Any experiment needs to be risky. That is, the experiment should be able to equally test the hypothesis and the null hypothesis. From my own experience, experimental controls can sometimes take up 80% of the samples in any given experiment. Those controls are there to see if the null hypothesis is correct.
Nowhere do I see ID experiments that test the null hypothesis. For example, JBR suggests that beneficial mutations that occur on bacterial plasmids are due to an intelligent designer. So what is the null hypothesis? I would think that the null hypothesis would be beneficial mutations occuring within the non-plasmid genome, and the literature is full of such examples. So does this mean that non-plasmid beneficial mutations falsify ID? I doubt it. JBR and others will probably claim that these are designed as well. That is certainly what Behe claimed when Hall observed the production of a novel beta-galactosidase gene that occurred within the non-plasmid genome in E. coli (reference).
The other argument is that experiments which fail to produce evolved structures are evidence for ID. Therefore, such experiments can count as ID experiments. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any theory must stand on it's own, and it has been shown that ID can not. As an example, the precession in Mercury's orbit that was not predicted by Newton's Laws which told us that there was something wrong with those laws. However, the falsification of Newton's Laws under certain conditions did not prove the existence of supernatural forces moving Mercury about the Sun. Even if the theory of evolution is proven false it does not evidence the accuracy of ID in any way.
For example, JBR suggests that beneficial mutations that occur on bacterial plasmids are due to an intelligent designer. So what is the null hypothesis?
I'd suggest that the null hypothesis would be that mutations that occur on bacterial plasmids are random with respect to fitness. So while there may be beneficial ones there will also be neutral and deleterious ones.
Edited by AdminModulous, : text hidden. summaries only, please.
One of my basic premises for this thread was to try and get some material justifying creationism/ID as valid science. At the time of proposal, this thread was in response to numerous posters that seemed to be implying a difference between "secular science" and "creation science" insofar as creation type science would work as a valid replacement for "secular science". That trend, for the time being, has seemed to have ceased. However, given that premise for this thread, we were confronted with ONE experiment from ONE creationist. That experiment used a term that was extremely poorly defined, if not defined whatsoever. That term ("apc": credit to Just Being Real) was later worked out to be synonymous with an already defined term "specified complexity". The phrase "specified complexity" (coined by none other than William Dembsky of Discovery Institute fame) runs into the same problems as "apc" in that the definition only identifies what may have this complexity. When confronted with counter observations, it is a necessity to repeatedly ask the ID Proponent "does this qualify?", only to be met with the answer "no, it was designed that way".
What we can gather from this thread is that there are no real world tests to test for any sort of design in nature without a creationist/IDist around to tell you if it is designed or not. Dr Adequate summed it up nicely in The evidence for design and a designer, Message 356
Dr Adequate writes:
An intentometer, of course. It's a simple yet ingenious device consisting of a large metal box with a creationist in it. To operate it you simply point it at any object whatsoever, bang on the box, and say "Was that designed?" The creationist says "yes", and then you know.
Furthermore, we have yet to be confronted with any creationist or IDist who can propose any test/observation/experiment or method that adequately competes with the scientific method already in use. We see that even though this has not been brought forth, the resident creationist still claims vicory (see Message 385).
As the forum sub-heading asks: Is it Science? The answer is a resounding NO!
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
An entire thread, all these messages, to conclude the very thing everyone, scientist and creationist alike, already knew.
No matter how you may dress it up, give it a fancy new name, color its hair and slap a mustache on it, creationism/creation science/intelligent design is not and never was science.
Only two things were accomplished here.
- Give the creationists another opportunity (failed, as it turns out) to try to redefine "science" in a more woo-friendly manner thus justifying their entry into the Science Curriculum of your local school.
- Give the creos another venue to try and capture the gullible who are already lost to the reality of this world anyway.
Nearly 400 messages, almost 40 participants, hundreds of lurkers over a 2 month period for neither side to have accomplished anything.
And the sad part, more than 1042 hundred gazillion billion electrons died in the effort. I could have watched all of last Sunday's football games with that.