What I believe is the most serious defect in Intelligent Design as a scientific theory
While I believe in the sanctity of Friday Prayer Blogging, I want to take advantage of Hefe's time here.On Wednesday, Hefe said, "But intelligent design’s strong point is that it is falsifiable. The ID claim is there is no unintelligent process that could produce an irreducibly complex system. All you have to do is create ONE unintelligent process that can create such a system."
I disagree with that statement. Let me show you how:
1. Intelligent Design (ID) believes that some things in nature are so complex that they are a mathematical impossibility to have arisen through random chance.
2. Intelligent Design proponents say that opponents can disprove their theory by showing random chance generating a complex structure.
3. I offered evidence an experiment that showed an e.coli virus spontaneously generate a gene needed to metabolize sugar
4. I was told that change wasn’t complex enough
5. What would it take to disprove ID? Something more complex than that, I was told.
6. How complex? I ask.
7. Something so complex that it is mathematically impossible to happen.
8. Therefore, I could offer NOTHING as counter-evidence because if it happened, then it would be possible and not meet the ID required standard
9. ID has defined the level of counter-example to an impossible standard.
10. It can’t be proven false.
11. It isn’t a scientific theory.
A concrete example:
Let us take the glorious human eye as an example. I will set out to create an experiment to reproduce the eye, in its entirety, through random chance.
The ID proponent says to me, “You can’t. It's mathematically impossible.”
I would say, “Then, I can’t possible provide the counter example you say will disprove your argument.”
Seeing that I was undercutting his assertion that ID was falsifiable and thereby the entire theory, the ID proponent might backtrack and say, “Well it is possible, but it is a very slim chance.”
I would reply, “If you grant it is possible, then that undercuts ID’s assertion that isn’t possible (i.e. mathematically impossible) and, with incredibly small odds, evolution could explain the human eye.”
Since by its very definition ID can't be reproduced in any scientific format, that leaves us simply with faith. Gurufrisbee and Hefe (myself and MoLak too) look at the incredibly long odds against our existence and believe that God made us as we are. Evolutionists look at the incredibly long odds against our existence and believe that random chance made us as we are.
In the end we are left with evolution as a valid scientific theory combined with a belief system versus ID, which is just a belief system. I know which one I want taught in a science classroom.
posted by Expat Teacher @ 10:40 PM
