There aren’t three major theories regarding the development of species. There is one scientific theory (evolution) that is supported by evidence and an overwhelming number of biologists and science educators. And then there are several non-scientific myths that are put forward by any number of different relgious groups.
One of the non-scientific ideas about speciation (intelligent design) appears to be constructed intentionally to mislead lay people into believing that it is valid science. This means that it is difficult and time consuming for a secondary school science teacher to present these ideas alongside evolutionary theory in a way that enables the students to understand exactly why intelligent design is not scientific and not valid. This wastes valuable classroom time that could be spent studying the real thing.
If I was a biology teacher and I was forced to teach Intelligent Design, I think I’d advance the hypothesis that we were designed by advanced aliens. Really, how can that be disproved? I’d say there’s no scientific evidence of God, but there is evidence of other planets in the galaxy and they may hold life.
Milo, could you define why intelligent design is non-scientific? I teach science primarily as a method of knowledge, not a category. Intelligent design appears capable of being tested by the scientific method – it has theoretical arguments and empirical evidence, and uses induction to generate support for its theoretical arguments from real-world data.
I have a number of criticisms of intelligent design (ID), the main one being that it’s less adequate as a theory of development, relative to evolution. Evolution should be the only theory taught in 90% of high school classes, given the time constraints of a typical curriculum; I could see including a discussion of ID in advanced classes, as an example of choosing between competing theories. But I don’t view ID as non-scientific, because many of its predictions are capable of being tested using the scientific method.
Note that I also view astrology and paranormal phenomena as being able to be tested using the scientific method. These theories are all terrible at predicting what adherents claim, but they can certainly be tested using scientific methodology.
I was going to say the ID is non-scientific because it does not make any testable, falsifiable predictions, and that it lacks explanatory power.
ID is based on the claim that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved through random mutation plus natural selection. This claim is not falsifiable, because it reduces to “there is at least one biological system in at least one organism that cannot be explained by evolution.” The only way to prove this negative is to provide a detailed evolutionary explanation for every system in every species, even the species we haven’t discovered yet along with all the species that went extinct before we could discover them.
Since you are saying exactly the opposite, I invite you to list some of the testable predictions that are made by the “theory” of intelligent design. Please pay special attention to the parts of the theory that provide tests for determining whether or not something was “designed by intelligence”.
I’ve read a fair amount on ID (including a couple of books, whose titles escape me), and the chain of reasoning (far as I could tell) came down to:
ID and evolution are the only two explanations for the development of life.
Evolution is false because of a, b, c…
Therefore, ID must be true.
But claim 1 is at best problematic, so most proofs of ID actually come down to proving that evolution is false, not that ID is true. That’s not science–you don’t prove your claim by knocking down another claim, you prove your claim by showing that there’s actual evidence for it.
One thing I never hear ID supporters talk about is the production method. Deisgning a species is one thing, then you have to build the damn thing out of … atoms, I guess. It seems like that should be a major part of ID as science.
It’s even worse than that. Not only is ID’s prediction a negative conjecture, it is a negative conjecture about something that cannot be measured! Even if one could provide an exhaustive catalog of the evolution of all forms of life, an ID apologist simply claims that a particular explanation is not satisfactory - and how can you rationally define “insufficient explanatory power”? That’s why the ID often makes an appeal to a lack of imagination, with arguments that begin, “I simply cannot believe that X occurred.”
I don’t pretend to be an expert on ID, but here are a few predictions as I interpret the theory.
General Theory: Things created by intelligent entities exhibit specific properties not found in things created by natural or random (non-intelligent) forces. Some of these properties include:
a) subsystems characterized by irreducible complexity (IC; specific definitions of IC are given by Dembski & Behe in their writings)
b) patterns of information that are both complex & specified (mathematical terms defined by Dembski)
Testable Hypotheses
Biological systems should exist that exhibit irreducible complexity.
Irreducibly complex systems should be observable in multiple species of living organisms.
Irreducibly complex systems should exist at various levels of biological development. (Ed note: I’m sure my wording is poor here – I mean you should see it at the level of proteins and at the level of organs)
Biological systems should contain patterns of information that exhibit complexity and specificity.
Complexity and specificity should be observable across multiple species and at multiple levels of biological development.
To me, all of these hypotheses are testable, because terms like IC and “specificity” have been operationally defined. They are also reasonably falsifiable – if someone randomly selects 200 protein chains and finds no more complexity and specificity than would be expected by chance, that’s powerful lack of support for the claims of intelligent design.
All the conceptual arguments for why evolutionary theory can still account for the claims of ID without requiring an intelligent designer (arguments with which I agree) show lack of discriminant conceptual validity for ID. This is an important issue, but an entirely separate question from the ability of ID’s claims to be tested using the scientific method. While some hypotheses that flow from ID may involve the untenable position of proving the negative, I believe I’ve provided some claims that can be tested using science. I believe we can use the scientific method to illustrate why ID is less plausible than evolution, while I interpret most posters here to believe that ID is non-testable.
I don’t think they’re testable; getting a straight answer on what’s “irreducably complex” from those guys is near-impossible.
Edit: and come to think of it, they used to pull the same trick with transitional fossils. No matter who frickin’ clearly it showed a transition, they insisted that was already clearly a new species.
OK, I guess this returns to my original statement that ID is intentionally designed to give the appearance of using the scientific method without actually doing so.
All the conceptual arguments for why evolutionary theory can still account for the claims of ID without requiring an intelligent designer (arguments with which I agree) show lack of discriminant conceptual validity for ID. This is an important issue, but an entirely separate question from the ability of ID’s claims to be tested using the scientific method.
Here, I guess I have to disagree. If a new theory only makes predictions that are already predictions of (or are simply consistent with) an existing theory, the new theory is not falsifiable. You are willing to separate testability from discrimination, but I see discrimination as the whole point of testability.
Here’s an example. I have a new theory of speciation called “It Just Happened That Way.” In my new theory, natural selection plays no role. Of course, some organisms are born and die before they can reproduce, but this does not have any real impact on the development of the genome. My theory predicts that:
Some organisms will be born
Some will die
Some will reproduce and pass on their genes, others won’t
Sometimes there will be random mutations
Sometimes, the mutations will be harmful, other times they will not
Scientists will continue to discover new species
Sometimes, all the members of a species will happen to die out
All of those are testable, right?
Due to random chance alone, speciation occurred exactly as evolution would also happen to predict. Because, hey, it could have Just Happened That Way. Clearly my theory is better than evolution because while it has equal predictive power, my theory is more parsimonious.
The term “irreducible complexity” is defined by Behe as:
“a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning” (Michael Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference)
Read any of their books, websites, pamphlets, etc. It isn’t even remotely difficult to get their defintion of “irreducably complex”. And they’ve really latched on to about 8 or 10 specific examples as well (blood clotting chemistry and the flagellum of the bacterium are the two that come to mind).
Read any of their books, websites, pamphlets, etc. It isn’t even remotely difficult to get their defintion of “irreducably complex”. And they’ve really latched on to about 8 or 10 specific examples as well (blood clotting chemistry and the flagellum of the bacterium are the two that come to mind).[/quote]
Talkorigins is so awesome. One time I was going to write a research paper on Creationism/ID being taught in public schools, but then I didn’t because every single citation would have been from that site.
Your theory has elements that can be tested using the scientific method as I’m defining it. Some of your hypotheses are not scientific as stated, but they can be easily reformulated. To be amenable to scientific testing, a hypothesis must be both testable – able to verified in the real-world by trained observers – and falsifiable – stated in a way that allows the hypothesis to be confirmed or disconfirmed. (Link to guidelines for good hypotheses – scroll down to Hypothesis for Empirical Research)
All your hypotheses are testable. A statement like “Evil spirits that are not observable or detectable to anyone cause random mutations” would fail the testability criterion.
The “some/sometimes” in your hypotheses creates problems with falsifiability. For example, assuming that at least one creature reproduces (providing support for hypothesis 1), you will always confirm hypothesis 3, because both passing and not passing on genes shows support as currently written. A testable, falsifiable version of hypothesis 3 would be:
In the current sample, genes will be passed on to the offspring at least 75% of time
As I said above, all of your hypotheses could be rewritten to incorporate falsifiability.
Due to random chance alone, speciation occurred exactly as evolution would also happen to predict. Because, hey, it could have Just Happened That Way. Clearly my theory is better than evolution because while it has equal predictive power, my theory is more parsimonious.
Is my theory more or less scientific that ID?
Once you rewrite your hypotheses, you have a theory that can be tested using the scientific method. It is just as amenable to testing as ID. As with all theories, your Just Happened That Way (JHTW) theory will then be evaluated for conceptual and empirical validity. Add cultural-personal validation to taste, depending on your appetite for post-modernism.
While JHTW is preferable to evolutionary theory on the single conceptual criterion of parsimony, it fails in many other conceptual areas. For example, it has little conceptual overlap with other well-supported theories in related areas. Its hypotheses don’t logically flow from its theoretical premises. Hell, it lacks a clear statement of its theoretical premise. It accounts for no new predictions over and above that of a current theory with excellent conceptual, empirical, and cultural validation (cultural validation may vary in rural Pennsylvania and the deep South).
I assume your theory would have empirical support, but it would be subject to criticism on the grounds of utility. JHTW appears to have no applications to solve world problems. In contrast, some of the empirical evidence for evolution might suggest growing bacteria cultures in hopes of finding a random beneficial mutation that can be used for bio-medical research.
I am forced to conclude that while JHTW is testable using the scientific method and appears adequate to explain speciation, it is neither as conceptually robust or empirically useful as the currently accepted theory of evolution. We thank you for your interest in exploring biology, and will keep your theory on file should openings occur in the future.
If intelligent design is to be taught in high schools, and I don’t think it should be except in advanced college prep courses, this is how it should be presented. Illustrate the power of the scientific method in separating less useful theories from more useful ones.
The term “irreducible complexity” is defined by Behe as:
“a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning” (Michael Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference)[/quote]
The existence of “irreducible complexity”, as defined here, is not incompatible with evolution. Therefore, it is not an indicator of intelligent design.
Not at all, since it’s totally invalid. We don’t teach our children about the “ether” theory of outer space or the "“humour” theory of disease. And there’s a reason for that. ID was invented expressly to put a scientific-sounding suit on creationism. Taking it seriously is foolish.
I’d say that’s the only way this should even be mentioned - not as something together with evolution, but as say a day or two of “here’s how science shouldn’t be.”
I’ve never heard of anything being taught like that, though, and it would be nice to see. I’ve gotten into so many arguments lately because people refuse to understand the definition of theory…“nuh uh, gravity isn’t a theory!” It’s sad how few people understand these things on a fundamental level.
