Happy Atheist forum

Religion => Creationism/Intelligent Design => Topic started by: Ali on April 04, 2012, 02:02:31 AM

Title: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
Post by: Ali on April 04, 2012, 02:02:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
Post by: Asherah on April 04, 2012, 03:01:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
Post by: Stevil on April 04, 2012, 05:33:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
Post by: xSilverPhinx on April 04, 2012, 07:26:42 AM
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Title: Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
Post by: Tank on April 04, 2012, 08:04:36 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.
Title: Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
Post by: Ali on April 04, 2012, 03:16:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
Post by: DeterminedJuliet on April 04, 2012, 03:48:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
Post by: Ali on April 04, 2012, 03:53:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
Post by: Whitney on April 05, 2012, 03:28:54 AM
The short answer is no; ID is inherently unscientific because it hinges on (an attempt at) shoving "intelligent designer" into gaps in scientific knowledge.
Title: Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
Post by: ThinkAnarchy on April 05, 2012, 03:36:41 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?

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...

Title: Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
Post by: xSilverPhinx on April 05, 2012, 04:20:44 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


Title: Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
Post by: McQ on April 05, 2012, 03:18:19 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




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
Title: Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
Post by: Ali on April 05, 2012, 03:58:49 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.
Title: Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
Post by: Firebird on April 05, 2012, 11:35:52 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!
Title: Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
Post by: Stevil on April 06, 2012, 02:18:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
Post by: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2012, 06:37:09 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

If you haven't already watched it, and find yourself with nothing better to do or have the urge to loose a few neurons, watch documentaries on the Dover Trial. One interesting part is when they cross questioned Michael Behe himself and he ended up twisting the definition of 'science' to even apply to things like astrology and numerology. Needless to say he didn't score points for his side with that, especially considering the context - their arguments for teaching ID in science classrooms were that ID is just as much science as physics, chemistry, biology...astrology ::)

It's all very odd because he's a trained biologist. ??? I wonder what went wrong for him to suddenly go all creationist. ??? 
Title: Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
Post by: Tank on April 06, 2012, 06:42:30 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.

*applauds lots and lots*
Title: Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
Post by: ablprop on April 22, 2012, 02:28:46 PM
I've wasted more time than I care to think about trying to convince creationists, intelligent designers, what have you, that evolution actually makes sense, that the world really is 13.7 billion years old, and all the rest. But David Deutsch gave an argument in The Beginning of Infinity that showed me how I'd been wasting my time.

Science, according to Deutsch, is the search for good explanations. A good explanation is one that fits all the known evidence and also, crucially, is hard to vary. Quite simply, supernatural explanations are always bad explanations because they are infinitely easy to vary. If they're not infinitely easy to vary, then they're not supernatural.
Title: Re: Is there any actual scientific evidence that supports ID?
Post by: Squid on April 22, 2012, 05:38:30 PM
The whole ID thing is actually pretty sneaky.  You present arguments that superficially seem to make sense, back that up with just enough "science" to dazzle the public at large and then you have "scientific" proof which supports the old religious frameworks.  The challenge is not having the empricial backing to show ID is incorrect or that evolutionary theory is well supported - the challenge is communicating the message to the public itself.  You can sit and talk about secretory systems and exaptation of flagella and most people will become disinterested within a few seconds.  The challenge to science literacy communication is having an adequate medium which is easily digested by the masses to the point of understanding.

ID starts with a basis that many people are already familiar with and indirectly associates itself with beliefs that many people hold as very personal.  To say that something like the eyeball is so complex that the only explanation is that some vague "designer" (a generic term which most people will nearly automatically associate with a deity due to heuristic thinking) is responsible.  At the same time, using a strawman to paint evolution as some chaotic, completely random process similar to building a house by throwing all the needed materials into a pile.  Like I said, quite sneaky. It's the same basic thing as old timey creationism just replace the overt religion with something that resembles science but isn't.

I remember I wrote a short (because the editors limited me to about 750 words) guest article in a local newspaper about the evolution/ID thing and I remember the wonderful comments I received online which most amounted to disgust, accusing me of being a "godless atheist" like it's something bad, telling me to read the Bible (which I have...twice - two different versions), thinking I'm smarter than I really am and wanting to "play scientist" (I suppose unless I have a doctorate in evolutionary biology AND Christian theology it's impossible for me to make an informed statement) and the always patronizing "I'll pray for you".  Pretty much every person commenting missed the entire point of my article.