What is Intelligent Design?
Casey Luskin has written a post about just that. He defines it thus:
My question is, exactly what types of information and complexity in nature do we know by our experience are caused by intelligence?
He goes on:
"1. ID uses a positive argument based upon finding high levels of complex and specified information"
This positive argument is basically giving the idea that something "looks designed" the impressive-sounding "high CSI". Hey look, things designed by humans look designed (have "high CSI"), so those things in nature that looked designed (have "high CSI") are probably designed as well.
This has three flaws. Firstly the subjective nature of whether something looks designed. This, of course, is why they use the impressive-sounding-but-ultimately-vacuous "high CSI". It is to fool the ignorant into thinking this is an objective quanlity that can be measured.
Dembski may have written books about CSI, but it is all-to-clear that IDists cannot actually calculate values for CSI.
The second flaw is just because something looks kind of like it is designed it does mean it actually is.
The third flaw is that this is not science. They are no falsifiable predictions that are a direct consequence of this theory. Of course, the IDists know this, and so campaign to get their pet theories accepted through political means, rather than as real science.
Casey goes on:
"2. Intelligent Design is a historical science that is methodologically equivalent to neo-Darwinism"
As an aside, note that he cannot just call it evolution theory, it has to be neo-Dawinism. So much of ID rhetoric is about Darwin character assassination that they have to keep his name linked to it.
This is just plain wrong. The theory of evolution makes abundant predictions about what will be seen in the fossil record, in the genetic record, in biodistribution, etc. Evolution is full supported by scientific methodology.
Intelligent Design is not. There are no predictions, it is not falsifiable.
Evolution theory is science, ID is pseudo-science pretending to be real science.
Casey goes on:
"3. Intelligent design uses the scientific method"
Now Luskin is grasping at straws to pretend that ID is real science. Let us see his predictions, and ponder whether they can be falsified.
Irreducible complexity? I thought that died a death at Kitzmiller
So how about this for a bold prediction: some things form intricate patterns and perform a specific function. But wait, how is this a prediction from the theory. Remember, the theory says:
Is the prediction a necessary consequence of the theory? "the best explanation for some natural phenomena is an intelligence cause" therefore it must necessarily follow that some things form intricate patterns and perform a specific function. It all hinges on that word "function". If there is an intelligence cause, then those designed things must have some function for that intelligence cause.
Look around. See all those things that were intelligently caused, they all have some function that benefits us, the designers. If it has no function for us, why bother to design it?
And this is part of the slippery nature of ID. Designed things have a function to the designer, but the chalatans at the Discovery Institute miss out the "to the designer" bit. The heart has a function, and the chair has a function, they must be both designed. No. The chair has a function to its designer.
Either Luskins hypothesis is predictioning things in nature have a function to the all-power designer - and how can that possibly be falsified? - or this is not a prediction of his theory at all.
This is also a prediction of evolution (specifically common descent), but evolution is rather more specific in its prediction. It says that the degree of reuse of genes and other functional parts will depend on how closely related two organisms are. It predicts a "nested hierarchy" of reuse, a far bolder claim than Luskin offers us.
How does this follow from the definition of ID; "the best explanation for some natural phenomena is an intelligence cause"? Luskin's definition does not even specify that DNA is designed (I would guess he means that, but the weasel-words allow for pretty much anything)?
Sure, it could follow from specific ID scenarios, such as YEC, but how about God creating first life on Earth, then setting the conditions to allow mankind to evolve? Is that a valid ID scenario? To be honest, I do not know. Luskin's definition is sufficient woolly to make that uncertain. If it is valid, then the degree of function of so-called "junk DNA" would turn out to be the same as that predicted by evolution.
On the other hand, if ID is restricted to scenarios where the designer creates each "kind" (and most IDists do subscribe to creationism) then the prediction is rather different. In this scenario we would expect all (or virtually all) DNA to have a use of some sort function - because it is still pretty much as the designer created it.
From Wiki:
Our DNA is over 3 billion base pairs long, so 20% is big deal. Why would the all-knowing designer choose to put in 600 million base pairs that do nothing at all?
Sorry, Casey, but the prediction from ID is: Virtually all so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.
That is not falsifiable now, but it could be one day. No surprise, then, that Luskin wants to keep some wriggle room.
Intelligent design is a scientific theory that argues that the best explanation for some natural phenomena is an intelligence cause, especially when we find certain types of information and complexity in nature which in our experience are caused by intelligence.
My question is, exactly what types of information and complexity in nature do we know by our experience are caused by intelligence?
He goes on:
"1. ID uses a positive argument based upon finding high levels of complex and specified information"
This positive argument is basically giving the idea that something "looks designed" the impressive-sounding "high CSI". Hey look, things designed by humans look designed (have "high CSI"), so those things in nature that looked designed (have "high CSI") are probably designed as well.
This has three flaws. Firstly the subjective nature of whether something looks designed. This, of course, is why they use the impressive-sounding-but-ultimately-vacuous "high CSI". It is to fool the ignorant into thinking this is an objective quanlity that can be measured.
Dembski may have written books about CSI, but it is all-to-clear that IDists cannot actually calculate values for CSI.
The second flaw is just because something looks kind of like it is designed it does mean it actually is.
The third flaw is that this is not science. They are no falsifiable predictions that are a direct consequence of this theory. Of course, the IDists know this, and so campaign to get their pet theories accepted through political means, rather than as real science.
Casey goes on:
"2. Intelligent Design is a historical science that is methodologically equivalent to neo-Darwinism"
As an aside, note that he cannot just call it evolution theory, it has to be neo-Dawinism. So much of ID rhetoric is about Darwin character assassination that they have to keep his name linked to it.
This is just plain wrong. The theory of evolution makes abundant predictions about what will be seen in the fossil record, in the genetic record, in biodistribution, etc. Evolution is full supported by scientific methodology.
Intelligent Design is not. There are no predictions, it is not falsifiable.
Evolution theory is science, ID is pseudo-science pretending to be real science.
Casey goes on:
"3. Intelligent design uses the scientific method"
Now Luskin is grasping at straws to pretend that ID is real science. Let us see his predictions, and ponder whether they can be falsified.
Hypothesis (Prediction): Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns (including irreducible complexity) that perform a specific function -- indicating high levels of CSI.
Irreducible complexity? I thought that died a death at Kitzmiller
So how about this for a bold prediction: some things form intricate patterns and perform a specific function. But wait, how is this a prediction from the theory. Remember, the theory says:
Intelligent design is a scientific theory that argues that the best explanation for some natural phenomena is an intelligence cause, especially when we find certain types of information and complexity in nature which in our experience are caused by intelligence.
Is the prediction a necessary consequence of the theory? "the best explanation for some natural phenomena is an intelligence cause" therefore it must necessarily follow that some things form intricate patterns and perform a specific function. It all hinges on that word "function". If there is an intelligence cause, then those designed things must have some function for that intelligence cause.
Look around. See all those things that were intelligently caused, they all have some function that benefits us, the designers. If it has no function for us, why bother to design it?
And this is part of the slippery nature of ID. Designed things have a function to the designer, but the chalatans at the Discovery Institute miss out the "to the designer" bit. The heart has a function, and the chair has a function, they must be both designed. No. The chair has a function to its designer.
Either Luskins hypothesis is predictioning things in nature have a function to the all-power designer - and how can that possibly be falsified? - or this is not a prediction of his theory at all.
Hypothesis (Prediction): Genes and other functional parts will be commonly re-used in different organisms.
This is also a prediction of evolution (specifically common descent), but evolution is rather more specific in its prediction. It says that the degree of reuse of genes and other functional parts will depend on how closely related two organisms are. It predicts a "nested hierarchy" of reuse, a far bolder claim than Luskin offers us.
Hypothesis (Prediction): Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.
How does this follow from the definition of ID; "the best explanation for some natural phenomena is an intelligence cause"? Luskin's definition does not even specify that DNA is designed (I would guess he means that, but the weasel-words allow for pretty much anything)?
Sure, it could follow from specific ID scenarios, such as YEC, but how about God creating first life on Earth, then setting the conditions to allow mankind to evolve? Is that a valid ID scenario? To be honest, I do not know. Luskin's definition is sufficient woolly to make that uncertain. If it is valid, then the degree of function of so-called "junk DNA" would turn out to be the same as that predicted by evolution.
On the other hand, if ID is restricted to scenarios where the designer creates each "kind" (and most IDists do subscribe to creationism) then the prediction is rather different. In this scenario we would expect all (or virtually all) DNA to have a use of some sort function - because it is still pretty much as the designer created it.
From Wiki:
The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project[3] suggested in September 2012 that over 80% of DNA in the human genome "serves some purpose, biochemically speaking".[4] This conclusion however is strongly criticized by other scientists.
Our DNA is over 3 billion base pairs long, so 20% is big deal. Why would the all-knowing designer choose to put in 600 million base pairs that do nothing at all?
Sorry, Casey, but the prediction from ID is: Virtually all so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.
That is not falsifiable now, but it could be one day. No surprise, then, that Luskin wants to keep some wriggle room.
Comments
Post a Comment