What predictions does Intelligent Design make?

[ragarth]

For a scientific hypothesis to be valid, it must be falsifiable, this is a very basic tenet of science. The method of falsifying a hypothesis is to make predictions based upon it, and then build experiments around those predictions to test them, this is the foundation of scientific experimentation. So given this I ask: What scientific predictions does Intelligent Design make?

For extra credit: How can this prediction be falsified scientifically?


Nota bene: This post arises from claims I've frequently read that ID makes no predictions, and those few predictions (ie: irreducible complexity) that have been proposed to support it previously have been rather soundly proven wrong. So, I've made this post to test this claim.

Nota bene II: In reference to irreducible complexity: the eye model, the flagellum model, and the blood clotting model have all been proven to be reducible, so please don't use these unless you have something new that has not been considered and eliminated by the scientific community. For anyone who thinks these issues should still be brought up, do the relevent searches on http://pandasthumb.org and frame your responses based upon the information provided there.

 

[Washington]

I hope you're not holding your breath.

 

[ragarth]

I hope you're not holding your breath.

Haha, I was a bit ago, when I was washing my face. Seriously though, this claim is one of those assumptions I've found that I make, so I figured I'd challenge it. I've only ever seen 'weak' argumentation made for ID, so I figured I'd give a chance for people with resources other than my own (the other side) to pull the rug out from under my assumption and show it as false.

Just another attempt of eliminating unfounded assumption from my life... a noble goal in my opinion.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

ID's first prediction was in the early 90s. Its proponents predicted evolution would be dead within 10 years.

 

[ragarth]

ID's first prediction was in the early 90s. Its proponents predicted evolution would be dead within 10 years.

That's not a scientific prediction, so it's not valid to this discussion.

 

[sbvera13]

ID doesn't make predictions. It just runs around looking for things we havn't explained yet and tries to convince us to stop looking.

 

[ragarth]

ID doesn't make predictions. It just runs around looking for things we haven't explained yet and tries to convince us to stop looking.

That's what I'm trying to confirm/deny by giving the horse a chance to speak, so to say. I've long since hypothesized that non-supernatural intelligent design has potential, it's just the inclusion of the supernatural that makes intelligent design a laughingstock in the scientific world.

 

[sbvera13]

Will the efforts of a professional creo do the trick?

http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2009/01/armor_in_freshwater_sticklebac.php#more

 

[ragarth]

Will the efforts of a professional creo do the trick?

http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2009/01/armor_in_freshwater_sticklebac.php#more

You read panda's thumb too, don't you? *gives the secret PT handshake!*

This article serves nothing to amswer my question, however, because it's talking explicitly about the evolution of lacking armor. As stated in the article, there is no such thing as devolution, because the removal of something has just as many potential benefits as adding something. There's clearly some form of selective pressure against having armor, whereas the lack of selective pressure either way would have generated completely different numbers.

 

[Hespera]

That's what I'm trying to confirm/deny by giving the horse a chance to speak, so to say. I've long since hypothesized that non-supernatural intelligent design has potential, it's just the inclusion of the supernatural that makes intelligent design a laughingstock in the scientific world.

It also is embarrassing how it makes the USA a bit of a laughingstock in other countries.

 

[ragarth]

It also is embarrassing how it makes the USA a bit of a laughingstock in other countries.

Yes, and another hypothesis I have that atm remains untested (and therefore unproven) is that the rise of creationism as being on equal par with science in the US would have correlation with the fall of the US's scientific dominance.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

ID makes the prediction that at least one naturally occurring mechanism or process is irreducibly complex, that is, it couldn't have been evolved (within a reasonable time) because all its components must work together for the whole mechanism or process to function. It goes without saying that no such thing has ever be found.

 

[ragarth]

ID makes the prediction that at least one naturally occurring mechanism or process is irreducibly complex, that is, it couldn't have been evolved (within a reasonable time) because all its components must work together for the whole mechanism or process to function. It goes without saying that no such thing has ever be found.

I covered that in my nota bene's, and yes, no such process like that has ever been found, the ones proposed have been proven to be reducible, hence why I'm looking for other predictions that ID makes.

 

[atomweaver]

Yes, and another hypothesis I have that atm remains untested (and therefore unproven) is that the rise of creationism as being on equal par with science in the US would have correlation with the fall of the US's scientific dominance.

For that to be true, the creationists would have to actually have an impact on science on a national scale. Actual scientists are more commonly taught/raised in places where creationism is treated as the kookery it is, and at its core, science doesn't need massive numbers of scientists in order to continue its progress. The US's scientific community is well-supported by the current education system (although it could of course be better). No, Creationism doesn't hold back the whole of science in the US, not one little whit. All it does is sadly perpetuate ignorance among a certain population. So sad, if Creatonists were capable of teaching science adequately, some of their kids might not have to have such poor career prospects.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I covered that in my nota bene's, and yes, no such process like that has ever been found, the ones proposed have been proven to be reducible, hence why I'm looking for other predictions that ID makes.

I doubt there are any others. The ID movement as a whole seems to me made of equal halves lobbyists and web designers.

 

[ragarth]

I doubt there are any others. The ID movement as a whole seems to me made of equal halves lobbyists and web designers.

Considering the absolute lack of comment by anyone except people who agree with me, I'm tempted to agree with you on this. It makes me sad, I was hoping for something that would make me sit back and think for a bit. :-(

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Considering the absolute lack of comment by anyone except people who agree with me, I'm tempted to agree with you on this. It makes me sad, I was hoping for something that would make me sit back and think for a bit. :-(

To be fair, there are almost no IDists posting here. The ratio is approximately 90% evolutionists and 10% lunatic fringe YECs.

 

[Hespera]

Considering the absolute lack of comment by anyone except people who agree with me, I'm tempted to agree with you on this. It makes me sad, I was hoping for something that would make me sit back and think for a bit. :-(

It would be really worthwhile if anyone who doubts that evolution etc are real, if those people would do some valid research and try to get some real data that would present a serious minded challenge.

All I have ever seen is simple minded word games, and phony evidence.

 

[ragarth]

To be fair, there are almost no IDists posting here. The ratio is approximately 90% evolutionists and 10% lunatic fringe YECs.

That is a very good point, I guess I overestimated the percentages. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

 

[Athrond]

Where are they posting?