ID: Intelligent Deception
In some locales in the United States, there is a rather remarkable movement to teach in public schools an idea known as "intelligent design" (ID) as a competing "theory" to evolution. While a few individuals, such as the entire scientific community, have strong reservations about injecting ID into the curriculum of US public schools, the proponents of ID have amassed a truly astounding amount of publicity for their efforts that is energizing state school boards like that in Kansas to consider adding this highly controversial component to biology classes. Only fanning the flames of this debate, when asked about the matter by one intrepid reporter President Bush recently stated, "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about." Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes." Considering Bush's level of expertise on evolutionary biology, one should not necessarily take his opinions with much weight, especially when quoted as offhand as this. For the record Bush did say that the decision about whether to teach the subject matter should be decided by individual states. Certainly it is a wonderful idea to expose people to new ideas and schools of thought, but that brings up the crux of the dispute: should ID be considered a true, scientific school of thought appropriate to be taught in public science classes, simply because a group of activists has managed to elevate it to the level of a national issue? Addressing this issue properly requires a brief synopsis of intelligent design itself, before the barbs of argumentation can be hurled around.
According to the website of the Intelligent Design Network, "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection." Evidence for the theory can best be encapsulated by a statement from the same site, "Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the 'messages', and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation." In essence, our understanding of the fundamental mechanisms for the development of life are not entirely and perfectly defined and explained without some dispute by current evolutionary theory. Intelligent design posits that because there are imperfections in evolutionary theory, and because there are certain structures that statistically were unlikely to arise by pure random selection, then there must be an "intelligent designer" that in some manner influenced the development of life on earth.
In debate I have often found that the most effective argumentation follows in the spirit of mathematical proofs. Whenever possible, persuasion should start from a series of universally agreed upon axioms, and continue logically in reasonable steps with minimal assumption and empirical evidence whenever possible. Assuming there are no major logical flaws in the case, the debater has boxed his/her opponent into debating the fundamental axioms (usually impossible), presenting a countercase under a different set of axioms (an uphill battle), or challenging the empirical evidence (only good when you have empirical evidence). Especially in the position of the opposition, this method can be used as a mechanism for reducto ad absurdum. Analyzing ID with this lens of discourse yields particularly interesting results.
So, let's start from the axioms. It seems very reasonable that science should be taught in all types of science classes in a public school. One of dictionary.com's definitions of science is: "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena". The key in this definition is that science uses the "scientific method", which is to say that science is testable and based on a posteriori reasoning. It is the study of what we observe, and what we can infer based on what we observe. Scientific inferences also procede logically and exclusively. There must always be a reason for what we believe to be true, and those reasons must (at least partially) exclude some set of other explanations of the same phenomenon. If this were not the case, then one theory would be no more valid than another theory, there would be an infinite number of potential explanations, and the one explanation we selected would not actually explain anything since there would be no reason for us to think it more valid than something else. There certainly are limits to this method of inquiry, but that is where the realm of science ends. Science does not attempt to explain things that are unprovable by definition. For instance, while science can demonstrate and record no physical evidence of things like demons and fairies, many people would argue that they still exist. They are simply "choosing" to be undetected. Whether fairies and demons actually truly exist or not is in the domain of science but in that of metaphysics. All it can say is that the existance of such things is very, very unlikely.
These "axioms" are sufficient for our purposes. Now, consider the case of intelligent design. In order for it to be legitimately taught as a valid, alternate theory for evolution, it must obviously be science itself. As we noted before, one of the key characteristics of any science, theory and experiment alike, is that it must be based on a posteriori reasoning. In other words, we must be able to deductively show why currently accepted evidence exclusively suggests intelligent design as a valid theory of biological origins. As cited above, virtually all evidence for intelligent design is based on the observation that some structures in nature may arguably be statistically unlikely to occur by the most accepted mechanisms of evolutionary theory; thus, an intelligent designer is required. But this evidence fails to do what real science must. It fails to make any sort of case for why the "intelligent design" solution is more valid than any other crackpot, a priori assertation of the origin and design of life. Why should "intelligent design" be any more valid than the hypothesis that meteorites containing some pre-evolved life collided with the earth and led to the development of all terrestrial biology? Intelligent design is not science because its sole evidence is the incompleteness of one theory, and it does not make any connection from this incompleteness to directly substantiate its conclusions. It is a whimsical and nonscientific conjecture. Furthermore, intelligent design is, by definition, untestable, which defies another major criterion of science. There are no experiments that can be performed to verify the validity of intelligent design. If the notion of science being taught in science class is reasonable, then it is also reasonable that intelligent design not be taught at all. Bear in mind that this argument makes no attack on the validity of intelligent design. In my personal opinion, it is one of the largest, most disgusting loads de la chingada--perdon--I have heard in quite awhile. But people are free to disagree because intelligent design is not science and therefore cannot be proven or disproven in the convincing, scientific way... that is, until real science refines the theory of evolution to the point at which intelligent design is deservedly reduced to absurdity.
http://invisionfree.com/forums/Atheist_Empire/index.php?showtopic=402
I think that ID could be considered if it were not for three critical flaws. First, too many mutually exclusive forms of ID exist; there are thousands of differing creation stories from an assortment of different religions and cultures. Because each has the same physical evidence and testability (?), each must be given equal weight in the curriculum. Secondly, ID has huge gaping holes. It provides no means for creation and no case for a creator. And last but not least, macroevolution is correct. Even though it doesn't explain all data perfectly, it is an approximate truth. Was Copernicus wrong when he stated that planets orbitted the sun in circles? Yes, but his general idea was correct.
I must say, your use of that particular Spanish explicitive is somewhat awkward. I'd say something like "pinche montón de mierda." That's a little more appropriate.
As one who is currently doing a lot of research on abiogenesis, I respectfully disagree. Actually I'd much rather take the position of "I don't know, but I can argue either way." Since you are arguing against ID, I'll try to defend it.
The major tenet of ID, iirc, is that of "irreducible complexity". The idea, which you are probably familiar with, is that current theories that certain molecular structures such as chlorophyll could have formed by slight mutations from other molecular structures formerly in the cell are crap. Certainly there are specific molecular mechanisms (the most common used by ID-proponents being the bacterium flagellum) that simply are so complex and so unlike any other molecular machine that it's highly improbably it formed from slow, Darwinian selection. In fact, if we carried out a thought experiment where slow natural selection tried to create a flagellum, the transitional forms in between a non-flagellate bacterium and a flagellate one would be full of dysfunctional forms where not having the flagellum at all is much more beneficial than having a useless "piece" of a flagellum. Thus, ID-ers hold that an irreducible complex thing is better explained by outside intelligence than by semirandom selection. Infinite regress, you scream? If you think that intelligence creating life leads to dumb regress (so who created the initial intelligence), then I'd raise the question about regress among evolution (life on Earth arising from life from other places).
Enough said. The point I'm pathetically trying to make is that ID is semi-legit. There are experiments to prove/disprove ID, making it (semi-)science. The evidence that could, in theory, prove/disprove ID would be seeing if a simple cell could, with natural selection, produce or grow something that ID-ers hold to be irreducibly complex. Now here is a big problem, imo. Honestly I don't believe evolution or ID are real science. If the evidence showed this "irreduciblly complex" component could form, ID would be discredited, but they could cling onto other things they hold to still be irreducibly complex. If the evidence showed that it could NOT form, thus "proving" the ID side right, evolutionists would invariably pull the "infinite time" trump card; "just because it failed this time doesn't mean that with virtually infinite time and different circumstances on the early earth, it couldn't happen".
I forgot precisely where I was going with this. But what I think I'm trying to say is that while abiogenesis is glorified as real science, it really isnt. It's about as bs as ID. You say ID can't be proven or disproven so it isn't science? Well, it kinda can be proven/disproven. I say abiogenesis can't be proven or disproven much more than ID. You retort that there are experiments that could possibly do this, such as Miller's overrated 1953's sparking-organic-soup-with-electricity experiments. However, it's quite easy for me to raise the point that this is hardly real science; you are estimating the variables and creating something that in all likelihood is completely different from the actual conditions.
I apologize, for now I'm ranting. I hate both sides of the issue, but I think I hate people unjustifiably glorifying either side even more.
"And last but not least, macroevolution is correct. Even though it doesn't explain all data perfectly, it is an approximate truth. Was Copernicus wrong when he stated that planets orbitted the sun in circles? Yes, but his general idea was correct."
Macroevolution has a lot of problems. Asserting "macroevolution is correct" just as Copernicus was "correct", imo, is as unjustifiably biased way of looking at it as a staunchly creationist looking at it.
You are wrong.
Although biased, my views ARE indeed justifiable.
Science is merely a collection of approximations based on observations. Currently, macroevolution is the theory with fewest holes that is relatively simple and observable. No other theory can even come close to macroevolution's success.
Given our observations, macroevolution stands head and shoulders above the crowd, justifying its place among scientific theories.
All other theories can't endure the scrutiny that macroevolution has. Macroevolution may yet be totally disproven. However, my comparison to Copernicus is still correct. He may likewise be disproven.
Intelligent design doesn't even have a delivery method. How were creatures created? When a species 'appeared,' were there two or two thousand that beamed down from the heavens? When organisms are artificially or naturally induced to speciate today, is it still a result of a designer? Who designed the designer?
Regardless of the truth, ID has many more holes than evolution at this juncture in time. That may change, but until it does, I'm manning my guns.
Asserting it without appropriate backup is an unjustifiably biased way of looking at it. However, asserting with appropriate backup is a justifiably biased way of looking at it.
I subscribe to the theory that states life has always existed, has no beginning or end, and irreducibly complex parts of organisms have always been that way.
The irreducibly complex argument doesn't make a case for ID. All it does is undermine evolution.
to your first comment: Sure evolution is a much more developed theory than ID, but ID has yet to be disproved. As such, I believe it only fair that both be presented (believe it or not, evolution DOES have a lot of holes that ID, however lamely, does fill).
second comment: definitional, no bearing on the argument
third comment: in fact, any idea that undermines evolution that is explainable by ID DOES make a case for ID.
Foreword: Just to be clear, we are discussing evolution, not methods such as Larmarckism, Darwinism, natural selection, etc.
To your first comment: Last Thursdayism has yet to be disproved. Does this validate it? No. Does this imply that it should be fairly presented among other creation theories? No. Take, for instance, my new evolutionary theory: When an organism urges to be better, its offspring automatically inherit a destiny to follow that urge. It explains the irreducibility problem with the standard evolutionary model and because we can't interpret organisms urges other than what we percieve to be our own, it cannot be disproved. Does that mean my new theory is correct?
Third comment: Let's view an example of your faulty logic. I say I am God's prophet. You say that you are God's prophet. By showing that I am indeed not God's prophet in doesn't in any way support your equally ludicrous claim. It is true that me not being God's prophet integrates with your theory nicely, but it still doesn't provide evidence for your claim. The key distinction that you failed to make is that the theories must not be independent (statistically, not freely). If the theories were dependent, then you would be correct in asserting that it supports ID.
Anyway, the irreducibly complex argument doesn't undermine evolution. It only undermines the standard model of macroevolution. Many other evolutionary theories exist that account for the apparent dilemma.
The main problem with debating evolution and ID is one of definitions; often the side of ID will fail to solidify a position and instead hypocritically attack the weaknesses in evolution. Thus far, the debate has been about evolution's flaws. If ID could provide adequate (meaning anything remotely logical) answers to my previous queries, then perhaps it would be deserving of class time.
If ID were to be taught in classrooms, what, specifically, would the teachers lecture about?
Evolution is certainly correct, even if the exact mechanisms are unknown or undocumented and even if ID is true.
It is fact that genetic diversity can increase. It is fact that populations can adapt.
It is fact that populations can speciate.
It is fact that species are related.
It is fact that species can be classified into nested heirarchies.
It is fact that a fossil record exists.
Can you dispute any of these predicted and observed conclusions of evolution?
Note: No standard model of macroevolution exists. Two proposed theories seem viable to the biological science community: modern synthesis and punctuated equilibrium. However, both are similar in all regards except one. Thus, I have combined them into one theory for the purposes of discussion.
Sources:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html
http://www.quackwatch.org (great for finding crazy scientists)
P.S. I really hate long arguments. The individual contentions are lost so easily. It's much more efficient to focus on one or two primary points at one time.