they are rendered worthless.

    Perhaps a clarifying question is in order? Are you or are you not saying ID arguments (and arguments like it – i.e. comment #17) are worthless because they rest on the assumption that “the universe indeed is designed”?

    If you are not saying this, please explain the words I’ve quoted.

    Cheers.

    p.s. – I’m not at all angered by the detail here. Unless we’re just killing meaningless spare time here, I think it’s worth sorting through the detail to see where we’ve mis-understood each other. And again, if I’ve re-worked your words (which I still think remains to be proven?), I certainly didn’t do it intentionally or to make a cheap jab. Cheers, Dale.

    Like

  27. “Perhaps a clarifying question is in order? Are you or are you not saying ID arguments (and arguments like it – i.e. comment #17) are worthless because they rest on the assumption that “the universe indeed is designed”?”

    I already answered that in post 23. Hint: your (re-)phrasing above leaves out a word and meaning I repeated several times in post 23… In fact, re-read the paragraph of mine you quoted immediately above this one: it states it! I doubt I can make post 23 clearer, it seems blindingly obvious to me.

    Assumption, “therefore” argument. The conclusion must be: if assumption, then

    You can’t “drop” (“fail to acknowledge”, “forget”, whatever) the assumption from the conclusion. Its not that there *is* an assumption in itself, its, as I wrote and repeatedly tried to emphasise, you can’t ignore, wish away, fail to acknowledge, forget, whatever, the founding assumption(s) in drawing conclusions.

    But maybe that’s just to subtle for others. Sigh.

    Like

  28. Heraclides,
    So (again, in the interest of understanding you) your complaint is basically that ID (and similar arguments – i.e. comment #17) drops, fails to acknowledge and/or forgets the founding assumption(s) in drawing their conclusions. No – wait; you’re not just complaining… you say because ID (and similar) arguments forget the founding assumption, the arguments themselves are (automatically? a priori?) rendered worthless.

    But it should be obvious (no… wait… blindingly obvious… yeah, that’s better… 😉 ) that your very complaint not only fails to demonstrate how/where/when their founding assumption was ‘forgotten’, but (and this was my point back in comment 19!) your very complaint also has its own assumption – namely that argumentation which stated without direct reference to its founding assumption has absolutely zero value.

    (And by the way, don’t pop a blood vessel over this; it’s not that big a deal!) 🙂

    Like

  29. If you want to play with words, try it with someone else. Your posts are decending into illogic idiocy 🙂

    That’s also not what post 19 says. It seems not only can you read my accurately, you can’t read your own either! 🙂 (You’re guilty of creating a circular argument, using an earlier post that misquoted me. I never said point “b” in that post, as I’ve already pointed out to you that misrepresented what I wrote.)

    Given that, this “debate” is now ended 🙂 Closed circular arguments rule you the loser 🙂

    (And by the way, don’t pop a blood vessel over losing; it’s not that big a deal!) 🙂

    Like

  30. Touche. Declare the ‘debate’ to be ‘ended’, while at the same time declaring yourself the ‘winner’! Yay! Wonderful! Great for understanding and the exchange of ideas! And way to make conversation about ‘winning’ and ‘losing’! Nice touch!
    😀

    Like

  31. ID doesn’t have to make any predictions.
    The teleological argument proves the existence of God from the order and design in the universe.
    All ID domonstrates is that the order found is not by chance and ultimately requires an intelligence that is responsible for this ordered design.
    It is not self-evident that there is a God but if this or any other argument proves that such a being exists then it is true and necessarily so and we are all the better for it.
    ID is not a theory,hypothesis,opinion,or matter of faith.It is a proof,what we call a scientific demonstration.
    It does predict that order will be found in non intelligent entities and it can demonstrate that this is so and both as to why and to a limited extent how. But even if it didn’t make any predictions the order and design in the universe is self evident.
    Darwinism is false because never has it been shown that one thing spontaneously changes into another thing nor has it been demonstrated that this change happens by gradual or rapid process.
    It is constitutional to teach the Darwinian fabrication but unconstitutional to teach the truth of ID.
    Great country we have here.

    Like

  32. “ID doesn’t have to make any predictions.”

    So..ID doesn’t make any scientific predictions?
    You are correct.
    However, the bozos over at Uncommondescent.com have yet to figure that one out.

    “The teleological argument proves the existence of God…”

    Are you calling ID a teleogical argument?
    You are correct.
    That’s all it is.
    Paley’s Watch Redux!
    However, the simpletons over at Uncommondescent.com have yet to figure that one out.
    They still want to keep it all “sciencey”.

    “…proves the existence of God.”

    God. GOD?!? Did you say the “G” word?
    Are you referring to the (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) Intelligent Designer?
    Yep. Well done. You are correct.
    The Intelligent Designer is just a code-word for God.
    Try getting the ID people to bluntly admit it, though.
    🙂

    “All ID domonstrates is…”

    ID demonstrates something? This is news.
    Care to give some details?
    Or are you going to stick to empty vague prattle?

    “…but if this or any other argument proves that such a being exists…”

    If. The key word here is if. It’s a big word.
    If.

    “ID is not a theory,hypothesis.”

    Well done. You are correct.
    ID is not a scientific theory. Despite the fevered claims of ID supporters.
    ID is not even a scientific hypothesis.

    ID is just Payley’s Watch all tarted up to sound sciencey and impress the rubes.

    “It is a proof,what we call a scientific demonstration.”

    Who is this “we”?
    Scientific demonstration? Really?
    So how do you go about testing it, scientifically?
    How do you go about demonstrating it, scientifically?

    (sound of crickets chirping)

    “…it can demonstrate that this is so and both as to why and to a limited extent how.”

    It can? Wow. Golly.
    So when can we expect some scientific work on this?
    From you?
    A friend of yours?
    Or is it just hapless handwaving on your part?

    “…the order and design in the universe is self evident.”

    It is? That’s great. Sound interesting.
    If it’s self-evident then it should be VERY easy for you to write a science paper on it and demonstrate this “self-evident” fact that has eluded the scientific community.
    Child’s play.
    Looks like you are soon to be eligible for a Nobel Prize.
    How exciting!
    🙂

    “Darwinism is false…”

    Sorry. What? Darwinism?
    What is that?
    Can’t seem to find that word in my science dictionary.

    “Darwinism is false because never has it been shown that one thing spontaneously changes into another thing nor has it been demonstrated that this change happens by gradual or rapid process.”

    Then get busy and demonstrate this.
    Don’t just wave your hands and flap your gums.
    If you do that, then you just sound like some pig-ignorant creationist cretin.

    Do some work. Do some research.
    You want to take on all of modern biology?
    Go for it.

    Yet, before you go off and get all sciency, I’ll give you a head’s up.
    Please don’t give us any of those boring creationist canards.
    It’s been done. They’re deadly dull.
    You want to talk about ID? Great.
    Before you do, however, please check with “the list” first.
    (It might save a lot of time)

    http://toarchive.org/indexcc/

    Please pay attention to CB901 and CB 940.

    Like

  33. Bruce Barron

    THE ID argument or teleological argument proves the existence of God. ID is self evident and physics,chemistry,biology, astronomy etc all support ID. If the existence of God can be proven then much the better because this is where the arguments. A proof shows that something is so and necessarily so and cannot be otherwise.
    ID is not a theory,hypothesis,opinion,or matter of faith. It is a rational argument.
    Even if it were a theory it explains the design in the universe and predicts that order and design is to be found everywhere and in everything.
    ID is a science because it observes physical reality and accounts for the observable phenomena and the properties of the observable and brings to light their intelligible relationships to their causes. It is a fact and a reasoned fact.

    Bruce Barron

    Like

  34. 33:

    ID does not prove the existence of G-d: it asserts the existence of G-d.

    ID does not have, nor is, “a rational argument”. One of the defining characteristics of the ID movement is that no-one puts forward an argument for it, let alone a rational one. At very best “the ID theory”, if there will ever be one, is the scientific equivalent of “vapourware”.

    ID is a matter of faith to some people, which would seem to be the case for yourself. (Teleological arguments are by definition irrational, by the way. That you would suggests this supports your positions illustrates that you are working from faith.)

    Even if it were a theory it explains the design in the universe and predicts that order and design is to be found everywhere and in everything.

    Weren’t you earlier defending that ID makes no predictions? It any event your statement would involve circular logical. (Teleological arguments start with claiming “order and design is to be found everywhere”, having the argument, not that you have presented one, concluding that the initial assertion true means it is circular.)

    ID is a science because it observes physical reality and accounts for the observable phenomena and the properties of the observable and brings to light their intelligible relationships to their causes. It is a fact and a reasoned fact.

    This is puppetry given ID has no argument to start with. Furthermore, it cannot be a science by your own words defining it as being (the) “teleological argument”, as teleological arguments start with an assertion (a fallacy at that).

    Would I be right in stating that you are an advocate for a (fundamentalist) Christian society, i.e. ruling over secular governance (aka Dominionism)?

    Like

  35. “ID is self evident and physics,chemistry,biology, astronomy etc all support ID.”

    Self evident?
    Wonderful.
    Then it will be very, very easy for you to demonstrate this scientifically.
    Go for it.
    Write a paper.
    Physics? Chemistry? Biology? Astronomy? WOW.
    DOUBLE WOW!!
    That’s a lot of territory.
    They all support ID?
    Really? Golly gee. Who knew?
    I’m so very impressed.
    I look forward to you presenting a paper on this.
    (giggle)

    “ID is not a theory,hypothesis…”

    So there’s no theory and no hypothesis? Oh dear.
    Rather hard to do scientific research then. Sigh.

    “ID is a science…”

    Huh? You just said that there’s no ID theory and no ID hypothesis!
    Make up your confused little mind.

    Here’s some help for you.
    http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/idtheory.htm

    No need to thank me.
    🙂

    Like

  36. Heraclides said…”Would I be right in stating that you are an advocate for a (fundamentalist) Christian society, i.e. ruling over secular governance (aka Dominionism)?”

    Oh goody. Dominionism.
    Anybody know who Howard Ahmanson is?
    Anybody?
    http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/diagenda.html

    Like

  37. Bruce Barron

    I have already shown the existence of God is proven from ID or the teleogical argument. This brings us to creationism. Now to create means to make from nothing.
    That God created the world form nothing with time is a matter of divinely revealed faith and cannot be proven.
    The arguments for the eternity of the world or that God made the world from nothing with time cannot be proven. The arguments for both sides are inconclusive. This is not to say that God could not have created from all eternity however if He so willed since He is omnipotent,an attribute that can easily be proven.
    But if He created from all eternity or with time God still made the world one way or the other.
    This second type of creationism proves the existence of God. These are rational arguments and have nothing to do with the Bible or religion. In no conceivable way do they teach religion or divine worship. As a matter of fact they are exstenively debated at the college and university level without any discussion of religious beliefs.For some strange reason the courts and ACLU are not invasine here. They do their damage at the lower school levels where children are in their most formative years and most vunerable to have their minds deformed by Darwinism,a position that holds that there is no God.
    I do doubt that children at the lower school levels could easily grasp these arguments
    But in any case there is a type of creationism that doesn’t teach divine worship and does not violate the first amendment.
    Bruce Barron

    Like

  38. “I have already shown the existence of God is proven from ID or the teleogical argument.”

    You have?
    When?
    How?
    What evidence did you provide?

    “ID or the teleogical argument. This brings us to creationism.”

    Yet those nice people over at the Discovery Institute say again and again that ID is most definitely NOT creationism.
    No sirree.
    There was even a court case over it.
    Dover, remember?
    Are you saying that those nice people were lying to the judge?
    Well, the judge certainly thought so!

    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/waterloo-in-dov.html

    “This second type of creationism proves the existence of God. These are rational arguments and have nothing to do with the Bible or religion.”

    What are you talking about?
    ID?
    ID promotes itself as science, not creationism.
    Everytime you mix the two up, the dolts at Uncommondescent.com go stir-crazy.

    Ixnay on the Ognay! (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)
    😉

    “These are rational arguments and have nothing to do with the Bible or religion.”

    So it’s just philosophy and religious apologetics minus the specific references to “you-know-who”.
    Well, looks like we can agree on that one.
    🙂

    “As a matter of fact they are exstenively debated at the college and university level without any discussion of religious beliefs.”

    They are? Really? Nope.
    ID is dead. Boring. Unproductive and dead.
    Karked it. Snuffed it. Pushing up the daisies. Shuffled off this mortal coil. Gone to join the chior eternal.
    http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008/12/intelligent-design-movement-on-college.html

    If ID is really being extensively debated then….they’re very, very, very quiet about it.
    Very quiet indeed.

    Besides “debating” does not science make.
    Flapping your gums doesn’t get any research done.
    Making dreary arguments does not get any test-tubes dirty.
    Science is about work.
    ID does no work.
    Not some work.
    Not even a little bit of work.
    ID. Does. No. Work.
    It’s not science.
    No theory. No hypothosis. No research. No proposed experiments.
    Nada. Zip. Zero.
    It’s all just empty talk.
    Paley’s Watch.

    “…their minds deformed by Darwinism,a position that holds that there is no God.”

    Two problems here.
    1) What on Earth do you mean by “Darwinism”.
    The correct word you are helplessly groping for is…Biology.

    2) Where does modern biology say that there is no God?
    Was there a press release and I missed it?
    Why don’t people tell me these things?
    Was it on the news?
    Or perhaps you mean that Darwin’s book “Origin of Species” says that there is no God.
    Is that what you mean?

    Ok then. It just so happens that I have a copy right here at home.
    You have a copy of this world-famous science classic too?
    Right?
    What page does he say that? Quote please.

    (crickets chirping)

    Like

  39. @37:

    I have already shown the existence of God is proven from ID or the teleogical argument.

    Erm, nowhere in this thread have you gone beyond assertions or statements 😉 That is, you have done nothing of the sort.

    Now[,] to create means to make from nothing.

    Apart from the patronising style (Now…), that’s not it’s only meaning and as such is incorrect. You could write: “One meaning of ‘to create’ is to make from nothing.” The ‘from nothing’ clause isn’t part of it’s usual meaning. It more usually means simply ‘to make’ or, more generally, ‘to cause something to happen’. The origin of the word certainly come from to the religious/mythical context of “to make from nothing” some centuries ago, but that is not its present meaning. That you want to restrict it’s meaning to a particular one that suits your “argument” should reveal to yourself the extent that you “want things to suit yourself”.

    It’s a pretty routine thing for some religious people to re-define words to try make their arguments the way that they want them to be. Almost invariably they want some quite antiquated meaning that belongs in an historical religious context. It does seem consistent with their want to roll the world back to ancient times (bizarre), but, to be frank, I find it pathetic in a sad sack sense of the word.

    since [it] is omnipotent,an attribute that can easily be proven

    Still making assertions about a proof existing without a proof, but that’s not new. You’ve just tried to shift the goal posts along a little. Whatever. (Regards the edit, it is correctly “it” until you can prove that it exists and subsequently to that prove that it is actually a “he”. You can’t do the former, so neither can you imply the latter. The “he” is an assertion that comes from the bible.)

    But if [it] created from all eternity or with time G-d still made the world one way or the other.

    And then you jump from a (false) assertion to a false conclusion. Whatever.

    This second type of creationism proves the existence of G-d.

    No it doesn’t: read your own words. It asserts that “it” exists, from which you conclude that “it” exists.

    and have nothing to do with the Bible or religion

    Rubbish. G-d is only from religion, and at that only from a particular religion (Christian). Mentioning G-d immediately makes it about religion. Furthermore, your earlier reference to “he” originates from the Bible 😉

    You’ll get slightly further by replacing “G-d” and “he” with “it”, but you’ll still run smack into the problem that you can’t prove that “it” exists, which will render it all moot.

    They do their damage at the lower school levels where children are in their most formative years and most vunerable to have their minds deformed by Darwinism, a position that holds that there is no G-d.

    Firstly, accusing others of what your lot does is a cheap argument and quite disingenuous to put it mildly. Secondly, there are no “Darwinists” really, this made-up term is used as a framing device by types of religious people so that they have something to attack. It also is an attempt to “personify” evolutionary theory, which isn’t about people. Thirdly, evolutionary theory doesn’t have a position on G-d, only on the origin of species. You are giving it a position that doesn’t hold: a straw man argument. Finally, that evolutionary theory happens to conflict with the position some people have chosen to take on something they call G-d, is only a consequence of the position that those people have chosen to take on something that they call G-d. No-one is forcing them to take this position, that is their own choice. If you choose to take a position that conflicts with others, you can’t blame them for your choice.

    I do doubt that children at the lower school levels could easily grasp these arguments

    Not a teacher are you? Kids can grasp a lot when it’s presented with logic, as evolution can be. Religion, on the other hand, is taught “as is”, and with peer pressure. It has to be taught “as is” (that is, by assertion) by definition as it’s founded on assertions.

    The first amendment doesn’t affect us. I suppose you do have some idea where this blog is located, don’t you? That said, what you are offering strikes me as a transparently thin attempt to try insert religious leadership (aka Dominionism). It’s pretty pathetic logic where you try have things be about G-d but not religion (yeah, right…) No-one is going to buy that. Not even a little kid.

    Like

  40. @ Bruce Barron January 1, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    “ID is a science because it observes physical reality and accounts for the observable phenomena “

    Care to back that bald claim up with some evidence, Bruce? What about references to a handful of scientific papers, published in peer reviewed journals, which demonstrate how ID explains a few parts of reality? If you can’t do that I am forced to conclude you are not serious, or you know nothing about the subject.

    Like

  41. @ Cedric & Heraclides – I have a break & you guys have all the fun 🙂

    Like

  42. Alison, Maybe I’ll go over and stir up a fuss at your blog instead? 🙂

    Like

  43. I don’t know that we have a lot to argue about? 😉
    I did trundle off & write a piece for my own blog on ‘darwinism’ (NB scheduled it for tomorrow – feel free to add to it when it’s live!)

    Like

  44. I don’t have much to argue against you, true! But that doesn’t mean I can’t create a fuss 🙂 All have to do it throw in some suitable controversial points into the dialog…

    (When I wrote earlier, I meant fuss in the sense of being controversial, not in the sense of riling you up!)

    I did feel tempted to make some silly remarks about a local anti-vaccine, erm let me try be extremely polite about how I feel about him, “twit”.

    I’ll check your “Darwinism” piece out tomorrow. Supposed to be working, but keep finding interesting distractions… 🙂

    Like

  45. “I did trundle off & write a piece for my own blog on ‘darwinism’ (NB scheduled it for tomorrow – feel free to add to it when it’s live!)”

    Sounds good. I’ll be around to check it out.
    🙂

    Like

  46. @ 44: similarly, supposed to be working – but procrastination is so much more fun 🙂 I sometimes despair of our local anti-vax folks, not least because they seem to be into all sorts of woo, not just that little bit. Anti-vax, anti-fluoride (the Cafe Scientifique we had on that issue was a doozy!), anti-sprays; probably anti-evolution as well but I haven’t cared to inquire too closely 🙂

    Like

  47. Evening All

    I am a Pastafarian by choice. To any not touched by the Noodly Appendage of knowledge please see GOOGLE 3:19 . snort

    The universe is Obviously designed. Just look around. The proof of the Noodly one is omnipresent. He has no Creator for he is perfect. He is not testable by choice. The “proofs” of evolution were placed on purpose.

    The grand canyon was formed in 1.2 ms by the whip like action of one of his glorious lo meins.

    The Milky way by his chow meins.

    Fear my flaccid noodle

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s