On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Dennis L. Durst wrote:
> Tom,
> I can't think of one example to disprove Intelligent Design for
> the same reason that you can't think of one example to disprove macro-
> evolution. Both ID and macro-evolution are theories, and assertions
> operating at the broad theoretical level are not simply falsified
> by a single factual anomaly. J.P. Moreland addresses this in his
> critique of falsificationism in his _Christianity and the Nature of
> Science_:
>
Okay, to make it easier for you, give me one example of something in this
universe that is or would be inconsistent with ID. I can give lots of
problems that would seriously damage "macro" evolution, including:
Precambrian humans, or Dinosaurs, or Hippos..
Evidence that shows the geologic record was improperly constructed.
experimental evidence of a process that could look like evolution, but isn't.
etc.
Taken together, this could disprove evolution easily. Now, how about one
thing inconstistent with ID? Remember, for what I'd accept for it to be
valid, there can be no potential for an ID'er to have designed or created
whatever you hypothesize.
> ". . . the farther one goes up the scale toward the more general end,
> the harder it is to falsify the relevant scientific theory. In fact,
> some scientific research programs like physicalism or a committment to
> absolutism regarding space and time are virtually impossible to
> falsify, for one can always readjust them, often in appropriate ways,
> to avoid falsification. Put another way, broad scientific research
> programs approach the status of general world views. Now, world
> views can be falsified in principle, at least some of them can
> (if the resurrection of Jesus is falsified then Christian theism
> is false), but doing so is very difficult because their epistemic
> support is so multifaceted." (p. 34)
>
> ID theory and macro-evolutionism are both metaphysical faith-
> systems, and neither is going to be simply falsified. But since
> falsification cannot be proven to be a necessary and sufficient
> condition of scientific rationality, the "unfalsifiabilty" of
> ID theory does not undermine its theoretical value.
Macroevolution is potentially fasifiable. It takes more than one line of
evidence to do so, just as it takes more that one line of evidence to
support it. But I question if ID is even _potentially_ falsifiable.
Once you invoke a supernatural designer, if that's what you're doing,
anything and everything that exists is designable. As I mentioned to
Jim, if you believe in God and that he created the universe, you must
believe everything is, in fact, designed. So, this leads me to ask, what
is it's theoretical value? It may have validity as a theological point,
but then it's rather redundant isn't it?
So I have to ask: Does it explain the data? No. If the implication
buried in ID is really that everything is designed, then no matter what
the data show, ID would work (not true of evolution, btw, but is true of
atheism).
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to belittle theological beliefs. I
think if you want to believe in ID, that's fine, since if you believe in
a god you'd have to at some level. But it doesn't explain anything, by
itself anyway. That's why progressive creation, theistic evolution, YEC,
and all those other related things are around - they have data they must
explain, whereas ID strikes me as code for "belief in God," which is
generally redunant.
So, I bet you will not be able to think of a single example that would
even be inconsistent with ID. I can do so for macro-evolution, and can
potentially disprove it if enough contrary evidence is found. Anything
regarding origins can also invoke ID, including macro-evolution. Even if
everyone in the world wakes up and suddenly realize christianity is false
(just an example - not arguing that it is false) ID is still valid.
Jim's beach rocks could be designed - in fact, an example is a man-made
lake where they droped rocks around the beach on purpose - and that's
human activity, let alone an "ID" that can create the universe.
Well, I ranted. I hope the discussion above didn't offend anyone. I
hope this brings a general discussion of ID in general. Maybe clarify
some issues along the way.
Tom