ProTheism

In response to a claim that creationism and ID are unfalsifiable and therefore “not science”, I left the below comment. I though I would post it here as well:

The Designer is not falsifiable per se (I’ll agree). However, creationism makes falsifiable claims. There is more to creationism than “God created the heavens and earth.” When you say that creationism is “not falsifiable”, it comes off (on my end) as a blanket statement. I see it all the time. “Creationism is not falsifiable” on the one hand, but on the other “creationism is demonstrably false” It sounds schizophrenic (CS is simultaneously unfalsifiable and falsified).

Creationism is filled with assumptions that can be tested. However, on both sides of the fence, there are theories that are abstract; they are general concepts that by no means be tested directly. Moreover, only predictions about the physical world which can be drawn from the theory can actually be subjected to test or experimentation. This puts God out of the field of testability and thus He is un-falsifiable in relation to direct scientific detection.

Another thing is that falsification seems to be inappropriately used as this transcendent line of demarcation. However, scientific theories are typically integrated into a much larger framework of presuppositions (via philosophical) and assumptions that not only entice conclusions, but ultimate characteristics of any given theory.

Evolution has its issues as well. When all else fails, evolutionist appeal to the unknown, and even unknowable naturalistic causes that science has not yet discovered, and in reality may never discover.

However, if I may note, saying that creationism is “not science” is used as more of a type of ad hom toward creationism and a semantic smokescreen that tends to demote it’s merits before even engaging the issue. It’s a sneaky way to poison the well. In addition, if creationism can't be falsified, then no possible fact or event could count as evidence against creationism. It would follow, then, that Darwinian evolution does not falsify creationism. However, they make contradictory claims.

Take for example Intelligent Design Theory. ID theorists propose that some features of biological organisms are irreducibly complex; Darwinists (in the complete naturalistic sense), however, deny that any are irreducibly complex. Ipso facto, this contradistinction alone denotes that ID theory can be falsifiable by showing X biological organism are not irreducibly complex. Darwinists contend that there are no irreducibly complex organisms and thus ID’s claim is false. However, if that claim is false, then it is falsifiable; therefore, if ID theorists propose what is possibly a false claim, it is open to falsification. Thus, evidence for Darwinism is evidence against creationism and ID theory and evidence for creation or ID theory is evidence against Darwinism.

We have falsifiable propositions either way, thus, we have theories that are open to falsification.

Labels: Darwinism, Design, Evolution, Science

Bear with me here: I can keep this simple.

An architect needs design a building according to specifications. Read: laws of physics. More often than not, the building itself will go upwards. The shape of said building can vary widely, but it would be a foolish builder indeed, to hoist a skyscraper into the sky in the shape of a sail (especially in, say, Chicago, the windy city). It could be done, theoretically, but the cost would be enormous. There are of course other factors brought into consideration: cost, materials, foundation (location, location, location is apparently not restricted to retailers), earthquake safety regulations (in any area prone to such variables), etc.

But of course, the law of gravity comes first.

Everything about this example is certainly true; but RA, seems to fail to make the distinctions I made above and is equivocating natural and supernatural creation, the crux of the teleological argument

The point here is simple enough: every watch made by a human is restricted by the same laws the creator of said device is prone to. Heat, leverage, gravity (have I mentioned gravity yet? Sorry), pressure, in short, long laundry lists of physical law. Oh, and of course, time.

Labels: Apologetics, Atheism, Atheology, Design, Philosophy, Science, Skepticism

"Very simply, science employs induction to develop theories about how the natural world works. We make observations and draw conclusions. Darwin did this on his trip to the Galapagos Islands and his conclusion was the theory of evolution that has since become the reigning paradigm in science. In the very same way, intelligent design employs inductive reasoning. Observing cases in the natural world that appear irreducibly complex and designed, some scientists conclude that there is a designer. It’s the same method used in science every day. Based on that, I think ID should be taught as a rival explanatory theory in public schools."

"Now, religion only comes in when we try to determine the nature of the designer. That extends beyond the evidence science provides. We might get some clues, but who the designer is belongs in the realm of religion. But this isn’t what proponents of ID want to teach. We only want the science to be taught."

"As it stands now with no rival theories in public schools, a philosophical or pseudo-religious point of view is implicitly part of the curriculum because evolution as a random, purposeless process is explicitly naturalistic or, we might even say, atheistic."If the same process of induction can lead to a rival theory that isn’t allowed to be taught in public schools, the exclusion is a result of religion or philosophy, not science."

Labels: Design, Science

With Intelligent Design (ID) now in the courtroom, numerous opponents of ID are attempting to discredit it by calling it a “religious” argument. Calling ID “religious” is a dirty trick which tries to evade the issue of whether or not it is a scientific method or has any scientific merit. Just because ID happens to support a certain theological view point, does not mean it is objectionable. Calling ID “religious” does not discount scientific methodology.

First, you can call ID “religious” all you want, but it accomplishes nothing. It’s the equivalent of calling it a “Swiss cheese sandwich”; it means nothing. The question regarding ID should be, “Is it scientific?”

The ACLU seems to have already concluded their analysis. This is what they have to say about ID:

…the ACLU is leading the legal challenge against the activists and political lobbyists who are attempting to insert their personal religious beliefs into science education, as if it were science. By trying to use governments to give the prestigious label of “science” to their beliefs, these activists are misleading children and parents and endanger religious freedom for all Americans.

“Intelligent design” is a pseudo-science that has been repudiated by every leading scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences. Each of these organizations asserts that the ideas promoted by ID advocates lack any scientific merit and that their claims cannot be supported by scientific research.

The ACLU holds nothing back, and is far from shy on expressing their position on ID. In fact, they seem quit hostile toward ID. But notice, however, that they say, “[ID is]... attempting to insert their personal religious beliefs into science education”. How does ID do this? At best, ID infers some type of Designer (could even be an alien), and maybe Deism, but not Theism. Secondly, this ignores Dembski’s Explanatory Filter which is currently being used in science already.

For example, take NASA's SETI program, which seeks to identify the presence of extra- terrestrial life, and how statisticians and computer scientists distinguish random from non-random strings of digits. This can be exemplified in the movie Contact. In the movie Contact the SETI researchers found the prime numbers from 2 to 101, where a given prime number is represented by the corresponding number of beats (i.e., 1’s), and the individual prime numbers are separated by pauses (i.e., 0’s). The SETI researchers in Contact took this signal as decisive confirmation of an extraterrestrial intelligence; but why?

What is it about this signal that decisively indicates design? Whenever we infer design, we must establish two things—complexity and specification. Complexity ensures that the object in question is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance. Specification ensures that this object exhibits the type of pattern that is the trademark of intelligence (hence, Explanatory Filter).

Here is what the SETI Institute had to say about what scientists have to say about their program:

For more than forty years, SETI science has received the highest seal of approval available to astronomy-related science. Every ten years, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences produces a decadal report of the priorities for astronomy and astrophysics. SETI has been repeatedly endorsed in each review. The most recent report (the reviews occur once every ten years), released in 2000 and covering the period 2000-2010, was particularly clear in its praise of the Allen Telescope Array and its potential, noting that "SETI research demands continued development of innovative technology and approaches, " and describing the ATA (at the time referred to as 1Ht) as … [the Allen Telescope Array] is "a good example of such an innovative approach," that "will pioneer new radio techniques."

According to SETI, they have received “the highest seal of approval” in science. However, why is the same methodology used in ID, considered not science—and who gets to decide? This shows that science in not driven by just methodology, but philosophy. Also, this also shows that philosophy—trumps the method in science. I will admit that I am not fully informed on all the aspects of ID (yet I have a reasonable grasp) and I am not a scientist; it would take some time to study the subject to its fullest. Nevertheless, let’s scrap the dirty little tricks and just concentrate on whether ID is science or not.

Labels: Design, Science