Hi, David,

I came over here from PT from the link that you left with one of your comments. I was lurking on the discussion over there and was interested to see that you had ported part of it to your own site here. I, too, have been uncomfortable by the rancor that is thrown around there by some contributors (and I'm even on their side in the debate). I was disappointed that comments were shut down when they were because of a question that I didn't get to ask you. Among the things that you claim would falsify ID is:

4. Find non-Carbon based life

Really? My skepticism here is not just a mirror of the but-God-coould-do anything-he wanted to argument that others were making. Assume for the moment that ID is correct. Can one say anything about the designer? The mainstream ID folks say no, but it seems to me that one could acknowledge that the designer seems to have a flair for biological diversity. It's not unlike Haldane's 'inordinate fondness for beetles' statment- something that I had always attributed as humor, but why not? If that were the case, could one not also anticipate that a designer who placed life elsewhere might want to use completely different chemistry to do so? It's untestable, but I can't see it as being much different than the interior designer who chooses entirely different color schemes for two homes. It therefore would't be inconsistent with what ever evidence for design had been amassed in our own biosphere.
DougT | 02.25.05 - 2:11 pm | #

Doug,

I cannot answer for Gonzalez and Richards (The Privileged Planet), who state that the discovery of non-Carbon based life would damage their theory.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a completely different chemistry." Everywhere we look in the universe we see the same chemistry. (Another universe, with different constants, would have a different chemistry, but I don't think that is what you meant.

Since the chemistry is the same everywhere in our universe, and since life (most agree) requires complex chemistry, then only a few atoms have any hope of being the basis for life, and carbon is the best.

So my guess is that they (Gonzalez and Richards) would view it as a weakness in ID if the designer used non-optimal chemistry. But I'd have to go back to their book to be sure.
David Heddle | Homepage | 02.25.05 - 2:31 pm | #

By completely different chemistry, I meant non-carbon based. I'm not invoking anything like the periodic table working differently elsewhere in the universe or anything like that. Yes, I'm aware that only a few elements have any hope of being major players in any sort of biochemistry. Perhaps one could say that ID would make the prediction that this new biochemistry would work together in unexpected ways that themselves evidence a different biochemical design. Present the need for modification, yes. Falsify, no.
DougT | 02.25.05 - 3:10 pm | #

DougT,

Perhaps, but you have to remember that you are asking me to speak for Gonzalez and Richards. (The non-Carbon based life was from their list of possible discoveries that would falsify/damage their theory.)

Their theory, as I understand it, ties together fine-tuning and observability.

As for me, I would find non-Carbon based life very surprising but not devastating to ID, for I see the strongest plank in the ID camp the fact that galaxies and stars and planets exist at all. The biology aspects of ID--well, I kind of view that as in the noise and not nearly as compelling.
David Heddle | Homepage | 02.25.05 - 3:21 pm | #

It's not just that's unfalsifiable. That is a big problem for any proposed hypothesis because it can't be checked. If I tell you the Word of God states the earth is the center of the solar system you can test that and determine if my intepretation is corect.
String theory suffers from a similar problem in that it doesn't make testable low energy predictions, or at least not many that we've been able to test as of now. This criticism isn't limited to ID.

But another big problem is there really is no scientific theory or even a hypothesis, of ID. There is no restriction on it. Some claim Young Earth Creationism, (YEC itself is testable BTW and had failed so far)some old earth, some guided or tweaked partial evolution, all as ID, all as the same thing.

Another problem is ID doesn't explain anything, it doesn't unite anything, and it doesn't make any sense. EG: It's simply a claim that at some unknown time in the past, an unknown creator, using unknown methods, made some or all aspects of the natural world including species, for unknown reasons, and we can't even know anything about the designer; EXCEPT they're CERTAIN he's not allowed to use common descent. The claim rests on logical fallacies utilizing mostly endlessly recycled argument against evolutionary biology, and for the YEC vareities, geology, or astronomy.

Your best bet for a Theory of Non Human Intelligent Design in cosmology is along the lines of what Hugh ross talks about. The best bet for Non Human Design in biology is theistic evolution. neither is not scuenticailly testable, but they are fully consistent with science.
~DS~ | Homepage | 02.25.05 - 6:10 pm | #

BTW, a lot of my fellow evols would siagree with me, but I feel Hugh Ross is head and shoulders superior to any other creationist who rejects common descent. DR Ross is a real, legitimate, astronomer and physicist who was intellectually gifted at a young age. A prodigy of sorts. Several Christians friends of mine who have eventually accepted evolution have told me that DR Ross was instrumental in that journey, because he conveyed an infectious enthusiasm for science generally lacking among his fellow creationists. Just by advocating an ancient Cosmos, he helps in that limited manner I feel.
~DS~ | Homepage | 02.25.05 - 6:15 pm | #

~DS~

Thanks for the comments. Hugh Ross is indeed an inspiration to me. I acknowledged him in my book. He is often between a rock and a hard place, with secular evolutionists attacking him from one side and YECers calling him a heretic from the other. I feel his pain. He da man.
David Heddle | Homepage | 02.25.05 - 7:27 pm | #

BTW I forgot you were a physicist there DH. Didn't mean to sound like I was talking down to you on the string theory or science shtuff.
~DS~ | Homepage | 02.25.05 - 8:04 pm | #

'don’t agree. To me, falsifying ID means that God has not left any evidence that he created something. It doesn’t mean he didn’t create it. For example, if parallel universes were demonstrated, I would lose the evidence that God created the universe. But I wouldn’t have to abandon the belief. I just couldn’t call it ID anymore. It would just be old fashioned faith.'

See thats your problem in a nutshell- no matter what evidence comes your way you revert back to illogical thinking. It happens often enough to discount much of what you say.

Nor do you apply the same standards asa scientist to what you actually believe and have faith in.

I'm sure your a very good scientist but you won't use the CT ontoyour own faith- you start with the assumption that it's correct, and won't budge.

odd.
DC | 02.26.05 - 12:30 am | #

Oddly to many I realize, I find DR Heddle's statements refreshingly honest. I believe he's wrong about the Bible vs Evolution/science. But I'm not a theist and I have no stake it reconciling religious text with science for any personal reasons.
But if someone just flat out honestly says that evolution or some aspect of science conflicts with their theology, and they've made the conscious decision to accept the theology over that aspect, then that's a hell of a lot more open and candid than most folks who reject evolution by claiming and pretending evo or geology fails on a the scientific merits. [shrug].
I get tons of e-mail every week from folks wanting to debate evo, and if they just said what David said it would save me a whole lot of time and effort tracking through the usual miserable creationist arguments and trying to explain where those arguments fail.
~DS~ | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 3:11 pm | #

If it's a theological issue, I recommend going to theological scholars. I can only help with the science angle.
If someone wants to reject an aspect of science because it conflicts with something they hold dear, that's really their call imo. Although David, I'll make a theistic evol out of you yet!

And I feel you ought to give TE some serious thought. For example, many fundamentalists feel that an ancient universe alone conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis, which threatens the validity of the Fall of Man, and would thus by implication suggest there is no need of redemption for man's sin through Christ. But Hugh Ross, whom you seem to hold in good standing, openly argues for an ancient universe. If you can get around that potential crises, surely you can figure out a way to handle common descent.
Port from UTI.
~DS~ | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 3:12 pm | #

It doesn't seem to me that evolution is testable either.
Brett Scollard | 02.27.05 - 10:21 am | #

The testable statements for evolution, as in The theory of Natural Selection would be something like 1 Species often reproduce exponentially and exceed the carrying capacity of their biome 2 There is variation in the population 3 Some of this variaiton provide an advantage over those who don't have it 4 The variation is at least partially heritable 5 Those members who are selected for reproduce their allele assymetrically
All five statements are testable. The inference is evolution/natural selection
Common descent is a fact of evolution and predicts observations like: 1) Biostratification of the fossil record 2) Transitional fossils 3) Molecular analysis and comparison of mt and nuclear DNA 4) Vestigial structures 5) Observed speciation
All five are observed, the inferred fact is common descent. More here. Bret you could have looked all this up with a single search. Come on fella ...
~DS~ | Homepage | 02.27.05 - 2:51 pm | #

But if no vestigal organs were found one could claim that the organs were modified and not discarded. If there was a lack of transitional forms one could merely say, "puncuated equilibrium."
Unfalsifiable.
No matter what the data turns up, an alternate explanation could be given.
Brett Scollard | 02.27.05 - 6:37 pm | #

The problem, as I see it, is in something that DarkSyde said earlier:

Another problem is ID doesn't explain anything...It's simply a claim that at some unknown time in the past, an unknown creator, using unknown methods, made some or all aspects of the natural world including species

That is, ID seems to me to be more of a paradigm; a framework for inquiry rather than the inquiry itself. As such, it isn't really about whether it is falsifiable, but rather whether it is flexible(?) enough. I'm not a philosopher of science though.
Matt | 02.28.05 - 4:56 pm | #

Well tranisiotnals and vestigial sturctures are not defined by you Bret. they're defined by biologists. A vestigial structure is a structure which is rudimentary in the context of an original ancestral use. Limbs of tetrapods are vestigial fins from devonian fish, but they're not useless. Wings of bats and birds are vestigial forelimbs of tetrapods, but they're not useless. The forward appendages of otriches and penguins are vestigial wings fro flight, but they're not useless. Now for an exercise, what type of morphology, in general, would you expect to see in a transitional fossil species?
~DS~ | Homepage | 02.28.05 - 6:09 pm | #

Yeah, I know what they are, and I am not disputing the definitions of biologists. I am not even disputing whether there are such features. I am saying that if they did not exist, this would not deal a death blow to evolution, the absence of such things could be accomidated in the theory.
Brett Scollard | 02.28.05 - 8:16 pm | #

In "The Biotic Message" (doubtless thoroughly "discredited" by evolutionists), Walter ReMine argues that because of the nature of evolutionary theory, it is indeed not falsifiable - one of a smorgasbord of facets is selected to apply regardless of the evidence that is presented.
Paul and/or Liz | Homepage | 03.05.05 - 5:01 am | #

Some basic points:

I had a pastor with a PhD in ancient languages such as Sanskrit and Hebrew. On that basis alone, he opposed interpreting Genesis 1 "literally."

Further, identifying YEC with ID is specious and without any basis. No scientist claiming ID will claim any allegiance with Ken Ham or CRI.

Finally, showing that there is no cosmological/biological evidence for design does not prove that we should not believe in God unless you accept a priori that scientific inquiry is the only way of knowing and the only acceptable basis of believing anything. That in itself is an unprovable hypothesis. I find it hard to believe that supposedly logical people make such a huge existential leap and then claim that their way is the only way.
Josh S | 03.21.05 - 10:39 pm | #

So many of us would continue to believe in God or some kind of higher reality on the basis of things other than science. Perhaps personal experience, philosophy, traditions, perceiving a telos in human history, or accepting as reliable the claims of some 1st-century Jews might do it for us. The problem here is that you equate unscientific with stupid. But science has no way of providing us with ethics, a reason to love or to hate, or meaning in life. Asserting that science is the beginning and end of all knowledge is to deny that those things are real. This is all well and good, but you cannot scientifically prove that your basic assertion (science is all there is) is correct, nor can you falsify it, because science has no way of looking outside itself. It's an enclosed system and thus cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of any manner of being or knowing outside its own methods.
Josh S | 03.21.05 - 10:48 pm | #

This Thumber guy desperately needs a basic Intro to Philosophy course to teach him how to distinguish between Epistemology and Cosmology. Not that such a class should be necessary; some things are obvious without the "-ologies." Seriously, statements don't get much more ignorant than "Falsifying ID is the same as falsifying God." If somebody manages to disprove the claim made in the "Name" field of this post, that it is written by Eric Phillips, he will not thereby have disproven the existence of Eric Phillips!
Eric Phillips | 03.21.05 - 11:27 pm | #

1. Surely irreducible complexity supports ID indirectly by the problem it poses to blindly fumbling neo-Darwinism, i.e. peculiar conservation of the system from negative mutations.

2. I suspect all the talk of finding life elsewhere is caused by reading too much science fiction. Until the moment we find ET we are not participating in science but in literature.

3. The point is made here or in the following post about bacterial flaggellum. Once again there is the desire to reduce the complexity of the system to something comprehensible.
Here the breakage of a single flagellum is pointed out as a failure of design.
Perhaps the design is more complex than the fate of one individual! Failure in the physiology of one organism does not mean failure of the entire system!
Soliders are lost in war but the designs of Generals still succeed.

4. How on earth did ID become equated with God??

5. What is non-optimal chemistry anyway? Optimal for what? Biological reproduction? Love of God and spiritual salvation? Building better mousetraps? Longer lived biochemists?

Is not arguing over optimal chemistry assuming that the chemists are agreed on what the ideal system is striving towards...?
...as if we could design from scratch a system even as simple as E.coli without pulling it apart first of all and retro-engineering!
greg bourke | 03.23.05 - 8:00 am | #

How did ID become equated with God? Do you have another candidate for a designer in mind, something which is not alive, and was not created by living beings, but which is at least as intelligent as we are, if not more? ID was an argument for God's existence from it's inception, and has never been anything else. You would do better to ask how anyone can honestly distinguish ID from Creationism.
David Johnston | 08.16.06 - 2:24 pm | #