Q#3 Why I think ID is not a scientific theory

[Questioner]

By definition, a scientific theory must be falsifiable.

I find this to be an overly simplistic categorization of science. In fact, scientific method says just the opposite of what you say. Scientific method says that a hypothesis CAN be tentatively accepted so long as it cannot be falsified. Further, it says that NO scientific theory can be conclusively established. (there can always be variables or laws at work that you haven't discovered yet.)

(Sir Karl Raimund) Popper's most significant contribution to the philosophy of science was his characterization of the scientific method. In The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934; trans. 1959), he criticized the prevailing view that science is fundamentally inductive in nature. Proposing a criterion of testability, or falsifiability, for scientific validity, Popper emphasized the hypothetico-deductive character of science. Scientific theories are hypotheses from which can be deduced statements testable by observation; if the appropriate experimental observations falsify these statements, the hypothesis is refuted. If a hypothesis survives efforts to falsify it, it may be tentatively accepted. No scientific theory, however, can be conclusively established.

Microsoft

[Questioner]

Thanks for the support, SaturnV. It was starting to become bothersome to keep repeating the same thing over and over, now we can split that task between the two of us

[SaturnV]

You are basicly making the claim, "If you can't think of a way to disprove a theory or hypothesis then it must not be true anyway...."

No, we're saying ID can not be subject to the scrutiny of the Scientific Method, and is therefore not a scientific theory as it claims to be.

[SaturnV]

Thanks for the support, SaturnV. It was starting to become bothersome to keep repeating the same thing over and over, now we can split that task between the two of us

No probs, Questioner. Good thing we have Copy and Paste, eh?

[tdrehfal]

You are basicly making the claim, "If you can't think of a way to disprove a theory or hypothesis then it must not be true anyway...."

No, we're saying ID can not be subject to the scrutiny of the Scientific Method, and is therefore not a scientific theory as it claims to be.

This is where ID proponents and abiogenesis/evolution proponents argue back and forth for no reason whatsoever because technically,

ID ISN'T a scientific theory, because it requires the Intelligent Designer, who isn't a lab rat that can be examined. Nor is He a

cell that you can place under a microscope. ID is something that DOES require faith, but to be fair, evolution DOES require

at least some faith, and I think it requires a lot more faith than ID, if you're talking about macroevolution and things like

abiogenesis. Then again, evolution as a theory of origins requires abiogenesis which is not falsifiable and cannot be observed

so you could argue that, at least in the case of abiogenesis, this is not really scientific under the definition that you cannot

scrutinize under the scientific method.

Edited January 21, 2007 by tdrehfal

[SaturnV]

No, we're saying ID can not be subject to the scrutiny of the Scientific Method, and is therefore not a scientific theory as it claims to be.

This is where ID proponents and abiogenesis/evolution proponents argue back and forth for no reason whatsoever because technically,

ID ISN'T a scientific theory, because it requires the Intelligent Designer, who isn't a lab rat that can be examined. Nor is He a

cell that you can place under a microscope. ID is something that DOES require faith, but to be fair, evolution DOES require

at least some faith, and I think it requires a lot more faith than ID, if you're talking about macroevolution and things like

abiogenesis. Then again, evolution as a theory of origins requires abiogenesis which is not falsifiable and cannot be observed

so you could argue that, at least in the case of abiogenesis, this is not really scientific under the definition that you cannot

scrutinize under the scientific method.

First of all, abiogenesis has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. Zip. Nada. If it is conclusively shown that the first DNA (or even the first cell) was placed on Earth by aliens, Divine powers, an asteroid, or what have you, that does not affect Evolutionary Biology. The Theory of Evolution states that over time, via the process of Natural Selection, organisms develop traits to enable them to better survive in their environment. Note that abiogenisis is not mentioned in that definition. The origin of Life is not adressed by Evolution, rather the the Theory deals with everything that has happened since then.

I suppose I could get into such things as the Miller-Urey Experiment or current research into the origins of life on Earth, like self-replicating RNA polymers and self-replicating membranes being synthesized abiotically in a lab, but I believe that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Evolution is also completely falsifiable. Here's a brief list things that would falsify Evolution that I can think of off the top of my head:

-A maladaptive gene/trait propegating through a population despite selective pressures to remove it

-Fossils of modern ceatures being found in precambrian rock

-The finding of a complex structure that has no evolutionary precursor (the so-called "Irreducible Complexity" that ID proponents keep looking for)

-A fossil of an organism being dated as older than its evolutionary ancestors

-The spontaneous generation of a complex organism from inanimate matter

But, thank you for proving my point about ID not being science.

Edited January 21, 2007 by SaturnV

[tdrehfal]

No, we're saying ID can not be subject to the scrutiny of the Scientific Method, and is therefore not a scientific theory as it claims to be.

This is where ID proponents and abiogenesis/evolution proponents argue back and forth for no reason whatsoever because technically,

ID ISN'T a scientific theory, because it requires the Intelligent Designer, who isn't a lab rat that can be examined. Nor is He a

cell that you can place under a microscope. ID is something that DOES require faith, but to be fair, evolution DOES require

at least some faith, and I think it requires a lot more faith than ID, if you're talking about macroevolution and things like

abiogenesis. Then again, evolution as a theory of origins requires abiogenesis which is not falsifiable and cannot be observed

so you could argue that, at least in the case of abiogenesis, this is not really scientific under the definition that you cannot

scrutinize under the scientific method.

First of all, abiogenesis has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. Zip. Nada. If it is conclusively shown that the first DNA (or even the first cell) was placed on Earth by aliens, Divine powers, an asteroid, or what have you, that does not affect Evolutionary Biology. The Theory of Evolution states that over time, via the process of Natural Selection, organisms develop traits to enable them to better survive in their environment. Note that abiogenisis is not mentioned in that definition. The origin of Life is not adressed by Evolution, rather the the Theory deals with everything that has happened since then.

I suppose I could get into such things as the Miller-Urey Experiment or current research into the origins of life on Earth, like self-replicating RNA polymers and self-replicating membranes being synthesized abiotically in a lab, but I believe that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Evolution is also completely falsifiable. Here's a brief list things that would falsify Evolution that I can think of off the top of my head:

-A maladaptive gene/trait propegating through a population despite selective pressures to remove it

-Fossils of modern ceatures being found in precambrian rock

-The finding of a complex structure that has no evolutionary precursor (the so-called "Irreducible Complexity" that ID proponents keep looking for)

-A fossil of an organism being dated as older than its evolutionary ancestors

-The spontaneous generation of a complex organism from inanimate matter

But, thank you for proving my point about ID not being science.

I think this is sort of like 'hiding in the closet', because the TOE is used to describe origins and i'm sure you will find tons of atheists

that say evolution is the way we got here. If the 'first cell' came here by some means other than abiogensis, then evolution is

not a valid in respect to origins. If you say that the first cell could've been deposited by some Divine Power, you're admitting

at least the POSSIBILITY that God exists and He's responsible for this creation. This is really stretching it. If it DID get here

by some divine power, or aliens, or what have you, then it would more reasonable assume that if this power has the ability

to create something as complex as a cell, then why waste time depositing a cell when you can form a creation? Sounds kind

of silly. The only thing you're left with without abiogensis is that you have humans eventually coming about from the first

cell, and that the cell was created. But why don't we look at that hypothesis for a moment?

The first cell is deposited here. For a single cell to survive, it needs the right environment to survive in, and without it

the cell dies. So where, exactly, was this first cell placed? In a perfect environment to ensure its survival. So then that

perfect environment needs to exist as well. Did THAT come about by chance? Cells also need material input so they

can stay alive to reproduce. The material would already need to be here, since cells need glucose/minerals/oxygen

to survive. You should've chosen a better word than 'cell', which is more complex than any of our modern technology.

But then again, what are you left with without cells, aside from viruses which use cells to replicate? You're left with

nothing except, like you said, DNA. DNA certainly isn't going to do much without a cell to abide in. We can sit here

talking about cells, as I just mentioned, being more complex than anything WE could design, and yet you probably think

it's silly to assume they're designed. I also think that it's funny you mentioned an asteroid, since nothing would

survive on an asteroid in the vacuum of space.

Edited January 21, 2007 by tdrehfal

[SaturnV]

I think this is sort of like 'hiding in the closet', because the TOE is used to describe origins and i'm sure you will find tons of atheists

that say evolution is the way we got here. If the 'first cell' came here by some means other than abiogensis, then evolution is

not a valid in respect to origins. If you say that the first cell could've been deposited by some Divine Power, you're admitting

at least the POSSIBILITY that God exists and He's responsible for this creation. This is really stretching it. If it DID get here

by some divine power, or aliens, or what have you, then it would more reasonable assume that if this power has the ability

to create something as complex as a cell, then why waste time depositing a cell when you can form a creation? Sounds kind

of silly. The only thing you're left with without abiogensis is that you have humans eventually coming about from the first

cell, and that the cell was created. But why don't we look at that hypothesis for a moment?

The first cell is deposited here. For a single cell to survive, it needs the right environment to survive in, and without it

the cell dies. So where, exactly, was this first cell placed? In a perfect environment to ensure its survival. So then that

perfect environment needs to exist as well. Did THAT come about by chance? Cells also need material input so they

can stay alive to reproduce. The material would already need to be here, since cells need glucose/minerals/oxygen

to survive. You should've chosen a better word than 'cell', which is more complex than any of our modern technology.

But then again, what are you left with without cells, aside from viruses which use cells to replicate? You're left with

nothing except, like you said, DNA. DNA certainly isn't going to do much without a cell to abide in. We can sit here

talking about cells, as I just mentioned, being more complex than anything WE could design, and yet you probably think

it's silly to assume they're designed. I also think that it's funny you mentioned an asteroid, since nothing would

survive on an asteroid in the vacuum of space.

Okay, you've completely missed my point. I thought I laid it out clearly enough with this sentence:

First of all, abiogenesis has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution

The asteroid/aleins/Zeus examples I provided after that were merely there to illustrate that point. I'll say it again: Current lack of a conclusively accepted model for how life emerged has no bearing on whether the Theory of Evolution is valid. Evolution is concerned with what happened after life emerged. I also challenge you to find any scientific literature that claims the Theory of Evolution explains the origin of life itself.

In summary:

-Evolution is testable and falsifiable

-ID is not

-The origin of life is completely superfluous to the Theory of Evolution.

Edited January 21, 2007 by SaturnV

[tdrehfal]

Okay, you've completely missed my point. I thought I laid it out clearly enough with this sentence:

First of all, abiogenesis has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution

The asteroid/aleins/Zeus examples I provided after that were merely there to illustrate that point. I'll say it again: Current lack of a conclusively accepted model for how life emerged has no bearing on whether the Theory of Evolution is valid. Evolution is concerned with what happened after life emerged. I also challenge you to find any scientific literature that claims the Theory of Evolution explains the origin of life itself.

In summary:

1-Evolution is testable and falsifiable

2-ID is not

3-The origin of life is completely superfluous to the Theory of Evolution.

On 3: Stating that the origin of life is completely superflous to the TOE is rediculous. What you really appear to be saying is 'The origin of life

is superfluous to Evolutionary Biology, not evolution. YOU completely missed MY point. Walk down the street and ask people

about the origin of life and how we got here. Evolution will come up nine times out of ten., if not ten out of ten. So there's no relationship

between evolution and origins? You're being rediculous. When I was in high school I read about how rain and lightning and the

perfect environment [primoridal soup, or whatever you want to call it] worked together to form the first living organism. The literature

you're looking for is in every high, middle, and even most private schools in the entire country and beyond. On the college level

you're going to study something like evolutionary biology or geology so no, it won't be there because it doesn't need to be there.

Edited January 21, 2007 by tdrehfal

[SaturnV]

On 3: Stating that the origin of life is completely superflous to the TOE is rediculous. What you really appear to be saying is 'The origin of life

is superfluous to Evolutionary Biology, not evolution. YOU completely missed MY point. Walk down the street and ask people

about the origin of life and how we got here. Evolution will come up nine times out of ten., if not ten out of ten. So there's no relationship

between evolution and origins? You're being rediculous.

Okay...I seriously don't know how I can make this any clearer for you. You seem to think that the Theory of Evolution is some grand, overreaching theory of "Life the Universe and Everything." It is not. It applies to biological systems after the emergence of life on Earth. I seriously hope I don't have to keep repeating this.

Walk down the street and ask people about the origin of life and how we got here. Evolution will come up nine times out of ten.

If that is how you approach science, then you are the one being ridiculous. Scientific theories are not defined or penned by random people off the street.

I suggest instead that you walk into a museum or university and ask scientists in the field. If you ask about how the Human race originated, then yes, you will get the evolutionary explanation from proto-monkeys and so forth. Howevever, if you ask about the origin of life itself, you will likely either get the "RNA world" explanation (which I largely subscribe to), the "Metabolism First" explanation, or some combination thereof. You will never hear Evolution stated as the reason for the origin of life itself.

You might as well try to argue that Atomic Theory is invalid because it does not explain Gravity. I really don't know how much clearer I can make that.

At least points 1 and 2 seem to have gotten through to you