Simple question for the ID proponents

[Mallon]

Is the concept of intelligent design falsifiable?

 

[Willtor]

I'm not an ID proponent, but having given it some thought I'll have my say, anyway.

I'd posit that any individual assertion made in ID is very nearly falsifiable. For any system that is said to be irreducibly complex we can hypothesize about how it evolved naturally and look for evidence. As evidence is forthcoming, the gap shrinks. Of course - it doesn't mean that it _did_ evolve. Merely, that it looks like it did.

Which brings me to the general idea:

ID is inherently unfalsifiable because no matter how much evidence one collects that something evolved, there is the possibility that it didn't, and it only looks like it did. That aside, for every gap that is bridged by evolution, one can identify other gaps and call them unbridgeable. Thus, ID may be true, but it could never be scientific.

Scientific frameworks tend to build and develop as evidence is uncovered. Sometimes they fall apart with a new find. ID is not like this. It is inherently receding but will always find new gaps to fill until light is shined into them.

 

[Mallon]

I guess I'm just confused about how ID can be considered falsifiable within a Christian framework. If, as Christians, we believe God made all things, there is nothing that could be shown not to be made by Him. So how can a Christian possibly see ID as a valid field of science when there is nothing we can agree God didn't create?

 

[Willtor]

I guess I'm just confused about how ID can be considered falsifiable within a Christian framework. If, as Christians, we believe God made all things, there is nothing that could be shown not to be made by Him. So how can a Christian possibly see ID as a valid field of science when there is nothing we can agree God didn't create?

That's true. Though, my understanding is that it is seen more as something opposed to evolution. That is, something happened that was not part of a gradual process. To be sure, most defenses of ID and attacks on evolution (on this forum, anyway) seem to walk a fairly heterodox line in suggesting that God is not sovereign over natural processes. But I think that one theoretically _could_ argue ID in a way that was consistent with orthodox theology.

 

[juvenissun]

Is the concept of intelligent design falsifiable?

why should it be?

 

[Willtor]

why should it be?

It doesn't have to be. But if it isn't falsifiable, then it isn't science.

 

[Mallon]

I emailed the Discovery Institute this question yesterday. We'll see what they have to say.
In the meantime, what do the cdesign proponentsists here think?

 

[busterdog]

why should it be?

Does something need to be falsifiable to be true?

 

[Willtor]

Does something need to be falsifiable to be true?

Certainly not! But it isn't science if it isn't falsifiable.

 

[shernren]

Does something need to be falsifiable to be true?

To elaborate on Willtor's point:

For a hypothesis H to be falsifiable, there must be some test T with only two mutually exclusive outcomes T+ and T- such that:

The probability of obtaining T- is much, much less than the probability of obtaining T+, to the extent that if T- is obtained, hypothesis H must be considered extremely unlikely and any alternative hypothesis will be preferred.

In simple terms this will then be equivalent to:

If H is true, then T+ will be observed.

Thus, a theory that is falsifiable makes observable predictions. (Indeed, we normally contract this to "falsifiable predictions".)

Consider, for example, an apple for which the stem is about to break.

According to someone who holds to Newton's hypothesis of gravity, the probability of it consequently falling upwards (or any non-downwards direction) is so miniscule that if Newton's hypothesis is true, it must fall downwards. Thus, the fact that Newton's theory would be falsified by an upwards fall, leads to the fact that Newton's theory predicts a downwards fall.

On the other hand, suppose someone holds to a theory of gravity in which "the direction in which things fall is random". Any possible behavior of the apple would not be able to falsify this hypothesis. (Indeed, even all of humanity's observations up to now cannot strictly falsify this hypothesis: how do we know that we haven't simply had an extraordinarily long run of bad luck?) However, ask the holder of this theory what direction the apple will fall, and he can only tell you that it will fall in some random, indeterminate direction: in other words, the theory that does not rule out anything, also cannot predict anything.

 

[Ave Maria]

It doesn't have to be. But if it isn't falsifiable, then it isn't science.

Exactly! Science is theories, not disprovable facts. That said, theories like evolution are well grounded and have yet to be disproved.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Certainly not! But it isn't science if it isn't falsifiable.

Approaching anything from a perspective of it having to have a possible falsified aspect is a negative and defunked way of analyzing things. Popperian science is what is accepted but in my opinion it is not true science. True science is about finding and understanding what is "the truth" about nature.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

True science is about finding and understanding what is "the truth" about nature.

And how do we go about doing that, exactly?

 

[Jimlarmore]

And how do we go about doing that, exactly?

Just let the truth be absolutely the truth, thats all. Being an old engineer I feel it's best to allow an empirical approach, i.e. experiment and observation to tell us what is truth. The scientific premise of falsifiability/testability/disputeability is a farse in some cases because there will always be certain things that are unfalsifiable and irrefuteably true or indisputeable/irrefuteable. Absolute truths abound in the universe and nature. Science uses the mental construct of unfalsifiable quantification all the time in math or abstraction. The fact that all mathematical concepts can be proved does not make them falsifiable in a popperian sense. Math is the language of science so we use unfalsifiable modalities in science all the time.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[random_guy]

And how do we go about doing that, exactly?

Well by determining if the science discovered contradicts a literal reading of the Bible. If it does contradict the Bible, it's not a "true science." If it supports the Bible, it is "true science". Duh.

 

[Mallon]

Well by determining if the science discovered contradicts a literal reading of the Bible. If it does contradict the Bible, it's not a "true science." If it supports the Bible, it is "true science". Duh.

I have a feeling you're right, random_guy.
Is this what you meant by "let truth be absolutely the truth", Jim?

 

[busterdog]

Certainly not! But it isn't science if it isn't falsifiable.

Understood.

A biology department or journal can certainly establish guidelines about what is and what is not considered science for their purposes. If you open the door to supernatural concepts (inevitable in my view), you may compromise some of the rigor of your methodology. Your results may become suspect on that ground.

But, those folks must also be grown-ups and accept the reasonable criticism that some truth is being rejected on methodological grounds. That is a cost-benefit ratio analysis, meaning it is necessarily open to criticism.

 

[Jimlarmore]

I have a feeling you're right, random_guy.
Is this what you meant by "let truth be absolutely the truth", Jim?

In a nut shell yes.

God bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

In a nut shell yes.

So who gets to decide what the "true" interpretation of the Bible is, then? The YECs? The OECs? The TEs? The Lutherans? The Catholics? The Baptists? Who's framework should we follow? And how do we decide?

 

[Jimlarmore]

So who gets to decide what the "true" interpretation of the Bible is, then? The YECs? The OECs? The TEs? The Lutherans? The Catholics? The Baptists? Who's framework should we follow? And how do we decide?

No denomination has the right to say they have it all right. Each person has to find their own ultimate truth. I am seveth-day-adventists now after going thru several other faiths or churches. For me it follows closer to the Bible than any other organized church but if I could find one that followed closer I would join it.

The Bible is the bottom line for truth and I accept what it says on faith. When the Bible tells me something I cannot understand or explain scientifically I must choose to either reject it based on logic or observed natural phenomenon or I can choose to accept it on faith. In the last 20 or so years I have found that a lot of what is accepted by the mainstream paradigms can be interpreted in such a way that more closely aligns with the Bible.

So when the Bible tells me that there was a global flood and I can find no reason to make that story mythical or symbolic then I need to go and re-examine the evidence to see if this is actually what happened. Guess what? I can find a lot of evidence that shows there was a global catastrophe of epic proportions and much of what is interpreted in a uniformatarian way can be interpreted as sudden massive hydrological events. Paleosols are one of them. Prestine stratifications are some more, fossils , the list goes on and on. Are there unanswered questions? Yep , there certainly are but there are unanswered questions on the other side as well.

So to me the Bible is the final word, not some biased paradigm that seems to show a certain theory to be correct. Let the Bible speak to your heart and mind. Let God's word convince you of the truth.

God Bless
Jim Larmore