Re: How to disprove Intelligent Design


plantageous3245 wrote:
> Recently I read about the political controversies surrounding teaching ID in
> schools. I became curious and looked up information about ID on the
> internet. This post consists of my understanding of what I have learned. I
> am not actively doing academic research in the field of ID.
>
> How to disprove Intelligent Design
>
> First some definitions:
>
> 1) The Science of Intellignet Design (ID): ID is the science of identifying
> objects that were designed by an intelligence. It is exactly like a
> scientist examining the fracture marks on a flint arrow head to determine if
> it is a natural stone or a man made object.
>
> 2) ID Techniques: The science of ID consists of various techniques that are
> believed to identify objects that are designed by an intelligence.

"Believed" to identify objects that are intelligently designed is
pretty soft. It should indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that objects
were intelligently designed.

> Examples
> of these techniques include, among others, showing objects possess specified
> complexity or irreducible complexity.

First, "specified complexity" is a useless term. Define complexity,
then define how it will be measured. At what level of complexity is an
item shown to be ID? What about those items that have 1% less
complexity? 10% less? Now apply this complexity metric against a
number of controlled items. An automobile is quite complex, but so is
a snowflake. A lump of gold in the ground isn't particularly complex,
nor is a gold ingot. Are snowflakes ID, but gold ingots not? And
redefining the term for every new object is pretty useless as well, as
it would be "irreducibly arbitrary."

Irreducible complexity is just as useless. What of objects that appear
to be irreducibly complex given our current level of knowledge, but can
be understood as we learn more? 100 years ago, the human brain may
have appeared to be IC; today it is not. In that sense, IC simply
lists those things that we don't yet understand; it's "Complexity of
the Gaps."

> 3) Objects designed by an intelligence: An object is shown to be designed by
> an intelligence by using one or more of the various techniques of ID.

The techniques as described are invalid.

> ID involves making empirical observations of objects and analyzing those
> observations. An example of the science of ID in action is a scientist
> examining an arrow head for the fracture marks that prove it is not a
> natural stone. ID is not simply saying "God made it" whenever a natural
> explanation is unproven. In order for an object to be considered to be
> intelligently designed it must have specific characteristics specified by
> the techniques of ID. For the purposes of the science of intelligent design,
> proving an object could have been created by natural causes proves an object
> was not designed by intelligence.

This is equally invalid. Proving an object *could* have been created
by natural causes does not prove that it *was* created by natural
causes.

> ID can be disproved by showing that 1) the techniques of ID are invalid or

Then it's disproved already.

> 2) that the techniques have been applied incorrectly when something is
> asserted to have been designed by an intelligence.
>
> 1) You can prove that a certain technique of ID is invalid. Many of the
> arguments of intelligent design are mathematical.
>
> http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf
>
> Anyone can test them by looking at the assumptions, inferences and
> conclusions and pointing out their flaws. It is asserted that specified
> complexity and irreducible complexity identify objects designed by an
> intelligence. If you can disprove one of these assertions mathematically,
> logically, or philosophically then you invalidate that technique of ID and
> you disprove the ID hypothesis for any specific objects that have been
> asserted to be ID'd because they have that characteristic.

So if any Tom, *** or Harry declares that an object is ID, science
must *disprove* it? Someone could claim that all organs of all known
animals on earth as IC, then someone has to go about refuting each
individual claim? Nope, science doesn't work that way. For anyone
making a claim of ID, they have to get off their butts, do some
research and pony up the evidence to support their own claim.

> 2) You can disprove the hypothesis that some object was designed by an
> intelligence. This might consist of showing it does not satisfy the
> conditions of irreducible complexity or specified complexity if those
> characteristics were the basis for the assertion of ID.
>
> Or, if you can prove a natural mechanism is possible for the development of
> that object, then you disprove the ID hypothesis for that object. If the
> natural mechanism follows the "laws of nature", the object is not considered
> to be designed by an intelligence.
>
> If you prove a reasonable natural pathway (ie mathemetically reasonable
> odds, or steps of increasing fitness) for the creation of life and the
> cambrian explosion you can disprove these are instances of ID.

Again, these are invalid statements. It is up to ID supporters to
offer a credible hypothesis why a given object or event is ID. Up to
now, the only support for ID is assertions based on a minority
religious belief.

> If a gene is said to show characteristics of being designed by intelligence,
> that can be disproved by showing how the gene might have been created by
> natural selection from another gene. This would involve showing how the gene
> evolved through a series of mutations where each successive form
> provided an additional survival advantage to the organism.

Again, invalid - see above.

.

Quantcast