Simple question for the ID proponents

Mallon said:

So how could we falsify it? Several pages into this thread, and no one has yet said how.

Click to expand...

You could completely reduce all allegedly irreducible complexity.

That will of course never happen, IMHO. (Actually, not that H at all.)

The complexity increases. One may shed lots of light on issue A, a former mystery, only to find that this new light shows issues A1, A2, A3, A4, etc. that cannot be reduced by the new information.

One might also argue that Evolution is less susceptible to being falsified.

Lion of God said:

Proving life originated from non-life through natural means would falsify Intelligent Design.

Click to expand...

But one could simply argue that it happen because the creator made it happen.

busterdog said:

You could completely reduce all allegedly irreducible complexity.

That will of course never happen, IMHO. (Actually, not that H at all.)

The complexity increases. One may shed lots of light on issue A, a former mystery, only to find that this new light shows issues A1, A2, A3, A4, etc. that cannot be reduced by the new information.

One might also argue that Evolution is less susceptible to being falsified.

Click to expand...

But what is a quantum? How small do the holes have to get before one can reasonably say that two things share a common ancestor?

Lion of God said:

Proving life originated from non-life through natural means would falsify Intelligent Design.

Click to expand...

And what do you think the first reaction of Creationists and IDers if scientists produced life....
'see I told you, it was produced by designers, the scientists'.

Assyrian said:

And what do you think the first reaction of Creationists and IDers if scientists produced life....
'see I told you, it was produced by designers, the scientists'.

Click to expand...

Maverick3000 said:

But one could simply argue that it happen because the creator made it happen.

Click to expand...

What may be said has no bearing on whether it can be falsified.

Jimlarmore said:

Here's a short article that describes why radiometric dating is not always a sure fired thing.

Click to expand...

Sigh. The usual strawmen.

1. Each system has to be a closed system; that is, nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay process

Yes, and environmental weathering can and has been detected in rocks. The most amazing thing is that radiometric dating has been carried out on meteorites, all of which yield a date of about 4.5 billion years for the Solar System. What could contaminate a meteorite in the depths of space, and how could all those meteorites all be contaminated to exactly the same extent to yield exactly the same date?

2. Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products.

Isochron dating explicitly assumes that initial daughter products are present in some indeterminate amount.

3. The process rate must always have been the same. The decay rate must never have changed.

And observations of supernovae spectra from decaying elements that decayed long in the past demonstrate that their rates have not changed.

it is a known fact among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur. Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen clocks does happen.

Yes, you can change decay rates of certain elements in the lab. I have friends just a year older than me who've done it. They took beryllium-7, cooled it to a few kelvins, and found that the rate dropped by a few percent points. There are three obvious difficulties for the creationist:

- beryllium-7 isn't used for dating,
- most rocks don't maintain temperatures of a few kelvins,
- and changes of a few percent aren't going to change a million years into a thousand years.

Furthermore, many different elements often agree to one same date for the same rock, yet they decay via fundamentally different processes so that if one speeds up, the other should slow down. For multiple dates to agree shows that rate change can't account for the data.

4. One researcher, *John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past!

Note the date given as 1931; one wonders why the creationists cannot find any later quotations? I can't track down the direct quote and see if it is out of context, but another quote from John Joly quite clearly shows the implications of his own science:

“Modern Science has along with the theory that the Earth dated its beginning with the advent of man, swept utterly away this beautiful imagining. We can, indeed, find no beginning of the world. We trace back events and come to barriers which close our vista—barriers which, for all we know, may for ever close it. They stand like the gates of ivory and of horn; portals from which only dreams proceed; and Science cannot as yet say of this or that dream if it proceeds from the gate of horn or from that of ivory.
In short, of the Earth's origin we have no certain knowledge; nor can we assign any date to it. Possibly its formation was an event so gradual that the beginning was spread over immense periods. We can only trace the history back to certain events which may with considerable certainty be regarded as ushering in our geological era.”

John Joly is no help for creationists!

5. If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals.
6. Any change in the Van Allen belt would powerfully affect the transformation time of radioactive minerals.

Bunkum and a good demonstration of how little science this site has. It is true that the above factors would affect C-14 dating, since C-14 dating relies on knowledge about the continuous production of C-14 in the atmosphere that is precisely dependent on such factors. However, radiometric dating of rocks on geological timescales doesn't depend on continual creation of parent isotopes, and thus this "flaw" (which is accounted for in C-14 dating using historical calibrations) doesn't apply at all.

7. A basic assumption of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had to start at the beginning; that is, no daughter products were present, only those elements at the top of the radioactive chain were in existence.

Again, isochron dating assumes that an indeterminate amount of daughter product is initially present. For a rock to possess multiple concordant isochron dates (as many do) would require not only that the rock simply had "some" daughter product initially present - it would require that God had carefully crafted that rock to have just the right isotopic ratios for multiple elements, none of which are necessary for life (and many of which are indeed detrimental for life - it would be far better, for example, for rocks to not contain radioactive elements at all).

There, a thorough debunking. Back to the main show ...

Mallon said:

I missed this part of your repsonse earlier, bd.
So, if it could be shown to your satisfaction that all the irreducibly complex systems thus far identified by ID proponenets were, in fact, reducible to parts exapted from different functions, would you stop believing in a Designer?

Click to expand...

Or, to put it another way. If just one example of supposed IC was shown to be reducible would you think the designer had done less?

Lion of God said:

Proving life originated from non-life through natural means would falsify Intelligent Design.

Click to expand...

Not only is that rather vague but proof is a pretty strong word and doesn't really happen in science.

What if it can be demonstrated that life can arise, naturally, from non-life? Would that satisfy you?

Of course, I suspect not. Can you be a little more specific, then?

Lion of God said:

Assyrian said:

And what do you think the first reaction of Creationists and IDers if scientists produced life....
'see I told you, it was produced by designers, the scientists'.

Click to expand...

Maverick3000 said:

But one could simply argue that it happen because the creator made it happen.

Click to expand...

What may be said has no bearing on whether it can be falsified.

Click to expand...

Of course it does! You're not even trying to think, now. If every outcome can be explained away by your theory then, by definition, it is unfalsifiable!

Think, damn it, think!

RecentConvert said:

Of course it does! You're not even trying to think, now. If every outsome can be explained away by your theory then, by definition, it is unfalsifiable!

Think, damn it, think!

Click to expand...

(Just take out the d word, however.)

That "falsifiable" thing is a lot less scientific than one might assume!

Mallon said:

I missed this part of your repsonse earlier, bd.
So, if it could be shown to your satisfaction that all the irreducibly complex systems thus far identified by ID proponenets were, in fact, reducible to parts exapted from different functions, would you stop believing in a Designer?

Click to expand...

Why go there? If you do go there, why did you ask the question in the first place? Not to be smarmy about your question. I am still struggling with the distinction implied in your question. Wouldn't it just make me a TE?

But then, I still think the distinction between TE and ID is pretty thin on many core issues. I see political distinctions, but not as many philosophical ones.

I thought the interesting part of my question was the meaning of falsification where the task of doing so is, by some accounts, apparently impossible because of its complexity and difficulty. Where are we then? But, in theory, according to mainstream science, it should be possible at some remote point in the future. And, theoretically, you call also make pigs fly by genetic engineering.

busterdog said:

That "falsifiable" thing is a lot less scientific than one might assume!

Click to expand...

Okay... Do you care to expand on that? Falsifiability is a cornerstone of science. It has the power to turn metaphysical questions into scientific ones! Why do you say that it's "a lot less scientific than one might assume?"

Mallon said:

Humour me. If ID could be scientifically falsified to your satisfaction, would you stop believing in a Designer?

Click to expand...

If I use my terms, does that make a big difference?

If you could reduce irreducible complexity, that would mean that a large group of objections to macro-evolution are not valid. I would be shaken, but would probably cling to YEC, nonetheless.

But, again, it would not necessarily change belief in the designer. One could much more like a TE than anything else. That is probably that most justifiable theological conclusion.

I don't think there is a necessary conclusion to that change. One might lose faith altogether.

However, the whole thing is so theoretical, is it not? THis is way, way down the road by all accounts, if it is even possible.

But, lets speculate on where we would be if irreducible complexity could be reduced. We would be so advanced, that maybe we are at that point recreating ourselves by genetic and other engineering. Maybe we live 1000 years or more at that point. Maybe we don't need God so much at all at that point. I would speculate that the power of science and human engineering woudl be so advanced that religion woudl be trivialized by many as comparatively less worthwhile. Again, that is but speculation. Nothing is "required" by the logic of falsification alone.

Just to put things into perspective, let me point out that Irreducible Complexity is not a refutation of comman ancestry. Even if certain biochemical mechanisms are not the product of random mutation (the point of IC), life still evolved...

busterdog said:

You could completely reduce all allegedly irreducible complexity.

That will of course never happen, IMHO. (Actually, not that H at all.)

The complexity increases. One may shed lots of light on issue A, a former mystery, only to find that this new light shows issues A1, A2, A3, A4, etc. that cannot be reduced by the new information.

One might also argue that Evolution is less susceptible to being falsified.

Click to expand...

We have a concept of what is irreducibly complex. We apply that concept to identify a number of irreducibly complex systems. Surely if we then reduce ONE example of irreducible complexity that means our entire concept of what is irreducibly complex is wrong? You could then come up with a new concept that doesn't include the reducable as irreducible but to cling to the old concept and say you have to reduce EVERY example before the concept has been disproven is clearly wrong. If you can't come up with a new concept then call them what they are - currently unexplained systems as opposed to theoretically unexplainable.