There is no theory of Intelligent Design

Lately I've been spending a lot of time listening to and reading about the Kansas hearings. Even though the hearings aren't about ID specifically, there is a lot of peripheral discussion about ID. And that shouldn't be surprising, given the fact that everyone who has talked is an ID or creationist supporter.

These hearings, and school standard controversies before them, always result in the one side pleading for schoolboards to "teach the controversy", "teach both sides", "teach Intelligent Design Theory", etc. But one important fact seems to get ignored. One niggling little detail that gets lost in all the grandstanding. One pretty fundamental issue that nobody ever pays attention to.

There is no theory of Intelligent Design.

That's right, it's a sham. A bunch of political posturing and appeals to fair play, sticking up the new kid on the block, rooting for the underdog and what have you. But there's no actual theory there.

Sure, you might say, "But a bunch of important sounding scientists with important sounding credentials have written a bunch of important stuff about this! There must be a theory!"

But I say, where?

In fact, even IDists like Paul Nelson¹ and William Dembski² have covertly admitted there is no ID theory. And granted, that's no barrier to scientific discovery. After all, the Theory of Evolution didn't become the Theory of Evolution simply because Darwin wrote a book.

Likewise, the IDists have concepts. Just like Darwin had natural selection, the IDists have irreducible complexity and specified complexity. The difference is that natural selection has graduated from a mere concept. There's experiments that have been run^3,4, data that can be observed^5,6, and so on. Where have the IDists done this? Oh wait, they haven't.

Maybe one day the idea of Intelligent Design will become a theory in science. Maybe one day there will be a textbook full of ID concepts and hypotheses and experiments and data. Maybe one day there will be an ID theory to teach to kids in school.

But until that day, we have to face reality: there is no theory of Intelligent Design.


References:

1. Paul Nelson's Blog
2. William Dembski's Blog
3. Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations
4. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment.
5. Strength and tempo of directional selection in the wild
6. Natural Selection in the Wild (Amazon.com)

__________________
Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution

I'd like to throw some reputation your way, if I could...

__________________
"ODIN, take this offering from us
be our guidance in war
let us not return without victory

RATHER WE DIE!"

(Stormwarrior, "Sigrblot")

I think C&E should take a road* trip to Kansas.

*foreigners have to swim

__________________
"If we begin with certainties, we shall end in doubts; if we begin with doubts, and are patient, we shall end in certainties."
-Marcus Aurelius

Beautiful, Pete.

__________________
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
- Richard P. Feynman

<reps pete with imaginary, but genuine rep>

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.

Well done, I cannot help but feel that this is a waste of time though. They're not out to be convinced, we might aswell let their vacuous theory implode on them.

__________________
"The true index of civilization is how we behave towards people to whom we owe nothing." - Hugo Gryn

But there is a theory. At least in terms of how creationist/IDers expouse as what consists of a theory. An idea you yank out of your backside and proclaim as fact. The utter lack of understanding of simple vocabulary is astounding (and more than a wee bit depressing).

In that context, I think I choose to believe in that the moon is made of bleu cheese. And thusly I announce my moon bleu cheese theory, which will flood the textbook market in near biblical proportions. Despite being refuted by NASA, I shall stand my ground. Oh well! Sigh . . . I can only just shake my head. This Kansas debacle has given me one of THOSE headaches.

Cze

Every child knows the moon landing was faked anyway. Just think about it! A man walking on the moon! If a man really was on the moon, why didn't he fall back to earth? Haven't those man-on-the-moon believers ever heard of gravity?That's so ridiculous!!!!1!!!11!

The rest of the civilized world must view the US as a bunch of hicks.

Cze

Maybe the US general public, but the US does lead the world in scientific research. It is those that don't give a rats posterior about science that want to rip it down and give the US a bad name. Those involved in science have no problems with the theories used in science, except for a very vocal micro-minority.

__________________
"Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise