I thought the Nats being in first place was proof of Divine intervention?
As far as ID, I think Pascal is giving 2-1 odds, so....isn't it worth taking?

Bill,

George Will's IQ is probably close to Barry Bonds' batting average, but claiming that falsifiability disfavors ID theory (I can't wait to hear from the other side on that one) relative to Darwinism is kind of funny. Maybe there's an ongoing 100 million year experiment out there that I'm not aware of ...

mczoo -

I don't follow. Certain theories related to evolution (mutationism) have been indeed "falsified." Other aspects have been "verified" by direct observation of adaptive populations.

ID, on the other hand, intrinsically relies on a subjective determination that patterns and complexity are tied to "sentience" and intentional "design."

Sorry, OT, but this is just TOO GOOD: A village council is going to seize Justice Souter's home under the Kelo decision and make it a monument to the liberty that was violated by the decision.

That's right, the very decision he voted for.

And I think they're serious.

Please, please don't be a hoax!

Hey, leave baseball out of this!

I suspect that whether ID is falsifiable, like many things, depends on how you define ID. The ID crowd has a lot of specific criticisms of reigning evolutionary theory; as far as I can tell, and I could well be wrong, some of those are valid and many of those are not, but most are indeed scientific in nature and can be met on those terms. But those are the negative aspects - not the positive alternative theory.

The positive theory, as far as I can tell, is itself negative in nature: IDers don't argue that there's a measurable scientific process of intelligent design (by definition, there couldn't be, or it wouldn't require divine intervention), but rather that the complexity of living organisms and the inability of current science to explain the mechanism of how they evolve proves that the creation of species can not have been a purely natural phenomenon. If you end the discussion there - with the "known unknowns," as Rumsfeld would say - you are still talking science. Go one step further, and you're not.

(The more controversial claim, which is falsifiable to some extent, is that current science doesn't show one species changing to another. While it's true on some level that any historical observation is non-falsifiable, since we can't go back in time, we can certainly examine the scientific evidence to come to reasonably scientific conclusions about the validity of this claim).

Personally, I think there's some merit to what you might define as the "weak" theory of ID - that is, simply the observation that the complexity of living organisms and the existing gaps in the scientific state of play are some evidence that we can't explain life as we know it by random chance. But that's not a scientific observation so much as a religious conclusion about the significance of scientific observations.

I don't know why I'm doing this, Bill, because I can hardly stand to read 'Creationism vs. Darwinism' discussions anymore (and I don't think I've ever posted to one), but I'll respond once and then bow out:

1. Adaptation is not speciation; not close, not even in the same ballpark (get it? ... that was the best I can do, I am not a professional).

2. Your use of the word 'subjective' is pejorative. If you are correct, then I would have to agree with you, but I believe that a foundation of ID theory is to develop an 'objective' standard.

Regards.

1. Observable adaptation provides inferences to speciation. And as it is, there are observable examples of speciation.

2. but I believe that a foundation of ID theory is to develop an 'objective' standard.

It is impossible to develop an objective standard of "what constitutes design by a concept of otherworldy sentience," given that we have no empirical data points on what otherworldly, omnipotent sentience is like, other than, "different/better than us." Thus, anything too complex and ordered to understand would qualify. The entire belief in such a paradigm is a totally subjective article of human faith.

There, in a nutshell, is one of the infinite logical problems associated with trying to dress up ID as a scientific endeavor. Not to mention, who designed the designer? Or the designer's designer? Or the designer's designer's designer?

ID seems to me to be a rationale on how God and Evolution can co-exist. Not really a theory and definitely not a proof.

On the otherhand I've seen plenty of people look to the theory of evolution as a rationale (or even a proof) that God doesn't exist.

Both require a form of faith to become proofs in peoples minds.

Correct - evolution is not proof that God doesn't exist. It does, however, tend to cast a heck of a lot of doubt on the literal interpretation of many creation myths and timelines, which is why some religious folks choose to get annoyed by it.

I agree that ID is a natural philosophical bridge between science and faith. Which is fine as a belief or rationale, but isn't a proper scientific theory, as you mention.

"Thus, anything too complex and ordered to understand would qualify. The entire belief in such a paradigm is a totally subjective article of human faith."

As would have been a theory of nuclear energy or semiconductors in 500 B.C.. Neither would have been falsifiable at that time because the tools (and necessary understanding) did not exist.

Was the General Theory of Relativity not science because it wasn't falsifiable in 1920?

ID is a generalized theory that may or may not prove falsifiable in the future. It is a scientific theory in as much as serious researchers observe the natural world and draw conclusions based on them, like the idea that life is so utterly complex that - probabilistically speaking - it could not have happened by chance.

I have seen nothing empirical that can possibly indicate that a "sentience" is behind any design found in nature. And you're missing the point - defining "sentience" (required for "design") is a purely subjective endeavor.

Nuclear energy did not spring unbidden from some 13th century scientist's ass.

Intelligent Design is inherently an arrogant theory. ID holds that if you can't concieved an evolutionary path, it is therefore impossible and must be the work of a divine designer. ID puports that what can not be understood, or not yet be explained must be the result of intelligence design. I say wrong.

For exmple, I do not understand in the least quantum mechanics. That hardly disproves the theory.

"I have seen nothing empirical that can possibly indicate that a "sentience" is behind any design found in nature."

Your personal lack of experience hardly disqualifies the idea however. Here is a link (if it still works) to a probability proof, for example.

"And you're missing the point - defining "sentience" (required for "design") is a purely subjective endeavor."

I wasn't arguing this point however. Will's quote was about falsifiability, which I was disputing.

"Nuclear energy did not spring unbidden from some 13th century scientist's ass."

Your point is what?

David,

I don't think of ID that way, though some may. I simply think of it as one generalized possibility for our existence. One could also say that believing our origin as a result of evolution is arrogant because it's held by people who can't fathom our existence by design. In the end, they are both theories to varying degrees and neither can currently explain the origination of life.

"Nuclear energy did not spring unbidden from some 13th century scientist's ass."

A 13th century scientist positing theories about splitting microscopic particles to create massive release of energy might have been right - but there also wouldn't have been anything to build or test his theory on besides his wild imaginings, thus he also might have been totally out of his mind - no emprical context. Wild conjecture about information that cannot possibly be known or investigated is not exactly science. It would have been ridiculous (and stupid) for 13th century learning institutions to teach such conjecture as a valid scientific theory.

Your personal lack of experience hardly disqualifies the idea however.

I reject the idea that aperiodic (etc) mathematical patterns prove a human concept of "intelligence." So, that link doesn't mean jack to me. You don't seem to be following the fact that I don't buy the central tenet necessary for belief in intelligent design theory - the human application of "sentience" applied to an omnipotent "designer" based on complexity (etc).

Personally, I think that Binky the Space Clown created all matter because the color red is so prominent in the visible spectrum, and everyone knows that Binky likes the color "red."

What, you don't accept the fundamental concept of Binky? What else could "design" the cosmos besides our concept of Binky?

Bill you seem to be in a rather bunchy mood for no good reason. If your goal is to alienate anyone who doesn't agree, mission nearly accomplished.

If you're reading into my comments some sort of attempt to persude you to believe in ID, think again bub. I don't have a strong opinion about it myself. That you reject the idea of probability theory as support for some sort of ID is fine - I'm not sure about that either - but your rejection or mine has no effect on the literal truth, whatever it is.

I only set out to demonstrate that Will's requirement for falsifiablity is not valid as a criteria for science, especially if that criteria must be met instantly. There's a lot of talk around the ideas of ID and evolution about what constitutes 'science' and I don't think many people really know.

Science is the systematic study of the physical world, which generally starts with an unproven theory that becomes one or more hypotheses which are generally proven or rejected to some satisfactorily level through experimentation. As I indicated earlier, some theories take a long time to prove or disprove, but that is irrelevent to their validity. Things are either true or they aren't under a set of conditions whether we realize it or not. ID and evolution as mechanisms for explaining the origin of life on this planet are both theories. No one can prove that either or both initiated life. I think, however, that I can disprove Binky did anything since he is simply a fictional character.

"It would have been ridiculous (and stupid) for 13th century learning institutions to teach such conjecture as a valid scientific theory."

What exactly is 'valid scientific theory'?

Theory, by definition, is speculation. Would you argue that there would have been no value in teaching that some guy named Einstein has some interesting ideas about the nature of reality in 1920? There is nothing wrong with teaching theory as theory, as long as it isn't taught as empirically proven fact. That's how I see ID and evolution and, now, Binky the Space Clown.

I agree that ID is a natural philosophical bridge between science and faith. Which is fine as a belief or rationale, but isn't a proper scientific theory, as you mention.

Spot on.

Bill you seem to be in a rather bunchy mood for no good reason. If your goal is to alienate anyone who doesn't agree, mission nearly accomplished.

1 - If Binky the Space Clown offends you or causes you to think that my invocation of His name reveals that I'm bubbling with emotion, you're mistaken - it's a device.

2. falsifiablity is not valid as a criteria for science, especially if that criteria must be met instantly.

Well, since we're talking about the common-sense world, there is a large continuum between "instant" falsifiability and "reasonable" falsifiability, which I tried to explain via the 13th century nuclear physicist example. If you'd like to use absolutes to argue against Will's point, well that just undermines your effort.

But my main point - which I've gone over several times now, with no acknowledgment - is that I reject the concept that the unknowable, or the complex, or the artistically patterned in nature - could ever somehow represent empirical "proof" of all-powerful "sentience."

There is no point to this theory. It relies on human constructs and a subjective approximation of what represents "intelligence" as an inevitable responsibility for "design."

3. There is nothing wrong with teaching theory as theory, as long as it isn't taught as empirically proven fact.

Well, that's your opinion. But I'd prefer Ron L Hubbard's theories about the Thetans kept out of our science classrooms, same as I do ID.

“There is nothing wrong with teaching theory as theory, as long as it isn't taught as empirically proven fact. That's how I see ID and evolution and, now, Binky the Space Clown.”

David you seem to quite completely miss the point in regards to what differentiates a scientific theory from a theory in general. Scientific theories explain observable phenomena in a way that they can —in terms of possibility— be disproved by reference to the phenomena in question, even if the experimental ability to do so is not currently possible. This differs from theories like ID in which there is no phenomenon possible that could ever serve to disprove the theory.

If I were to conjecture that the patterns on a peacocks tail could only be explained by ID, what possible empirical evidence could you point to that would refute that? If you consider this honestly for a moment you will have to concede that there are none possible because any phenomenal observation or process that you could use to explain the patterns (genetics, natural selection, animal mating behavior, etc) would be subsumed by the creationist as constitutive —and thus evidence of— his overarching presupposition of ID. That is to say, if you were to demonstrate that such patters were created by a freak genetic mutation 1 million years ago absolutely conclusively, I —as the ID proponent— would simply respond “yes but what caused that freak genetic mutation; any mutation that would cause such beautiful and complex patterns could not really be a ‘freak’ one but rather must be the product of an intelligent design.” And so were are back to where we started.

“I suspect that whether ID is falsifiable, like many things, depends on how you define ID.”

It doesn’t matter how you define it Crank because any definition you use will be ineluctably reliant on and an occasion of the teleological proof for the existence of God. The teleological proof for the existence of God was demolished —along with the ontological argument— by Immanuel Kant over two centuries ago and has never been redeemed.

David,

As it happened I just wrote a whole post on 'falsifiable.'

Sorry, Bill for the self-promotion. But it's more than comment length. :)

Short version: You want to falsify evolution? Easy. Find a rabbit from the Precambrian. (credit JBS Haldane)

Commissar:

Get over the Precambrian rabbits, OK? That's not the point. The irreducible complexity of many organanic structures (e.g., flagellum) is the point.

Now stop, don't tell me that this does not prove God. It doesn't. It just suggests that evolutionary biology hasn't come up with all the answers yet.

The major flaw in the scientific theory of evolution is that it can't quantify the supernatural. And if it can't quantify the supernatural then it can't dismiss the supernatural as a causitive agent in the biological history on Earth.

All it can do is to seek to explain how biological processes could have occurred via strictly naturalistic processes. Taking that reality and claiming that it constitutes some sort of proof that the supernatural wasn't involved is a matter of subjective faith on the part of those who subscribe to it.

Basically a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black with respect to the derisive rhetoric used by many Darwinists to dismiss ID.

That said, I'm agnostic on the subject of sticking ID as it currently exists in the classroom alongside evolutionary theory. I think ID needs more work first. As yet it's more a collection of criticisms of evolutionary theory than it is an alternative theory.

MichaelM (the Thumper?),

Precambrian rabbits may or may not be YOUR point, and they may or not be the ultimate point that ends all debate on evolution .. but they are relevant to the topic of the post, "falsifiablity," and to the comment thread.

"And if it can't quantify the supernatural then it can't dismiss the supernatural"

NOTHING can "dismiss" the supernatural. As Will pointed out, belief in things like the supernatural is not falsifiable. You can believe it; it just isn't science.

Nice catch on Justice Souter's home, TallDave. I hope it's true. If so it would seem to add a nice twist to the word "justice."

BTW, Commissar... I blogged on TallDave's linked story and tried to backtrack to this post since it's where I learned about it. But, I got an internal error which prevented the trackback from going thru. Something on your end, apparently.

Just an FYI...

NOTHING can "dismiss" the supernatural. As Will pointed out, belief in things like the supernatural is not falsifiable. You can believe it; it just isn't science.

You cut off the rest of my sentence, which very much changes the meaning of the portion which you quoted. I never intended to suggest that anyone or anything could dismiss the supernatural. I think that's self-evident in the context from which you lifted that partial sentence.

I indirectly aknowledged that ID, as it now stands, isn't on scientific par with evolutionary theory. Whether it one day will do so remains to be seen. But, either way, it's irrelevant to the thrust of my earlier comment.

"But my main point - which I've gone over several times now, with no acknowledgment - is that I reject the concept that the unknowable, or the complex, or the artistically patterned in nature - could ever somehow represent empirical "proof" of all-powerful "sentience."

"There is no point to this theory. It relies on human constructs and a subjective approximation of what represents "intelligence" as an inevitable responsibility for "design."

Gee whiz Bill, I was never, ever addressing your point, so I don't know why it matters, but consider it acknowledged though it has nothing to do with my point.

As an aside, however, if you know about probability, then you know that it is possible to determine a level of confidence regarding whether or not something could have happened by chance or not. For example, the probability that your newspaper is open to page 13 every morning with the add for cell phones circled in purple ink by chance can be reasonably determined. Probably pretty low chance that it’s random. Some scientists have concluded - using probability techniques - that the many incredibly complex and highly sensitive variables that make life possible here (such as the distance of the earth from the sun, the structure of DNA, the atmosphere, gravity, etc.) could not have reasonably occurred by chance or random mutation. The link I supplied earlier is about this. If this theory is true, it implies ( I think) that something had to have a conscious role in setting these variables. There is, therefore, merit in discussing this information in a science class to the extent that it is reasonable and based on accepted mathematical principles.

At any rate, I was addressing Will's direct claim that ID is not falsifiable. Yeah, duh, maybe not now, but neither was the General Theory of Relativity in 1920. Some of it (all?) has been proven now. I'm not trying to be absolute about it at all. Are we saying the same damn thing re: 13th century nuclear physicist?

Jason you wrote –

“Scientific theories explain observable phenomena in a way that they can —in terms of possibility— be disproved by reference to the phenomena in question, even if the experimental ability to do so is not currently possible. This differs from theories like ID in which there is no phenomenon possible that could ever serve to disprove the theory.”

“If I were to conjecture that the patterns on a peacocks tail could only be explained by ID, what possible empirical evidence could you point to that would refute that?”

See above points about life and probability theory. I could attempt to prove that the peacock patterns could statistically appear as they do simply by chance at a reasonable level of confidence. To your point regarding how the ID proponent would reply, I agree, which is why focusing on something as small as the tail feathers is not a good test. Rather, a good test is the probability of the chance existence of life on this planet as a whole. If it can be shown that there is a reasonable probability that life could occur by chance – that all of those variables came together just so by chance - then that puts serious doubts into any theory that something conscious had a role in kicking off life here. But that has not been done yet. In fact, current research suggests the opposite, but I’m guessing it’s far too soon to say.

In conclusion, maybe what you all are calling ID and what I’m calling ID are not the same thing and that accounts for the chasm. I’m not an ID proponent any more than I’m an evolution proponent and I don’t even think they are mutually exclusive theories. I'm just interested in discovering the truth whatever it may be. That's my religion.

If this theory is true, it implies ( I think) that something had to have a conscious role in setting these variables.

Still missing my point. Complex patterns in certain repetitions cannot be proven to be the work of "consciouness." This is useful for determining HUMAN consciousness, not the theoretical consciousness of some higher "designer," the nature of which we have no relevant benchmarks to measure. In fact, humanity's whole opinion of what constitutes consciouness might be 90% illusion.

This will be apparent if we achieve something called "the Singularity."

I'd read the back of a can of Lysol before I'd read George Will.

Just thought I'd share.

"And as it is, there are observable examples of speciation."

One of the largest holes in the evolutionary proof is the lack of observable speciation. I'd be interested in seeing your examples.

One of the largest holes in the evolutionary proof is the lack of observable speciation. I'd be interested in seeing your examples.

Microscopic bugs evolving new immunities to various antibiotics. Fish family Cichlidae.

Both those are examples of adaptation, not speciation.

Go here to read about observed speciation.

Both those are examples of adaptation, not speciation.

Bacterial mutations are transcribed to daughter generations, creating a different organism. What meets your standard of "speciation?"

Mona, your link isn't working. Cut and paste the whole thing.

Speciation is the creation of a wholly new species. Your example is still just a bacteria, although different. Speciation is the holy grail of evolution, it's proof would send shockwaves throughout the ID/creationism/evolution world. It's a given, even among evolutionists, that speciation has not yet been observed anywhere, even after a million generations of tinkering with bacteria or fruit flies. This information is readily available in mainstream journals and such, that's why I was incredulous about your claim.

mr flood, that's simply a false statement. You do not understand that nature doesn't really give us a definition of "species" - its an amorphous concept that man has invented. There is not black line in nature when a "species" arrives. Creationists attempt to rely on the layman's misunderstanding of this fact.

The claim above that general relativity was not falsifiable when first proposed is also false. Several hypotheses and related experiments were proposed at the time.