Intelligent Design not Testable

[bolinstephen]

I resentlly submitted a letter to the editor of my local newspaper. What do you guys think of it?

here it is:

"I am responding to Garth Morgan's letter of the 24th and to all the other letter's stating that the Theory of Intelligent Design is not Science because it is not testable.

There are really two types of Science: Science that applies to the present and the future and science that tries to explain the past.

Now the first kind of science is based primarily on experiments, tests, and observation.

The second type can only rely only on the observation of the present. Like forensic science. It looks at the crime scene in the present, and makes conclusions that try to explain what happened. There is paleontology. It looks at the bones that are in the ground now, and makes conclusions that explain life a long time ago.

Then there is Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. It looks at the variety of life and the similarity of that variety and concludes that all life had a common ancestor.

And now we get to intelligent design. It looks at complexity of life now and concludes that it is too complex and improbable to have originated purely from natural selection, therefore, some intelligent designer must have been responsible for life."

 

[California Tim]

Here is a good rebuttal against the idea that ID is untestable. It's a difficult subject to tackle in a short paragraph or two.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC Responses&id=584

 

[Stinker]

The letter that would come in response to your letter would read:

"Since neither Evolution nor Intelligent Design are verifiable, they shall remain general theories and not (scientific) theories. Theories that are not verifiable are not scientific, therefore they fall into the realm of Philosophy to be debated as to which theory is the more logical."

 

[gluadys]

Then there is Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. It looks at the variety of life and the similarity of that variety and concludes that all life had a common ancestor.

And now we get to intelligent design. It looks at complexity of life now and concludes that it is too complex and improbable to have originated purely from natural selection, therefore, some intelligent designer must have been responsible for life."

It's a good letter and a good presentation of ID.

As to ID itself, my problem is with the bolded section. Just how does one decide that something is too complex or too improbable to have originated purely by natural selection?

How does this differ from any argument based on personal incredulity?

And, yes, I know what irreducible complexity is and what is meant by specified complexity and I have seen Dembski's arguments. I still don't find them convincing. I do not find that they effectively rule out natural selection.

For example from the article Tim linked to:

But we don’t have any experience with unembodied designers, and that’s clearly what we’re dealing with when it comes to design in biology. Actually, if an unembodied designer is responsible for biological complexity, then we do have quite a bit of experience with such a designer through the designed objects (not least ourselves) that confront us all the time. On the other hand, it is true that we possess very little insight at this time into how such a designer acted to bring about the complex biological systems that have emerged over the course of natural history.

Well, since we possess very little insight into how a designer acted to bring about complex biological systems, what is the ground for ruling out natural selection as the way the designer did it?

As I see it, TE and ID is not identical, and I don't like to see them placed in the same basket. But there is a lot of overlap.

For one thing, TE agrees with ID on the existence of a designer. We even go a step further in that we identify the designer.

TE and ID also both agree that much change in species has indeed come about through natural evolution. Many in the ID camp may as well be TE in the role they allow for evolution--which is far larger than what is allowed by any form of creationism.

Where we part company is that TE is willing to accept that the designer may have used one mechanism exclusively---natural evolution. ID for some reason I cannot fathom insists there are limits to evolution that must be filled by non-evolved design.

I find this a curous stance to take if one believes in God. Why would God not be able to plan and/or direct evolution to accomplish all of God's purposes for living forms on earth?

 

[Vance]

Here is my general take on ID from another thread:

I have read some of the intelligent design materials and it seems to be saying that what we have now is uniquely and amazingly well-suited to fit, well, the way things are now. "If X was even very slightly different, we would not be able to live on this planet", etc, etc. This makes a very large logical fallacy: that this end product was a necessity, which is something only someone religiously minded would accept. It is not an objectively true presumption at all, and one of ID's claims is that the design is objectively observable.

They start with the current state of things as if this state of things was the ultimate goal, and then work backwards to show that everything fits what we now have perfectly, and the ODDS of things turning out this way is so tremendously low, that it MUST have come about by design. The whole watchmaker argument.

Even though I am a Christian and believe that God DID create everything, I have to admit that the entire ID argument just doesn't hold up logically without a pre-existing belief. The presupposition is that the "current" was the "goal" (a position that is not self-evident, but a matter of belief, and a belief which I happen to hold, btw). The response is obviously that everything fits because if it did not fit, we would not be here and, here is the kicker, SOMETHING ELSE WOULD BE HERE! At each stage of possibilities, something else could have happened and the universe would then fit THAT instead of what we have now.

What I mean is that whatever path the development of the universe took, everything would fit that path or it wouldn't be there.

Now, I do believe God created the universe and everything in it. And I DO think that God designed every process that is now in place in this universe and He knew exactly how it would all turn out. And I also believe that He has purposefully intervened in His creation when and where it fit His plan to do so (a particular event 2000 years ago, for example), and that He will do so again. And yes, I can FEEL God in the many wonders of the universe and this planet.

But I also have to recognize that God very well may have created the world to work exactly as it would work without his Divine involvement. He created it so perfectly that He needs no "fine tuning" as the ID'ers like to call it.

In short, the whole ID argument can only be convincing to those, like myself, who already believe that this current state of the universe, with Man sitting here as we are, is how it had to end up. Thus, it is an argument that can only preach to the choir, but has no logical or persuasive effect to those who do not share this pressuposition. Atheists, I must reluctantly admit, are right to reject it.

"But then how do we know God exists?!", the Christians exclaim (and atheists too, for that matter).

Faith. The evidence of things NOT seen.

Experience. The personal relationship with the all-powerful.

The Scripture. God's timeless message to all of us.

If we are to reach the non-believer, Chrsitians must do so on a theological, philosophical and relational level, not by an attempt to "prove" God must have designed everything.

 

[Vance]

Oh, BTW, make sure you check out the thread: "What the ID movement really says"

 

[California Tim]

If we are to reach the non-believer, Christians must do so on a theological, philosophical and relational level, not by an attempt to "prove" God must have designed everything.

A bit off topic, but on this particular issue I feel it is the Holy Spirit that does the work on the heart of the recipient of the Gospel. It is not necessary that everything be "palatable" to the unbeliever in order to convey the message effectively. According to scripture faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word. It seems a shame that so many churches and so many individuals feel some sort of compromise with the world is necessary to open their spiritual ears, when all that is asked of us is to simply tell them the good news. We see more and more of Christianity almost indistinguishable from its secular counterpart, whether it be in music, business practices, ethics or whatever. So while it is admirable to want to "reach" out on many levels that the recipient can relate to, in reality without the guidance and work of the Holy Spirit on the heart of that recipient, it's all for naught. On the other hand, the biggest buffoon can deliver what must surely sound to us like the worst, chopped up and most ineffectively delivered message ever, but if the Holy Spirit had opened that heart, the message might have the most profound effect ever on the recipient.

 

[Vance]

But that is just what I said. We should reach them with the Gospel and NOT try to prove God to them scientifically. That just won't work, and it is not what we are told to do, as you say. But this is what the whole Creationist movement, and the ID movement is all about. They are about NOT just presenting the Gospel message, but proving their own interpretation of Scripture to be historically and scientifically true.

Further, I have never seen anyone here advocating compromising anything. THis is a typical YEC claim that has no basis that I have ever seen. I definitely do not think we should ever do anything just to make Christianity palatable. I am not a "big tent" proponent, but a very conservative Christian who hates the idea of compromising Scripture, lifestyle, or the Gospel.

At the same time, I see no need to intentionally erect an unecessary stumbling-block in the way of the Gospel either. And this is exactly what YEC'ism can be if PREACHED to the general public as a doctrine. Whether you believe it or not, whether it is true or not, it is NOT a salvation issue (as most here have agreed), and it has been shown over and over to cause non-Christians to avoid even listening to the Gospel message at all. It is like spraying Round-up on a flower bed and then trying to plant seeds in it. They just won't grow.

Paul faced the same problem with the Judaizers in Jerusalem who wanted all Gentiles to be circumcised and follow all the Jewish dietary laws, etc. These were all well and good, but they were not salvation issues and he had to fight to keep these from being presented along with the Gospel so that the Gospel could reach the gentiles who needed Christ.

 

[bolinstephen]

Paul(I think it was him) says to always have a reason fo your faith. One yould be able to defent their faith in a rational way. Jesus says to love the Lord your God with all of your heart saol and mind. With your intellect.