How Does Intelligent Design Differ from Creationism?

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Chris_Falter

Other design proponents have been critical of at least some aspects of evolutionary theory, but none have to my knowledge advanced any scientific framework that would show:

1. How the design inference would ineluctably yield certain predictions…
2. …that would be distinguishable from standard evolutionary predictions, and…
3. would be testable by the scientific toolkit.

I’d settle for highly probable predictions. Scientific predictions are generally not ineluctable, since one has to test both the primary hypothesis and a bundle of auxiliary hypotheses at the same time. As a result, strong scientific predictions sometimes fail even when the hypothesis is true. The catch, of course, is that you also have to be able the auxiliary hypotheses, if you’re blaming your failure on them.

[DaleCutler]

@glipsnort

I’d settle for highly probable predictions.

One that seems consistent is that nature in all its wonder is/will continue to be fascinating to study, like a fantastic Rube Goldberg machine. (And why should we even be able to study it?)

[Faizal_Ali]

@Chris_Falter

I think it’s more accurate to say that ID theory has not yielded any scientifically valid research to date.

No, it would not be “more accurate.” That would presume that the ID creationists are even trying to do that. They don’t even have the barest scraps of an outline of how they would go about this. After 20 years of declaring that they have already succeeded.

Anyone who even takes them seriously and treats them respectfully is helping them in their anti-scientific mission.

[DaleCutler]

Laughs the omniscient @Faizal_Ali.

[Faizal_Ali]

Not omniscient. Just able to see what is obvious.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@glipsnort

I’d settle for highly probable predictions. Scientific predictions are generally not ineluctable, since one has to test both the primary hypothesis and a bundle of auxiliary hypotheses at the same time.

@Glipsnort

Im rather surprised at the scientists who seem unperturbed when i ask them how they plan to test for God’s presence or absence in a particular step if Evolution?

And if there is lab simulations, how do they plan to test whether God is going to be present or not in these lab tests?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Faizal_Ali

Evolutionary theory is driven 100% by science. Stop making up crap.

Then why do the some of the text books push Neo-Darwinism.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

If you and @Eddie PM me your email addresses, I can send you a PDF copy.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Chris_Falter

However, it’s important to recognize that these arguments from analogy are metaphysical, not scientific. A scientific argument would have to show mechanisms and make predictions that can be falsified. These arguments from analogy can do neither.

It all depends where you demarcate science. If it is inference to the best explanation as Darwin argued is the standard then ID is fair game. If you demarcate at a hypothesis that needs verification to a high statistical confidence level then Behe’s limit to evolution is probably accurate.

ID would probably fall short here too.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

Then why do the some of the text books push Neo-Darwinism.

Because it’s the 100% scientific best explanation we have for the history and diversity of life on the planet. Why does ID-Creationism push religiously motivated anti-science nonsense?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Timothy_Horton

Because it’s the 100% scientific best explanation we have for the history and diversity of life on the planet. Why does ID-Creationism push religiously motivated anti-science nonsense?

Tim,
Several scientists on this blog claim the Neo-Darwinism has been falsified.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

Several scientists on this blog claim the Neo-Darwinism has been falsified.

That doesn’t change the fact it’s still 100% scientific as opposed to ID-Creationsm’s religious basis.

I’d argue it hasn’t been falsified, just It’s been expanded on the same way Newtonian physics was expanded upon by general relativity.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@colewd

It all depends where you demarcate science. If it is inference to the best explanation as Darwin argued is the standard then ID is fair game.

ID is fair game. There is nothing stopping ID proponents from offering a better scientific explanation for the data. Heck, there’s nothing stopping them from offering a scientific explanation.

@colewd

If you demarcate at a hypothesis that needs verification to a high statistical confidence level then Behe’s limit to evolution is probably accurate.

There are many limits to evolution. What’s lacking is a demonstration that the history of life violates any of those limits.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@glipsnort

There are many limits to evolution. What’s lacking is a demonstration that the history of life violates any of those limits.

BTW I think the data you generated is the most convincing case for evolution I have seen.

All that being said the question that remains in my mind is how random change can find a complex adaption even if it is helped along with a occasional positive mutation. Neutral theory does not help and in fact makes the situation worse as these accumulated neutral mutations will eventually break down the sequence.

The design argument puts mind forward as a mechanism. For generating a complex sequence de novo it is a superior mechanism to random change and selection or drift.

What ID has not yet shown is that it can generate a living organism de novo from first principals. So both theories fall short from proof of concept. At this point maybe the best answer is that we don’t yet have a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

All that being said the question that remains in my mind is how random change can find a complex adaption even if it is helped along with a occasional positive mutation. Neutral theory does not help and in fact makes the situation worse as these accumulated neutral mutations will eventually break down the sequence

Random change alone doesn’t. Random change which accumulates after being filtered by selection feedback does.

Bill will never get it because Bill doesn’t want to get it. Someone will put “But evolution is RANDOM!!” on his headstone.

@colewd

The design argument puts mind forward as a mechanism.

“Mind” isn’t a mechanism for the physical manipulation of matter. Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow.

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

Neutral theory does not help and in fact makes the situation worse as these accumulated neutral mutations will eventually break down the sequence.

What does that mean, even?

[DaleCutler]

@Faizal_Ali

Just able to see what is obvious.

Not everything is obvious, so you’re missing some things.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@colewd

Neutral theory does not help and in fact makes the situation worse as these accumulated neutral mutations will eventually break down the sequence.

What sequence?

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

Neutral theory does not help and in fact makes the situation worse as these accumulated neutral mutations will eventually break down the sequence.

I would ask Bill how mutations can break down a genetic sequence (and therefore its function) and still be considered neutral but he’s already confused enough.

[Patrick]

@Chris_Falter

@Agauger feels that she is on the cusp of a major scientific leap forward for ID.

@Agauger is on the cusp of retirement without ANY scientific progress further for ID. Didn’t she just move to Iowa from Seattle?