Author Topic: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?  (Read 1459 times)

Ali

  • Knows where her towel is.
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6500
  • Gender: Female
  • An Equal Opportunity Mr. Hyde
Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
« on: April 03, 2012, 06:02:31 PM »
To clarify, I don't see how it could, but all of the ID arguments I have ever seen have been more about trying to discredit evolution rather than presenting any scientific evidence that could be interpreted as support of ID.  I was just curious if anyone has actually seen any credible scientific evidence that could possibly reasonably be interpreted as supportive of ID, or if it's all just God of the Gaps and trying to discredit Darwin, as if the theory hasn't "evolved" at all since the 1850's.

Asherah

  • Has Received Bacon
  • *
  • Posts: 106
Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2012, 07:01:17 PM »
This series of videos lays out the evidence for intelligent design http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnWyPIzTOTw

I think that much of it is god of the gaps. They talk about fine tuning. It's as if, they say, someone set the dials to very precise points so that life could exist. If even one of the physical constants were off by a fraction, life would not have been possible. They talk about the location of our solar system in the Goldilocks Zone. etc.

They talk about the fact that we can discover the universe and know things about it. That our brains our capable of understanding....saying that god gave us that capability. They talk about how our planet is located in just the right spot so that we have a clear view of the stars and galaxies. We could have been located in a foggy area of the milky way in which little discovery would have been possible. But, they say, its seems we have been set up to discover the universe.

And, they talk about several other things that are quite interesting. However, I think that it can mostly be boiled down to god of the gaps.
As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect. - Dawkins

Stevil

  • Simian Provocateur
  • Blessing Her Holy Hooves
  • *****
  • Posts: 4498
  • My mind is a blank canvas
Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2012, 09:33:15 PM »
Its always GOTG.

For some reason (convenience probably), they assume science knows all there is to know about material existence and thus, if they find a gap, it means it is impossible to have a material explanation, therefore it must have been the Christian god, so we must worship Jesus and be nasty to homosexuals.

They get very scientific, in depth knowledge about stuff. But all you need to ask is where is the positive evidence for their non material intelligent designer?
Where is the evidence that anything can be non material and yet interact with material existence.

They again point to the knowledge gap they have discovered or most likely have been made aware of. Those gaps are getting smaller and smaller by the day, but our scientists still have work to do, they are not ready to retire the profession just yet.

The silly thing is, even if there is a god, it seems that the god uses natural means to acheive everything and according to the bible, the Christian god wants people to have faith not knowledge, wasn't Adam and Eve punished for take fruit from the tree of knowledge?
So I don't know why they bother spending time looking. These semi-scientific theologists seem very dishonest to me. Really, they are just giving current theists semi plausible excuses to continue believing, they aren't converting anyone new with these trumped up theories. I wonder if churches fund these people? Better to put tithe money into this than to helping out the poor and needy.

xSilverPhinx

  • Non Dvcor
  • Global Moderator
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 10762
  • Gender: Female
Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2012, 11:26:42 PM »
Science...no, though they like to masquerade their ideas as science.

There are a few god of the gaps ideas, simple arguments from ignorance (I don't see how it could've happened that way, or don't understand the evidence, therefore it couldn't have happened that way or be true) and people who are not valid authorities making weird claims, such as the mathematical information theory which doesn't really take the fact that genetic inheritance has memory into account and comes up with false odds to try and lend credence to their idea that something that wasn't designed is impossible.

As far as the scientific method goes ID is a fail.

Urgh. One of the main problems when dealing with ID and IDers is that the general public is alienated from the topics. ID deals mostly with the molecular and statistical which require a certain amount of knowledge at least to see the holes, and most people lack that knowledge and are too easily impressed and swayed by big numbers and sciency sounding assertions that fit nicely into their common sense model of reality. Meet Creationism 2.0. ::)  

Apparently Michael Behe (one who helped kick-start the whole thing) is going to give a lecture in São Paulo, Brazil soon.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 11:28:44 PM by xSilverPhinx »
I'm just a student of the game that they taught me.


Tank

  • Fed up with stupid.
  • Administrator
  • Excellent and Indefatigable Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 28317
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2012, 12:04:36 AM »
The real question is, is the Theory of ID a valid scientific standpoint? It is not. Because it relies on supernatural intervention it cannot be falsified therefore it as an invalid attempt at creating a scientifically valid hypothesis/theory.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett

Ali

  • Knows where her towel is.
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6500
  • Gender: Female
  • An Equal Opportunity Mr. Hyde
Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2012, 07:16:26 AM »
Thanks.  That's what I had always thought, but then I kept thinking "well surely people can't be that illogical.  There has to be some proof somewhere that could at least be interpreted as supporting ID, doesn't there?  Why else would anyone believe it's a scientific theory?"

SilverPhinx - that makes perfect sense.  Like most people, I don't know much about molecular biology (although I do know a bit about statistics) so a "scientist" could pretty much tell me anything in that area and I wouldn't know how to go about validating its accuracy or whether or not what they were saying made much sense without doing a bunch of research.  I can see how, if you don't know enough to disagree or spot the loopholes, AND what they are saying supports your existing worldview, it would seem compelling.

DeterminedJuliet

  • The Stone Lady of HAF
  • Global Moderator
  • Blessing Her Holy Hooves
  • *****
  • Posts: 4396
  • Gender: Female
  • Don't Blink
Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2012, 07:48:54 AM »
If you`ve already assumed the basis of an argument (i.e. there is a God), it`s a lot easier to find the support you are looking for.
"We’ve thought of life by analogy with a journey, with pilgrimage which had a serious purpose at the end, and the THING was to get to that end; success, or whatever it is, or maybe heaven after you’re dead. But, we missed the point the whole way along; It was a musical thing and you were supposed to sing, or dance, while the music was being played.

Ali

  • Knows where her towel is.
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6500
  • Gender: Female
  • An Equal Opportunity Mr. Hyde
Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2012, 07:53:53 AM »
If you`ve already assumed the basis of an argument (i.e. there is a God), it`s a lot easier to find the support you are looking for.

That's true too - the most common response to the "proof of ID" question I have seen is "Look around you!"  If you start with the belief that god created everything, I suppose every blade of grass is evidence of his creative powers.

Whitney

  • Administrator
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 7358
  • Gender: Female
  • Mysteriously Absent - Like God
    • http://fellowshipoffreethought.org
Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2012, 07:28:54 PM »
The short answer is no; ID is inherently unscientific because it hinges on (an attempt at) shoving "intelligent designer" into gaps in scientific knowledge.

ThinkAnarchy

  • Free of Childhood Neuroses
  • ***
  • Posts: 845
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2012, 07:36:41 PM »
I have seen a lot of "fill in the gaps" arguments for creationism, but isn't it actually worse than that. From an unscientific perspective, what I have gathered is that is has had to move passed simply the filling in the gaps, and they actively defend it against actual scientific evidence. Don't they deny the existence of the fossils currently discovered?

It seems that they continue to deny aspects that have already been filled in with scientific discoveries. It is only a gap when science can't explain it...

"He that displays too often his wife and his wallet is in danger of having both of them borrowed." -Ben Franklin

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -credited to Franklin, but not sure.

xSilverPhinx

  • Non Dvcor
  • Global Moderator
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 10762
  • Gender: Female
Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2012, 08:20:44 PM »
I have seen a lot of "fill in the gaps" arguments for creationism, but isn't it actually worse than that. From an unscientific perspective, what I have gathered is that is has had to move passed simply the filling in the gaps, and they actively defend it against actual scientific evidence. Don't they deny the existence of the fossils currently discovered?

No, they don't deny fossil evidence or even question carbon dating as much as the more primitive creationists do, IDers have evolved ;)

What they basically do is focus on the slightly less cohesive and known aspects such as the origin of life and DNA, which is not covered by evolutionary theory and hinge on god of the gaps and arguments from ignorance or incredulity to say: look at how complex this is, I'll throw you some numbers to show you that there's just no way this could've come about by chance (they still use and abuse this word).

The evolutionary process is being more left alone than it was by the more primitive creationists, except in the case of Behe's idea of the irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum, who said that since the structure couldn't be made more simple without losing it's function, it the whole thing had to be designed in one go. Behe is a biologist but he was refuted by another (Ken Miller) who proved that before it was a flagellum it was a secreting structure, thus showing that it did evolve. 

IDers confuse DNA with the analogy they created for it, saying that it's like a software code...and we all know that software codes are specially and intentionally designed to perform specific functions. God would be the programmer. You would never find a way to test to see if this programmer exists, but they're still trying to push it as science.

SilverPhinx - that makes perfect sense.  Like most people, I don't know much about molecular biology (although I do know a bit about statistics) so a "scientist" could pretty much tell me anything in that area and I wouldn't know how to go about validating its accuracy or whether or not what they were saying made much sense without doing a bunch of research.  I can see how, if you don't know enough to disagree or spot the loopholes, AND what they are saying supports your existing worldview, it would seem compelling.

Me neither, I've just recently taken up my studies in biology again (and fighting creationism was a bit of a passion in my youth) , but knowledge isn't the most important thing (and ignorance can be remedied) but at least your critical thinking got you asking if it is indeed science ;D


I'm just a student of the game that they taught me.


McQ

  • Administrator
  • Has an Invisible Dragon in Their Garage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
  • Foolproof and capable of terror.
Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2012, 07:18:19 AM »
I have seen a lot of "fill in the gaps" arguments for creationism, but isn't it actually worse than that. From an unscientific perspective, what I have gathered is that is has had to move passed simply the filling in the gaps, and they actively defend it against actual scientific evidence. Don't they deny the existence of the fossils currently discovered?

No, they don't deny fossil evidence or even question carbon dating as much as the more primitive creationists do, IDers have evolved ;)

What they basically do is focus on the slightly less cohesive and known aspects such as the origin of life and DNA, which is not covered by evolutionary theory and hinge on god of the gaps and arguments from ignorance or incredulity to say: look at how complex this is, I'll throw you some numbers to show you that there's just no way this could've come about by chance (they still use and abuse this word).

The evolutionary process is being more left alone than it was by the more primitive creationists, except in the case of Behe's idea of the irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum, who said that since the structure couldn't be made more simple without losing it's function, it the whole thing had to be designed in one go. Behe is a biologist but he was refuted by another (Ken Miller) who proved that before it was a flagellum it was a secreting structure, thus showing that it did evolve. 

IDers confuse DNA with the analogy they created for it, saying that it's like a software code...and we all know that software codes are specially and intentionally designed to perform specific functions. God would be the programmer. You would never find a way to test to see if this programmer exists, but they're still trying to push it as science.

SilverPhinx - that makes perfect sense.  Like most people, I don't know much about molecular biology (although I do know a bit about statistics) so a "scientist" could pretty much tell me anything in that area and I wouldn't know how to go about validating its accuracy or whether or not what they were saying made much sense without doing a bunch of research.  I can see how, if you don't know enough to disagree or spot the loopholes, AND what they are saying supports your existing worldview, it would seem compelling.

Me neither, I've just recently taken up my studies in biology again (and fighting creationism was a bit of a passion in my youth) , but knowledge isn't the most important thing (and ignorance can be remedied) but at least your critical thinking got you asking if it is indeed science ;D




These are the reasons I dislike IDers more than the simple Creationists. They distort the parts of evolutionary theory, physics, chemistry, and geology that they can't outright refute. They change definitions of everything from science itself to what constitutes life. They cherry pick things that can support their modified definitions of evolution and use those to hide behind their agenda, which simply leads back to the bible as ultimate source of truth.

In other words, they suck more!

  ;D
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Ali

  • Knows where her towel is.
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6500
  • Gender: Female
  • An Equal Opportunity Mr. Hyde
Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2012, 07:58:49 AM »

These are the reasons I dislike IDers more than the simple Creationists. They distort the parts of evolutionary theory, physics, chemistry, and geology that they can't outright refute. They change definitions of everything from science itself to what constitutes life. They cherry pick things that can support their modified definitions of evolution and use those to hide behind their agenda, which simply leads back to the bible as ultimate source of truth.

In other words, they suck more!

  ;D

LOL  I don't remember how this discussion got started, but in one of my college classes a Creationist/ID'er stood up and made some "moving" ( ::)) speech about how creationism/ID "is our science." and how those of us who believe in evolution "are clinging to our own religion".  About half of the class exploded in applause. I proved that I can be a dick if you catch me in the right mood by standing up and replying something along the lines of "Now I understand the problem!  Creationists obviously just have a couple of words mixed up in their head!  They think that their religion is science, and that science is religion.  Just switch those two words around, and I think we'll all agree...."  The other half of the room laughed.  The teacher yelled at me for not respecting my fellow students.  Good times.

Firebird

  • Taste's like chicken
  • Touched by His Noodly Appendage
  • *****
  • Posts: 2753
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2012, 03:35:52 PM »

These are the reasons I dislike IDers more than the simple Creationists. They distort the parts of evolutionary theory, physics, chemistry, and geology that they can't outright refute. They change definitions of everything from science itself to what constitutes life. They cherry pick things that can support their modified definitions of evolution and use those to hide behind their agenda, which simply leads back to the bible as ultimate source of truth.

In other words, they suck more!

  ;D

LOL  I don't remember how this discussion got started, but in one of my college classes a Creationist/ID'er stood up and made some "moving" ( ::)) speech about how creationism/ID "is our science." and how those of us who believe in evolution "are clinging to our own religion".  About half of the class exploded in applause. I proved that I can be a dick if you catch me in the right mood by standing up and replying something along the lines of "Now I understand the problem!  Creationists obviously just have a couple of words mixed up in their head!  They think that their religion is science, and that science is religion.  Just switch those two words around, and I think we'll all agree...."  The other half of the room laughed.  The teacher yelled at me for not respecting my fellow students.  Good times.

Love it!
"Great, replace one book about an abusive, needy asshole with another." - Will (moderator) on replacing hotel Bibles with "Fifty Shades of Grey"

Stevil

  • Simian Provocateur
  • Blessing Her Holy Hooves
  • *****
  • Posts: 4498
  • My mind is a blank canvas
Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2012, 06:18:58 PM »
ID is a position reliant on scientific ignorance. ID was created by theistic organisations as a "psuedo scientific" response to the threat presented by the continued advancements in scientific knowledge.
The scientific method is accepted by the common person as a very reliable and sound method of discovery and hence source of knowledge.
ID is meant to disrupt that trust and to get people to be skeptical of scientific knowledge, to allow believers to see a place for god despite the science.