Is ID Scientific?

[Makarios]

Many, if not all, evolutionists consider the study of Intelligent Design to be a pseudo-science. They argue that design is not scientific because scientists do not have access to the “Designer.” In his book Science Friction, Michael Shermer says if there is a designer then we must ask, “Who is ID, and How did he do it?” If we can’t answer these questions, then the idea of there being a designer is somehow false.

This seems to me a very weak position. There are a number of legitimate scientific fields which study design: archeology, forensics, SETI, cryptography and the trade of insurance fraud investigation. All of these fields use principles of design detection to determine whether the object of their study came about though natural or intelligent causation.

That being the case, why is ID ruled out as a legitimate scientific field of investigation? Even if one concludes in the end that there is no such thing as an ID, shouldn’t scientists consider this a legitimate field of investigation?

[bandecoot]

Many, if not all, evolutionists consider the study of Intelligent Design to be a pseudo-science. They argue that design is not scientific because scientists do not have access to the “Designer.” In his book Science Friction, Michael Shermer says if there is a designer then we must ask, “Who is ID, and How did he do it?” If we can’t answer these questions, then the idea of there being a designer is somehow false.

This seems to me a very weak position. There are a number of legitimate scientific fields which study design: archeology, forensics, SETI, cryptography and the trade of insurance fraud investigation. All of these fields use principles of design detection to determine whether the object of their study came about though natural or intelligent causation.

That being the case, why is ID ruled out as a legitimate scientific field of investigation? Even if one concludes in the end that there is no such thing as an ID, shouldn’t scientists consider this a legitimate field of investigation?

Because with the exception of SETI all the above examples deal with known designers, humans. SETI assumes, perhaps wrongly, that intelligent life in space will use similar systems to communicate that we do or systems that we can detect in anycase. It does however deal with physical beings

Science Does accept ID ....for people.

[jason]

That being the case, why is ID ruled out as a legitimate scientific field of investigation? Even if one concludes in the end that there is no such thing as an ID, shouldn’t scientists consider this a legitimate field of investigation?

Because it conflicts with metaphyscial naturalism and therefore is automatically ruled out as inelligible.

Jason

[Makarios]

Because with the exception of SETI all the above examples deal with known designers, humans. SETI assumes, perhaps wrongly, that intelligent life in space will use similar systems to communicate that we do or systems that we can detect in anycase. It does however deal with physical beings

Science Does accept ID ....for people.

Whether or not the designer is "known" is irrelevant.

Consider the movie "Contact." They knew the signal was from an intelligence, yet knew nothing about who the senders were, why they sent the message, where the message came from, who created the sender(s), what the message meant, etc. All important questions to be sure, yet not necessary to infer intelligence.

[klm3]

I Believe ID is not a science because the scientist that back intelligent design don't practice science in what is considered scientific.

From what I understand about the ID supporters (all-be-it a very limited knowledge) is that they have yet put forth positive evidence for thier theory. Instead they have seeked holes in the theory of evolution or places were there isn't an evolutionary explaniation and said well if evolution can't explian it then it must be designed. A scientific theory is not built upon negative evidence for an opposing theory but a theory should be built upon its own positive evidence.

Otherwise the theory of gravity should be on some seriously shaky ground since there is a large glaring hole in that theory as well. ( physical proof of the casue of gravitional forces).

By the way SETI is viewed by many as a psuedo-science.

[bandecoot]

Because it conflicts with metaphyscial naturalism and therefore is automatically ruled out as inelligible.

Jason

No jason, Methodological Naturalism rules it out. For the examples given they are all proposed physical entities that we can know and study.

The DI has proposed no specific designer(I wonder why?) thus is ruled out of contention as a science disipline. ID speculates that there might be a designer, in much the same way I might speculate about sentient teapots.

Both speculations are possible, but not even remotely close to being able to be shown to have a high order of probaility of being correct.

[bandecoot]

Whether or not the designer is "known" is irrelevant.

Consider the movie "Contact." They knew the signal was from an intelligence, yet knew nothing about who the senders were, why they sent the message, where the message came from, who created the sender(s), what the message meant, etc. All important questions to be sure, yet not necessary to infer intelligence.

Thank you, you make my case for me. There was someone sending a message that we could interpret. A knowable phyical entity that exhibited similar enough traits to our own.

The DI does not even propose what or whom the designer is nor by what method it purports to have designed biodiversity on this plant.

It is not science because it does no science. When it does, it will be.

[sylas]

This seems to me a very weak position. There are a number of legitimate scientific fields which study design: archeology, forensics, SETI, cryptography and the trade of insurance fraud investigation. All of these fields use principles of design detection to determine whether the object of their study came about though natural or intelligent causation.

That being the case, why is ID ruled out as a legitimate scientific field of investigation? Even if one concludes in the end that there is no such thing as an ID, shouldn’t scientists consider this a legitimate field of investigation?

Design is certainly a legitimate field of investigation, and as you point out it is used quite often in science.

The term "ID", however, is generally used to refer to a particular set of ideas related to "complex specified information", and "irreducible complexity", and "Dembski's design filter", and so on... all the rubbish from the Discovery Institute.

ID bears no relation to the legitimate scientific investigation of design. Real scientists recognize design by having some kind of design model. This involves a designer; and something about the materials or methods or motives of the designer.

ID is a pseudoscientific pursuit that carefully omits any actual consideration of a designer, and fails on examination to have anything at all that could be seen as a theory of design. It has found no application in science, and is really only used as a tactical approach for undermining evolutionary biology. All the various ID arguments essentially reduce to the idea that you may conclude design without any need for further argument if only you can rule out "natural" processes and evolution in particular.

The criticisms that IDists have of evolution are quite independent of any design argument, and those actual criticisms are extremely meager. They don't stand the slightest critical examination. This is, technically, a peripheral point to your question about design.

The claim that ID is rejected because of a conflict with metaphysical naturalism is arrant nonsense. That has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Some of the strongest and most effective critics of ID pseudoscience are not metaphysical naturalists. This is a red herring to the real issue, which is simply its utter vacuity.

Cheers – Sylas

PS. And as a quick comment to klm3, with whom I normally agree... I don't think SETI is pseudoscience. I have seen the claim that "SETI is viewed by many as a psuedo-science"; but I've seen precious few people actually express that view. Most people who are familiar with science or working in the world of science recognize SETI as science; even those who consider it a waste of time and massively unlikely to ever find anything.

SETI is in fact a good example of how real scientists look for designed objects. They certainly don't use anything like the methods of DI. They are not looking for very complex objects, but extremely simple ones. They are looking for a "carrier"; a narrow band signal. Why? Because this is the kind of signal that an engineer would use for long range radio communication. That is, they have a hypothesis that is based on thinking about the kinds of signals that might plausibly be generated by a technical civilization. See the FAQ at the SETI Institute.

[Tladatsi]

No because there is no hull hypothesis. In science there are always at least two possiblities, your hypothesis and the opposite or something quite different, usually called the null hypothesis. In ID there is no null hypothesis, which means there is no way to disprove it, which it is not science. Allow me to illustrate.

Let us take a bowling ball (a big American one, not a puny Canadian one) and a standard size marble and drop them both from the Tower of Pisa. Galileo hypothesised that they would both reach the ground at the same time. The null hypothesis is that the heavier object would reach the ground first. We can drop the two spheres any number of times and decide, based on the experimental results, which hypothesis is correct. (The experiment works better in vacuum where there are no wind drag effects but in this case, those should be minimal).

The point here is that any scientific theory can be disproven. There are a set of possible evidence that support the theory or hypothesis and another set of possible evidence that disproves it. Through experimentation we find which find out which evidence actually occurs. In the above example, the bowling ball and marble land at the same time and Galileo's hypothesis was correct. However, if the bowling ball had landed well before the marble, Galileo's hypothesis would have been proven wrong.

The problem with ID is that there is no null hypothesis, or more specifically no set of possible evidence to disprove it. What would the universe look like if ID were incorrect and what would it look like if it were correct? What would a undesigned human eye look like vs. a designed one? Or a rock, or a star, or a galaxy, or anything else.

Basically the ID argument is that if a thing has a shape or form or structure, it must have been designed. Well, everything has to have a shape. How could have an eye or rock or galaxy that did not have a shape. All matter has to have a shape of some sort. Therefore all matter has to have been designed. It is a circular theory, one that can never be disproven.

The fundemental requirement for science is that any theory or hypothesis can be disproven. That is why ID is not science, it cannot be disproven.

Many, if not all, evolutionists consider the study of Intelligent Design to be a pseudo-science. They argue that design is not scientific because scientists do not have access to the “Designer.” In his book Science Friction, Michael Shermer says if there is a designer then we must ask, “Who is ID, and How did he do it?” If we can’t answer these questions, then the idea of there being a designer is somehow false.

This seems to me a very weak position. There are a number of legitimate scientific fields which study design: archeology, forensics, SETI, cryptography and the trade of insurance fraud investigation. All of these fields use principles of design detection to determine whether the object of their study came about though natural or intelligent causation.

That being the case, why is ID ruled out as a legitimate scientific field of investigation? Even if one concludes in the end that there is no such thing as an ID, shouldn’t scientists consider this a legitimate field of investigation?

[Dwevlo]

The fundemental requirement for science is that any theory or hypothesis can be disproven. That is why ID is not science, it cannot be disproven.

I think its in-principle falsifiable. Imagine the following (for a life-starting example):

1) We find several planets with similar starting conditions as our own.
2) We wait several million/billion years to see if life evolves.
3) If it never does, then its probable that it did not occur on this planet.

Now the question is, must a theory be more than just in-principle falsifiable to count as Science? I say yes, but I'm not sure if I can give a reason why. If only we had a nice simple definition of Science it would be easy. But such a definition doesn't exist. Basically science is whatever scientists (as a whole) say it is.

-----

Secondly this unfortunately works both ways. If ID is unfalsifiable then non-ID is unfalsifiable, and therefore anytime anyone ever says that evolution is an 'undirected' process or a 'non-designed' process (or some such other thing) they are committing the same error, in reverse, as the ID advocate.

[NJon]

That depends on who you're asking, I suppose. Of course, the secular evolutionist will tell you "no." To the Christian, or at least to anyone believing in a supreme creator of some sort, that creator is also the creator of the laws of science. Therefore, to say that God is the Creator, as the Bible says, means that we accept God having formed all natural laws. Thus, studying the nature of the Creator and His creation must be science. Mankind on the opposing side may dispute that, but from a Christian perspective, intelligent design is science.

If we start with the axiom: "the God of the Bible exists"
...then that leaves us with the conclusion that the true study of science must correspond back to what we read in Genesis 1:1
True science can never contradict God, and science (even false science) can never disprove God. Since God created everything which we study within the realm of science, He exists outside of it, and it cannot be used to harm or disprove Him in any way.

As Ray Comfort of Living Waters Ministries points out, it is easy to see that God exists and is the Creator (Romans 1 tell us this, too). In the form of the watchmaker argument: if you see a painting, how do you know that there was a painter? The existence of the painter is axiomatic; a painting must have a painter. You could not ask for better proof that a painter exists than seeing a painting itself.
We see creation everywhere. Thus, there must be a creator. Even arch-atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins acknowledges this, but to him, the creator is chance + billions of years.
Time is the magic ingredient to secular "creation." However, it still doesn't explain where matter came from in the first place. Which takes us back to the need for a force outside of the physical universe. Aristotle called this the "first mover." He proved that there was a god. Did he prove it was the God of Abraham? No. But did he prove the need for a creator to get things moving? Yes, he proved that at the very least.

[geochron]

Many, if not all, evolutionists consider the study of Intelligent Design to be a pseudo-science. They argue that design is not scientific because scientists do not have access to the “Designer.” In his book Science Friction, Michael Shermer says if there is a designer then we must ask, “Who is ID, and How did he do it?” If we can’t answer these questions, then the idea of there being a designer is somehow false.

This seems to me a very weak position. There are a number of legitimate scientific fields which study design: archeology, forensics, SETI, cryptography and the trade of insurance fraud investigation. All of these fields use principles of design detection to determine whether the object of their study came about though natural or intelligent causation.

That being the case, why is ID ruled out as a legitimate scientific field of investigation? Even if one concludes in the end that there is no such thing as an ID, shouldn’t scientists consider this a legitimate field of investigation?

I don't rule out ID as a legitimate scientific field of investigation. In fact, I encourage it's proponents to get on with scientific investigation rather than blathering endlessly in the media and campaigning to get their ideas taught in schools before there is a shred of supporting evidence.

[wattsr1]

I don't rule out ID as a legitimate scientific field of investigation. In fact, I encourage it's proponents to get on with scientific investigation rather than blathering endlessly in the media and campaigning to get their ideas taught in schools before there is a shred of supporting evidence.

To me it's a bit like chunks of YEC. Potentially perfectly legitimate science - e.g. global flood, earth 6,000 years old, even animal ancestry dating back to the one time. This is all open to scientific investigation - global flood (geology), 6,000 year earth (dating), animal ancestry (molecular biology, dating).

The problem is, it all falls head-over-heels when examined scientifically.

As a result, many YECs do about the only thing left. Attack the mainstream in hope that this means the mainstream must be wrong and thereby YEC correct.

[HRG_new]

Many, if not all, evolutionists consider the study of Intelligent Design to be a pseudo-science. They argue that design is not scientific because scientists do not have access to the “Designer.” In his book Science Friction, Michael Shermer says if there is a designer then we must ask, “Who is ID, and How did he do it?” If we can’t answer these questions, then the idea of there being a designer is somehow false.

This seems to me a very weak position. There are a number of legitimate scientific fields which study design: archeology, forensics, SETI, cryptography and the trade of insurance fraud investigation. All of these fields use principles of design detection to determine whether the object of their study came about though natural or intelligent causation.

No they don't. They study how the object of their study came about through natural causation - period. Forensic investigations do not entertain the hypothesis that the victim was killed by voodoo. Their task is done when they have shown that death resulted because a nerve impulse caused a finger muscle to pull a trigger which caused a gun to fire the lethal bullet. The expression "death from natural causes" only obscures this basic fact.

IOW, causation by natural intelligent beings using physical mechanisms (bullets, knives, poison..) is natural causation. The essential dichotomy runs between natural and supernatural causation.

That being the case, why is ID ruled out as a legitimate scientific field of investigation? Even if one concludes in the end that there is no such thing as an ID, shouldn’t scientists consider this a legitimate field of investigation?

You have to distinguish between ID hypothese of archaeologists ("humans made this clay vessel on a potter's wheel") and the "mere ID"-hypothesis of Dembski et al. ("some unspecified designer, using unspecified and unlimited powers and for unspecified and inscrutable purposes, made it"). The latter is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable, and creates no meaningful basis for further investigations.

[HRG_new]

As Ray Comfort of Living Waters Ministries points out, it is easy to see that God exists and is the Creator (Romans 1 tell us this, too).

And Paul was wrong in Romans 1, as we will see below.

In the form of the watchmaker argument: if you see a painting, how do you know that there was a painter? The existence of the painter is axiomatic; a painting must have a painter. You could not ask for better proof that a painter exists than seeing a painting itself.

Sure, because we have seen painters making paintings. But we have not seen universe-makers making universes.
Actually, if you put a painting somewhere in a forest, you will notice it at first glance - because it is so unlike the other things you find there.

In brief, there is no reason to draw an analogy between paintings (which are phenomena within our universe) and the universe itself.

We see creation everywhere. Thus, there must be a creator. Even arch-atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins acknowledges this, but to him, the creator is chance + billions of years.

First, this badly misinterprets Dawkins's hypothesis (evolution is indeterministic, but not pure chance). Second, a natural process is not a creator - i.e. a personal agent.

IOW, we don't see creation, we see a universe. That you call it a creation is your personal interpretation.

Time is the magic ingredient to secular "creation." However, it still doesn't explain where matter came from in the first place.

Why do you think that matter had to "come from" at all ?

Which takes us back to the need for a force outside of the physical universe. Aristotle called this the "first mover." He proved that there was a god. Did he prove it was the God of Abraham? No. But did he prove the need for a creator to get things moving? Yes, he proved that at the very least.

We recognize today that Aristoteles hasn't proven anything, and that his alleged proofs were based on a false view of physics (that things have to be constantly moved from outside in order to move at all). In addition, if "things" have always been moving, there is no need for a creator.

Finally, postulating a god as First Mover only shifts the problem: you now need to explain his existence, powers and motivations. IOW, you try to solve a smaller riddle (the universe) by converting it to a larger enigma (this god). Sorry, things do not work this way.