Posted Oligarch, 13 November
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-testable.html

An extract from:
Is Intelligent Design Testable?
A Response to Eugenie Scott
William A. Dembski

“Challenging me in American Outlook biologist Alex Duncan remarked: "A scientific theory makes predictions about the world around us, and enables us to ask and answer meaningful questions. For example, we might pose the question 'why do polar bears have fur, while penguins have feathers, given the similar nature of their environments?' Evolution provides an answer to this question. The only answer creationism (or intelligent design) provides is 'because God made them that way.'" Actually, evolution, whether Darwinian or otherwise, makes no predictions about there being bears or birds at all or for that matter bears having fur and birds having feathers. Once bears or birds are on the scene, they need to adapt to their environment or die. Intelligent design can accommodate plenty of evolutionary change and allows for natural selection to act as a conservative force to keep organisms adapted to their environments. Contrary to Duncan's remark, intelligent design does not push off all explanation to the inscrutable will of God. On the other hand, intelligent design utterly rejects natural selection as a creative force capable of bringing about the specified complexity we see in organisms.
It's evident, then, that Darwin's theory has virtually no predictive power. Insofar as it offers predictions, they are either extremely general, concerning the broad sweep of natural history and in that respect quite questionable (Why else would Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge need to introduce punctuated equilibria if the fossil record were such an overwhelming vindication of Darwinism?); and when the predictions are not extremely general they are extremely specific and picayune, dealing with small-scale adaptive changes. Newton was able to predict the path that a planet traces out. Darwin's disciples can neither predict nor retrodict the pathways that organisms trace out in the course of natural history.”

Evolution isn’t a predictable science it’s supposed history of a genome. Evolutionists view nature being the driving power as though nature has intelligent survival direction but then deny it’s driving-power has intelligent design.

Darwinian theory can make few predictions due to the number of forces at work, from naturally occuring nuclear radiation to mass extinction events. The obvious ones such as climate change and random mutation are barely understood. The only prediction it can make is that it will continue to operate.

'Punctuated equilibria' did take place and evolutionism cannot explain why. Gaps do exist in the fossil record. While none of what does exist contradicts current theory, the circle is not complete. Is this licence to invoke an all-encompassing overseer?

"Evolutionists view nature being the driving power as though nature has intelligent survival direction but then deny it’s driving-power has intelligent design." This interpretation still begs the question whether intelligence is intrinsic, not a step evolution takes.

Question for the ID proponents.

Why are you trying to compete with science? That is what you are doing. Science is not incompatible with faith. Why cloud science with supernatural belief? We need our children to grow up with good mathematical and logical skills - ID clouds over rational exploration of the natural world.

Teach ID as a part of religious studies but to compete with science is like asking a spirit to compete with a rock. One is imagination or belief the other is very real and can be measured.

This debate is really pointless. Jane Caro has expressed the issue so succinctly I wonder why anyone has a problem with her argument.

I have no problem with teaching ID in schools - the more information people have the better they can make decisions. But I would suggest it be taught in the true spirit of Intelligent Design; by definition there's no way to know so maybe make it a quick twenty minute lesson and give a few examples of the various different types of ID:

- Christian Creationism (God, http://www.vatican.va/)

- Muslim Creationism (Allah, http://www.iad.org/)

- Pastafarianism (His Noodly Greatness the Flying Spaghetti Monster, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)

- Random posts on CHUD.COM (Apparently Vin Diesel punched God in the face thus creating the universe, http://chud.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79895, though this raises a host of chicken and egg type questions)

I would think this would in fact lead to a quite enlightening experience for most students, and the world would be a better place for it.

It amazes me that this argument is even happening in this day and age.

Evolutionary theory is incoherent, intangible and refutable and is definitely not scientific. Devolutionary theory is scientific. No evolving processes have been documented. All mutations are devolving. That is devolutionary processes - in that information is lost not gained. Natural selection is just that - natural selection.
Evolution and ID could both be relegated to the philosophy class.

Creationism should be in the science room. Flagellum is a beatiful example, the bombardier beetle is another, the eye another and 100's more abound. We can't prove creationism, but we know that a tornado in a junkyard will not create a computer or a jumbo or a an animal/human liver factory. Flowers, pollen, bees and seeds all come together in one complete package. Take any one thing out and the others have no way of surviving for 'millions of years' 'til the other steps come along.
And you think Creationism is faith? Try adding plain, logical common sense on to that. Of course we don't know how exactly it happened- but then it took many years to find out about electricity, magnets, radio-waves/frequencies, infra-red and ultra-violet, resonances of solids/liquids etc, mind work to move muscles to switch on electrical items through a computer. Such things were derided until proved absolutely. Perhaps Creations time for our understanding and knowledge, is nearly here also. Bluehills.

Intelligent design is simply fundamentalist christianity dressed up with a catchy spin phrase. It is just as deadly as fundamentalist islam.

All religions were created to explain to the masses what was not understandable at the current temporal period within the context of known "reasoning"

The ancients had a wind god, sun god, god of fertility,moon god etc.

As a consequence those within the ancient societies who created the mythology surrounding these deities accumulated enormous power and prestige within the societies.

Over time we essentially have one mystery to resolve how did life come into existence? Consequently we have the competition from organised religions whether it is Christianity, Islam, Hindu that tries to hold onto the power of historical mythologies and "rational" thought that by definition will alter and revolutionise the power structures within our society.

In the Christian world we had creation science which has led in some states in the US to a new dark ages, banning of certain teachings in schools, park rangers in national parks being banned from being able to tell visitors of the geological age of structures.

It has now gone out and got a new slogan intelligent design. The so called theory (it really is a fantasy) is based on inferred logical reasoning without any capacity for empirical evidence.

Darwinism has benefited from modern biological advances. It must be remembered that early evolutionary science was based on physical characteristics as a proxy of genetics. With DNA mapping it is now a more rigorous approach.

If intelligent design is true why does all earth lifeform have DNA as the replicating chemical, why doesn't the designer have a whole range of replicating chemical structures. Quite simply it falls down at the first building block.

Now we are not sure how the first strands of DNA came about, simply our knowledge has not advanced enough, there are a number of hypothesis. But ignorance should not be used to create more mythologies to warp the power structures within our society.