Creationism/ID as Science

This makes no sense as written, since one doesn't observe and measure conclusions. I think what you meant to say is that you wish the conclusions (i.e., the theories) of science were derived from the objectively observable and measurable. Which they are. In order to support your position you must provide examples within science where this isn't the case, which you attempt to do next: It might appear to you that the paleontologist is simply assuming relatedness, but he isn't. What he's actually doing is interpreting the fossil in an evolutionary context, i.e., within the context of evolutionary theory, for which there are mountains of objectively measurable evidence. If you'd like to discuss the evidence for evolution then we could discuss it at whatever level of detail you like, but it would be off-topic for this thread, so you should propose a new thread. This thread is about creationism/ID's qualifications as science. What you actually mean to say is that the IDist interprets the fossil in an ID context, i.e., within the context of ID theory, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. There is no evidence of any artifacts of a design and implementation or manufacturing process, nor is there any evidence of an entity that designs and creates suns, planets and life.In order for creationism/ID to qualify as science, you have to explain how it possesses the necessary qualities of science, such as deriving from observation and/or experiment, being tentative, and being replicable.--Percy

I don't think we should go into too much detail about evolution's qualifications as science because that isn't the topic of this thread, so for now I'll just say that the same approach to interpreting evidence should be taken by both evolutionist and creationist/IDist. Science is inductive, and drawing inferences and generalizing is an intimate part of the process of science. Of course it isn't what ReverendDG intended to say, nor is it what he said. He was explaining how various structures in the human body show no signs of the application of intelligence. They were "designed" by the blind evolutionary process of descent with change combined with natural selection that often reflects making-do with what's available. It is a process that has been verified, confirmed and replicated many times using as subjects organisms with generation times much shorter than our own. But this isn't the topic of this thread. The open mind that I think most of us attempt to have about creationism/ID is tempered by the record of unscientific behavior by the creationist/IDist community, primarily their continual efforts at making end-around runs of the scientific process by taking their arguments to state legislatures and boards of education instead of to journals and conferences.So if you think the tenets of creationism/ID are falsifiable and scientifically based upon replicable observation and evidence, all you have do is describe this for us.--Percy

I can't see how your last two posts, or any of your posts, actually, address the issue of how Creationism/ID qualifies as science. If you're interested in making the case for your viewpoint by presenting supporting evidence then this is your opportunity.--Percy

This is your evidence? Drawing an analogy or metaphor between manufacturing plants and cells is your evidence that cells were designed?Let's contrast the evidence for evolution with the evidence for ID. Put simply, evolutionary theory says that the process of descent with modification assisted by natural selection has produced the diversity of life we see today. At a genetic level we understand this takes place by reordering of alleles (sexual reproduction) and mutation (all forms of reproduction). These interpretations are supported by a wide variety of evidence, from fossils, to observations of modern life, to genetic analysis. Within evolution, indeed, within all of science, there are no examples of arguing that an analogy or metaphor is evidence.In order for creationism/ID to qualify as science it must identify supporting evidence. Rather than offering analogies to manufacturing plants you need to find genetic or fossil or morphological evidence of the designer at work. I'm not sure what form this evidence might take, but this much I do know: with no evidence and only analogy, creationism/ID isn't science. You're arguing that archeology is science, and forensics is science, so because ID is like archeology and forensics it is also science.But it's already been pointed out that ID is *not* like archeology and forensics. Neither is seeking intelligent design but simply the indications of human presence and activity.You're also repeating the same mistake again. Just as a cell being analogous to a manufacturing plant doesn't mean it was designed, it doesn't follow that ID is science because it is like archeology and forensics. For ID to be a legitimate scientific theory it must be falsifiable, its supporting evidence that has been gathered through observation and experiment must be replicable, and it must create an interpretational framework of understanding that is consistent with and explains the evidence as well as making accurate predictions of future discoveries.--Percy

Dr Adequate was responding to your analogy about cells as manufacturing plants, not the origin of life. The topic is creationism/ID as science. If you have any actual evidence supporting creationism/ID theory, this is your opportunity to present it. When Dr Adequate says the answer to the question about design is "no" he only means there is no evidence supporting the thesis. He's not implying that no evidence will ever be uncovered. If you're using the same evidence, then it is this reinterpretation that you should be focused on.When we see cells go from one generation to the next all we observe is the evolutionary process in miniature, with reproductive errors being passed on to offspring and then selected by the environment. How does ID reinterpret this data to conclude design?Or when we examine the diversity of life and the nested hierarchy of interrelatedness, how does ID reinterpret this data to conclude design?Or when we examine the fossil evidence, how does ID reinterpret this data to conclude design?And there are other questions, of course. When the designer implemented his designs, how did he carry out the implementations? What tools must the designer have had for implementing his designs? Does his method leave any evidence or artifacts behind, any signs at all? In other words, what evidence should we seek in the genome for the handiwork of the designer? Are there patterns we should observe in the nested hierarchy of life that would indicate a designer? Or are there patterns of change over time in the fossil record that would indicate a designer?The important thing to keep in mind is that "a cell is like a manufacturing plant" and "ID is like forensics and archeology" are arguments by analogy, not evidence.--Percy

Hi Hughes,Just a couple comments.First, regarding design using evolutionary principles, Parasomnium is referring to the field of genetic algorithms. Propose a new thread if you'd like to discuss it.Second, about this: If you'd like to challenge the validity of computer modelling, please propose a new thread.--Percy

Argument from authority is a fallacy. Normally I'd request that you frame the argument in your own words, but not in this case because analogy is not evidence. This is your opportunity to present the evidence for design, and so far all you're offering is analogies. Usually when someone says they think a good question has been posed it means they intend to answer it. You instead reply with three questions of your own: Good question. Do you know how they do it? Are you saying that ID uses the same techniques as SETI for identifying something of intelligent origin? Can you provide some examples of ID applying these techniques? Usually it's obvious, but there are more subtle cases. Archaeologists often want to know if ancient animal bones they find died at the hands of humans, and they do this by looking for signs of human activity, most commonly knife marks on the bone. Is this how ID identifies design? Have marks of some kind been left inside the cell of the designer's work? Can you provide examples of ID finding such marks? By searching for signs of violence or foul play and by finding a murder weapon or means of murder. So are you saying that ID works in a similar manner, seeking signs of the work of the designer, or for the tools that the designer used to carry out his work? Can you provide some examples of ID identifying design using these techniques?--Percy

Are you going to lead us to this evidence? Sometime before the end of this thread, perhaps? (Threads at EvC Forum are closed when they reach 300 posts.) So while that's very good that "ID believing scientists are working on it," that means that ID doesn't yet possess the necessary qualities of science. This means the answer to the question posed by this thread's title concerning whether creationism/ID is really science is "no" at this time, but it poses another question about why ID is being promoted as science, for instance by the Discovery Institute and at Dover, at a point in time when it does not possess the necessary qualifications. You just finished conceding that ID doesn't possess the qualities of science at this time, so it can't be a theory. It can at best be a hypothesis, and a poor one at that since it has no supporting evidence. Behe's idea of irreducible complexity has been prominently falsified, and Behe himself put the final nail in the coffin of his scientific reputation when he testified at Dover. I'm sure Behe thanks God every night for tenure.But irreducible complexity is as close as you've come to evidence so far. We can discuss it if you like. You could start by providing a brief description of irreducible complexity.--Percy

Boggled? Not addled? I can't tell if you're talking about DNA replication or transcription, but how does whichever one it is provide evidence of design? Okay, so the nested hierarchy of classification is not evidence for ID, so no evidence there. Okay, so no evidence for ID in the fossil record either. And no evidence for ID detected within the genome so far, either.So that leaves you with only DNA transcription/replication and irreducible complexity as possible evidence for ID, I guess. Carry on.--Percy

What SETI is actually looking for is radio sources that cannot, by their nature, be of natural origin. SETI has occasionally identified potential candidates of intelligent radio sources, but in each case investigation revealed the source was natural. Gradually over time the library of types of radio sources of natural origin has grown.The irreducibly complex structures described by Behe have all been shown to have natural pathways for their construction, and so IDists are forced to add them to the library of structures of natural origin. Irreducible complexity itself is a questionable concept without a real world example at this time. I imagine some people did read it while on a dock, so of course it was pier reviewed. Oh, wait a minute, you mean *peer* review! No, there was no formal peer review of Origins. Formal peer review, indeed scientific journals themselves, did not exist at the time. Will you next be criticizing Darwin for not having his children vaccinated? And this is all off-topic anyway. As Wounded King has already pointed out in his inimitable way, yes, of course. Have you been under a rock? It would seem a shame to turn this thread into yet another discussion of information theory, so I'm going to keep this brief and declarative for now. Information is produced everywhere throughout the universe without the need for intelligence. The complex chemistry of DNA transcription and replication that involves decoding and encoding and recoding of information during division and protein production is consistent with the same ad hoc make-do approach of much of evolution.The question of whether the microbiological processes within the cell are too complex and intricate to have developed naturally must be considered scientifically, otherwise we're left with you saying "It couldn't possible have arisen naturally," and us saying, "Of course it could have arisen naturally." Not very constructive.So how are you going to put consideration of this question on a scientific footing?--Percy

Hi Hughes,I realize you probably have limited time to deal with the many respondents, but that's all the more reason to use your time to actually address the topic. There are already existing threads for arguing against the theory of evolution and other scientific views, and almost all of your reply belongs in one of those threads, not here. This thread is for making the case that creationism/ID satisfies the criteria of science.So if you'd like to argue that the match between morphological classifications and genetics is a tautology, please take it to the appropriate thread.If you'd like to argue that time cannot be reliably measured, please take it to the appropriate thread.If you'd like to discuss evolutionary interpretations of the fossil record, please take it to the appropriate thread.In order for ID to be a legitimate scientific theory it must be falsifiable, its supporting evidence that has been gathered through observation and experiment must be replicable, and it must create an interpretational framework of understanding that is consistent with and explains the evidence as well as making accurate predictions of future discoveries. The last time I said this you claimed that ID scientists were working on achieving this. That means that ID is not science at this time.What has been most notable is what you claim ID does not explain. According to you, ID says nothing about relatedness, genetics or fossils. Also according to you, there is no evidence for ID in the classification system, in genetics or in fossils. As far as I can tell, according to you ID has no evidence and makes no predictions.What you have mentioned so far as "evidence" for ID is highly questionable. Irreducible complexity is a questionable concept with no real-world example at this time. And concerning communication in the process of DNA transcription and replication, all you've done is mention it. If you really think it is evidence for design then you need to expand on it so other people can understand your position.By the way, your Sherlock Holmes version makes no sense because it has both parties to the conversation assuming that people firing guns is against the laws of nature. You've set up a false dichotomy. When speaking non-scientifically it is common to think of ourselves as not part of nature and of the things we make and do as not natural, but scientifically we are as much a part of nature as everything else around us. We're made of the same matter and we obey all the same physical laws of nature.I think Tanypteryx in Message 165 of the Is the TOE falsifiable and if it was, would it advance Biblical Creationism thread makes the most relevant point regarding your arguments so far. The best characterization of your repeated claims of what ID does not tell us is when he says, "Those who argue against evolution are not interested in understanding the world around us." And you'd really prefer that others were as uninterested as yourself. What you're really interested in is protecting religious faith, not advancing science, and that's the real reason that ID fails as science.--Percy

You mean communications as in radio, television and journalism communications? Or communications as in Shannon Information? I don't see how you could have studied the latter and make statements like, "Information can only come from intelligent sources." Right near the beginning of his paper Shannon states that meaning is irrelevant to the engineering problem of communicating information. Intelligence has nothing to do with creating information. I agree that communicating information within the cell fits within the formalism of information theory, but this has nothing to do with intelligence. You seem to sort of be nibbling around the edges of the faux information theories promoted by Gitt and Dembski.--Percy

Wow, Duane Gish revisited!Hey, Hughes, this thread is about creationism/ID's qualifications as science. There are plenty of threads for you to argue against evolution. Learn them. Love them. Use them.This is from the Forum Guidelines:

2. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.

Or find an existing one, of course.Don't let other members draw you over to the dark side. Please stay on topic. Sorry to sound like a moderator, but I am one.--Percy

Hi Hughes,Thanks for helping keep the thread on-topic, but allow me to draw your attention to another tidbit from the Forum Guidelines:

6. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

This rule was instituted in order to avoid people raising points they weren't competent to defend. It also removes the problem of people raising points in less than a minute with a cut-n-paste that take others hours to rebut, a sort of "debate by exhausting your opponents" approach which we like to discourage. Could you please try again? Thanks!--Percy

Hi Dr Adequate!I agree with you, and you described the IDist dilemma so well that I don't think anything more need be said, not that that will stop me. At heart, both ID and traditional creationism are efforts to persuade people of religious views without reference to their spiritual or canonical foundations. This is a very tough challenge, but you have to admit that they're doing much better at it than the US is at international basketball.--Percy