Vatican: Intelligent design is not science

So following your logic if i drop a stone only often enough there is the chance the stone fall UP instead DOWN?
To add, if e assume that an experiment could possibly change its result IF THE CONDITIONS ARE THE SAME then we can forget ALL science, it would be wasted money.

These points have been discussed in length in this and other threads of late. It's quite obvious those who who reject ID aren't going to agree it's science. And they won't likely agree evolutionism is not falsifiable.

"Some have invoked the falsifiability standard against ID by saying that intelligent design cannot be falsified. Let me agree that something that cannot be falsified is epistemologically weak (definition of epistemology). I want to apply that standard to evolutionary theory to see if it does any better. In other words, if ID is not 'scientific' because it is not falsifiable, maybe its in good company with evolutionary theory itself, which is adamantly affirmed as 'scientific.'

The theory of evolution allegedly proceeds from a 'methodological naturalism.' It attempts to explain the immensely apparent appearance of immense design (the redundancy is intended) by invoking only naturalistic causes, but in doing so often cross the line into 'philosophical naturalism.' That is to say, no evidence of design is possible simply because the situation is defined so as to exclude it. No wonder in such a scenario that evidence of design cannot be found!

Here is the problem: the most adamant proponents of evolution insist that these naturalistic processes are UNGUIDED by any intelligent agents. Those who do not go that far will often say that it is impossible to reliably detect guidance, so it may as well be said that evolution is an UNGUIDED process.

This is evolutionary theory in its broadest conception: the interpretation and explanation for biological complexity on our planet invoking only naturalistic processes.

But that raises a falsifiability problem. How exactly would someone falsify the belief that evolution results either primarily or exclusively from naturalistic processes? The only way that you could falsify such a statement would be to produce evidence for guidance- that is to say, 'design.'

Now, if proponents of evolution wish to say that ID must be dismissed because it is not falsifiable, or cannot be reliably detected, then that only means that their OWN theory is falsifiable. If you cannot reliably detect guidance so that you would recognize it when you see it, you are not in a position to assert that something is unguided. By rebuking ID, evolutionists render their own theory ultimately unfalsifiable, because only ID could falsify evolution in its highest conception.

And if Popper is right, that means that evolution is not a scientific theory. It may be right- it just isn't science.

The response comes in two ways:

1. Evolution can be falsified in a number of smaller ways (see talkorigins, they have a list of 'falsification measures' but none address this more broader categorization of what evolution is). In other words, it might be maintained that if a creature was found that did not fit into the 'nested hierarchy' evolution would be falsified. I'm skeptical of that- I think they'd just invent another kingdom. But the nested hierarchy only has power if we are proceeding under the assumption that we are only going to be looking for purely naturalistic mechanisms. Thus, these 'falsification measures' do not deal with how one would falsify the 'unguided' assertion, which is the umbrella that the rest of the theory is under.

2. 'Unguided' does not need to be falsified, it is assumed. The proponent of this view suggests that science ALWAYS excludes intelligent agency from the beginning (a priori). This, besides being utterly absurd and infantile, is also demonstrably false. Forensic science does not exclude intelligent agency. Archeology and anthropology- the last I checked, both respected fields of 'science'- literally depend on the ability to detect intelligent agency and distinguish artifacts and what not from the natural order. The proponent of this view is embracing philosophical naturalism, not methodological naturalism. A true methodological naturalism will work with the tools that are at hand and leave the conclusions elsewhere. So, a forensic scientist will study hair samples and fingerprints- things belonging to the natural order- but leave it to the detectives and then the prosecuting attorney to decide or argue the implications. It is possible for 'natural death' or 'accidental death' to be effectively RULED OUT, and intelligent agency RULED IN. So, this objection is weak, arbitrary, and capricious. It cuts off its nose to spite its face.

In conclusion, it is embarrassing (or it ought to be) that it took people in the last twenty or thirty years to begin trying to quantify intelligent design. Intelligent design is the only way to falsify evolution in its most robust expression, yet evolutionists themselves were not the ones to develop reliable and empirical methods to detect design in order to RULE OUT agency in the biological system. Someone else had to do it for them- and these only face ridicule.

However, as evolutionists are the one making the positive assertion- that our biological system is the result of exclusively and explicitly unguided ('guidance' entails an 'agent') natural processes- the burden is on them not to show how creatively they can create an internally coherent interpretative framework (lunatics in asylums can do the same), but to show how they can and have EXCLUDED the most significant falsification measure that could be brought to bear.

Its on them, but they are making others do the dirty work for them, and treating them like dirt for the effort."

See, the author of this idiotic paper agrees. Evolution can be falsified. He also has no freaking clue. On the one hand he is saying it's bad that it excludes intelligent agents, on the other he's saying that the falsifications work without intelligent agents ("under the assumption that we are only going to be looking for purely naturalistic mechanisms". Nobody really cares if he's skeptical. Opinions happen. It doesn't really affect the validity of a scientific theory or not. So I think we're done with this paper and any conclusions based upon it. Falsification of evolution still stands.

Now, since we've beaten the red herring to death (which you brought up btw), what does this have to do with the Vatican saying that ID is not Science? We can all agree Evolution is science (there isn't a better theory out there that explains everything Evolution does). Soooo shouldn't we be talking about how ID is not science and that the Vatican says so?

The main point is.... If you are going to say "evolution is an unguided process", then that assertion must have a way to be falsified. If ID isn't falsifiable, as you have said, then what could possible falsify the idea "evolution is an unguided process"? It makes the idea clearly unscientific.

The opposite of unguided is guided, so to falsify the idea it's unguided would require testing that it's guided. Ah, but science can't test for whether a process is guided or not, right?

Once again all debate is abruptly ended and another cut and paste article rehashing everything we've already discussed is plopped in without context.


Here we see admission that ID is not falsifiable. Bookmark this one, I can guarantee this statement will be contradicted in future posts.
But then we come to (one of?) the point of this cut-and-paste article: maybe evolutionary theory is not falsifyable. Lets look at the arguments.

This paragraph establishes that ID is incompatable with evolutionary theories. Note also that the author speaks of "The" theory of evolution as if there was a single unified theory of evolution rather than a collection of theories with similar premises and varying mechanism. Later in the article the goal shifts to trying to integrate ID within the framework of evolution by including the input of an intellegent designer as one of the potential seletion mechanisms.

Sadly, the author has aready fallen off the cart here. The whole point of evolution is that changes are GUIDED by natural processes. For example, natural selection is one mechnism put forth that GUIDES the development of species. The author has mistaken "no guidance by an intellegent agent" with "no guidance at all".
Not only that, but the author also seems to be suffering a persecution complex and insists that scientists can not concieve of an intellegent agent acting on evolution. One of the important models for many evolutionary theories is based on selective breeding. Evolutionary scientists readily admit that an intellegent selector can dramatically influence the course of evolution. However, no evidence of such an agent appears in the biological record prior to the emergence of man. The author later goes on to imply that he has a way of seeking such evidence, but it is not discussed.

Here the author has made another logical error. Belief is not what requies falsification, it is the theory that requires possibiltiy of falsifcation.


This is an assertion that he is right because "everyone is out to get him".

From what I was able to piece together, this is a version of ID that states:
Evolution takes place.
An outside agent is one of the causes of evolution.

I like to think of this as the "2001:A Space Odyssey" version of ID (based on the opening scenes of that movie).
The claim that scientists (real scientists using sciene, not philosophers with an agenda) are looking for outside influences. Remember the excitement when researchers thought they had found fossilzed bacteria in a martian meteorite? Science is very open minded, but it is also critical: you need your evidence.

Offcourse science can do so.
If something violates for example physical laws clearly (not in a way wich can be considerd "something we just dont know about but can research" you would have a strong case for some supernatural force, if this supernatural force is intelligent would be another question.

There are two things wich are amazing though:

1. As soon something happens wich defies physical laws everything wich could give clear evidence, recording instruments, scientists, are not on the scene, does that mean the supernatural has to hide?

2. All organisations "researching ID" work hard to convience the public and the politics, but not scientists that ID is "right" and evolution "wrong".

If it's guided by natural processes, can you please show the mechanism?

Sex and Death

After careful, dispassionate analysis of preceding 400 posts I have come to the conclusion that Kevn is right and everyone else has no clue what they are talking about.

Can we go home now?

*chortle* Personally I think Kevn is just campaigning for a "research" appointment at the Discovery Institute.

Survival of the fittest. What more do you want?

Chemical and physical laws, competition of information processing systhems (wich in the end every organism is) wich is btw an amazing way to create new logic processor, theese little critters develop in ways the people running theese experminents would never have expect, and the theorie of evolution is the basis for that, who would have thought...

Oh heres an "proof" a la "ID science"
Computers run on smoke, if the smoke leaves the computer it stops working!