no, not what a testable hypothesis is in science, but what you understand by ID hypotheses
(facepalm) You’re complaining ID can’t do research because they can’t get funding. What hypotheses arising from ID’s tenets would ID test if they had funding?
You seem to be deliberately dancing around the question. Please stop.
3 Likes
The problem is what you might mean by ID hypotheses could be different from what might I mean by it.
If you want to make an experiment a demonstrate the existence of some kind of Intelligence with its size and weight, then there is no experiment could be done to demonstrate the existence of intelligence outside the earth, but ID hypotheses not about detecting Intelligence directly by measurements, experiments, rather it is about casual adequacy to explain the existing complexity and diversity of life
OK. You’re complaining ID can’t get funding for testing ID’s veracity yet you admit there are no experiments to test ID’s veracity. Makes your demand for ID funding pretty pointless, yes?
4 Likes
no, funding could be used to explore the complexity of life further, to investigate functionality genome, so-called Junk DNA, to explore rarity of protein functionality further, even to explore polar bear genes are damaged or not, so we do not want to rely on computer prediction, is not it?
Yes, 541 million years ago is accepted beginnings of the Cambrian.
Science is already doing those things with no mention and no need for any ID involvement. You can’t think of a single thing ID can actually test using the scientific method which could provide positive evidence for ID. Don’t feel bad though. Not even the professional ID “scientists” can think up any way to test ID’s claims. That’s why ID is not and will never be scientific.
4 Likes
A demonstration of evolution in action isn’t the same as “proof of evolution”.
Why do you seem to have such a hard time with rather obvious nuances?
3 Likes
Why don’t you explain then what you mean by a “ID hypothesis”?
Moreover:
(1) Seeing how ID proponents claim they aren’t necessarily talking about a deity—or even an intelligent agent “outside the earth”—those secondary details shouldn’t matter to our current discussion.
(2) Therefore, IDers should simply explain how to test scientifically whether a given X (whether some material object, organisms, or process) is the product of an intelligent agent.
(3) They should also explain what predictions such an “ID theory” would make (if indeed they can manage to produce such a theory.)
(4) It sounds like you are basically saying what we already know: “ID theory” is not really science at all. It is philosophy which isn’t subject to falsification testing by empirical means. I’m fine with ID if we simply accept it as a philosophical or theological position. Just don’t call it science until you or someone else can publish a formal Comprehensive Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design and explain how that theory can be subjected to falsification testing using the scientific method. (Newton didn’t just say, “I’ve got a really strong gut feeling that material objects somehow attract each other.” He proposed testable hypotheses, conducted falsification experiments, and in the process quantified the physics in such a way that he was able to publish important theories and The Law of Universal Gravitation.)
As long as ID advocates stick with Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacies like “Living things are really really complex. Therefore, I just don’t see how they can arise without some intelligent agent producing them”, that fails as a scientific position.
If built upon appropriate philosophical foundations, ID can be a reasonable position—although it still wouldn’t be testable and thereby qualify as science. No peer-reviewed science journal is going to publish a philosophy paper without flagging it as such. You also can’t expect any federal agency to award any science grants for such. (Under the right circumstances, you might be able to get an NEH grant for it. However, competition for those is intense.)
3 Likes
They managed to come up with rigorous mathematical model to test given biological sytem possseses Complex Specified Information or not, if yes, it indicates design
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Let’s start with just one actual testing of an evolutionary hypothesis:
Journal of Molecular Evolution
February 2003, Volume 56, Issue 2, pp 162–168| Cite as
Can an Arbitrary Sequence Evolve Towards Acquiring a Biological Function?
Edgar, I’m not talking about the abstract or the words in the paper. I’m talking about the data in the paper. You seem to have a hard time with this basic scientific concept.
Would you like me to send you a PDF?
1 Like
Donald Prothero says
“explosion” now takes place over an 80 m.y. time framework.
this is a gross blunder, even more than blunder, complete lie
No, science is about testing hypotheses. There’s no hypothesis in there.
1 Like
if biological system possesses Complex Specified Information then it is designed,
That’s a hypothesis. It doesn’t make any empirical predictions though, because you can always tweak the definition of CSI. Try changing CSI to something you directly observe, not something you can interpret.
Here’s an example of real science: if the scrapie (prion) infective agent is a nucleic acid, then treatment of infectious homogenates with RNase and DNase will abolish or reduce infectivity, relative to untreated controls.
2 Likes
Here is something to get you started on why the science academy has never been impressed by William Dembski’s “Complex Specified Information” argument:
4 Likes
What about other things in nature? Many things in nature fit the definition of CSI. Were they designed or is CSI only applicable to biology?
1 Like
I have yet to see that done with anything in biology. For example, I have yet to see an ID supporter measure the complex specified information in a random DNA string, or be able to determine if there was a reduction or increase in CSI as mutations changed that DNA sequence. CSI can’t be applied to biology in a scientific manner.
2 Likes
Only if you use ID’s completely unproven assertion of “CSI is something which can only be intelligently designed”.
3 Likes