Is IDism part of science?

[harvey1]

As many know, there is an on-going court case regarding the constitutionality of including a reference to Intelligent Design in the science curriculum of the Dover Area School District (Pennsylvania). My stance is that it is not unconstitutional for ID to be referenced as a scientific alternative explanation to natural selection. I don't see how anyone could argue that this is a religious position.

So, my question is, why do you think (or not think) that references to IDism should be forbidden given that there are no known scientific processes to account for many evolutionary features of the natural world?

(Just as clarification, I personally don't think IDism is correct, but I don't see it as a threat to evolutionary science like some of you do.)

[McCulloch]

I would agree with you if someone could show me that ID was the result of legitimate scientific investigation. If scientists, using the best information available, without bias came to the the conclusion that ID had a significant probability of being correct and that ID made specific testable predictions that have been shown to be accurate, then it should be referenced as a scientific alternative explanation to natural selection.

[harvey1]

I would agree with you if someone could show me that ID was the result of legitimate scientific investigation. If scientists, using the best information available, without bias came to the the conclusion that ID had a significant probability of being correct and that ID made specific testable predictions that have been shown to be accurate, then it should be referenced as a scientific alternative explanation to natural selection.

I think IDism can provide specific testable predictions. For example, an asteroid hitting the earth causing an extinction faced similar scrutiny, however science was able to get around this problem by finding a rare element in high percentages within the K-T boundary layer (i.e., iridium), along with a crater having rocks dated to the K-T boundary. Why is such a possible trail not feasible for IDism?

Instead of looking for rare materials, or craters, the evidence that you would need to find would be signatures that only an advanced lifeform could leave. Unfortunately, we don't yet know what signatures besides the complexity itself which would identify an intelligent designer(s) at work, but this is what justifies it as a reference within a scientific curriculum. I see nothing that would forbid science from finding such signatures. In the meantime, why forbid this option as a scientific possibility just because there are naturalists who don't hold that particular philosophy?

[juliod]

why do you think (or not think) that references to IDism should be forbidden given that there are no known scientific processes to account for many evolutionary features of the natural world?

ID is only traditional creationism with the word "god" removed. That's all there is too it.

No actual scientist has come up with evidence of "design" in any field. Nor is "design", intelligent or otherwise, a feature of any actual scientific theory. So to teach it in school would be eggregiously in error.

And I am unaware of any current area of research where "design" appears to be even a reasonable possability.

ID is merely a political tool. It exists merely to get creationism into the public schools. Even creationists don't talk about ID, outside the political context.

DanZ

[juliod]

I think IDism can provide specific testable predictions.

That's true. But the point is that no proponent of ID has actually looked at it like that. It's just ordinary creationism: automatically true or else you hate Jesus.

DanZ

[harvey1]

That's true. But the point is that no proponent of ID has actually looked at it like that. It's just ordinary creationism: automatically true or else you hate Jesus.

Well, you certainly follow the debate more than I. However, from the limited amount that I read, it seems as though they are your non-creationist types who do care about science. Can you provide references to support your statement? I would be curious to see some of their extremist views in print.

[harvey1]

No actual scientist has come up with evidence of "design" in any field.

In terms of high intelligence this is true, but sexual selection and even group selection strategies are based on biological intelligence bringing about a kind of design in evolutionary processes, right?

Nor is "design", intelligent or otherwise, a feature of any actual scientific theory. So to teach it in school would be eggregiously in error.

I would agree that teaching it in any lengthy matter would be in violation of the scientific establishment, and therefore constitutionally in error since students have a right to be taught science in science classes. What I'm saying, though, is that IDism as a reference of possible alternate explanations is not harmful. I think, though, that with all the publicity on the subject that excluding references can be harmful to science. For example, it might lead to larger numbers than just the creationist populace to feel ostracized by the education of their kids, and that is not in the longterm interest of science.

creationists don't talk about ID, outside the political context.

Dan, I think you're mixing up two different groups. The biblical creationists aren't in favor of IDism because they are basing their views solely on their particular biblical interpretations. The IDers aren't generally literalists when it comes to biblical interpetation. Many of them do not feel theologically compelled to reject evolutionary theory.

[palmera]

The problem with Intelligent Design is that it presumes what it is trying to prove. This is not science. Science does not start with a premise and try to work backwards to prove what they've already assumed. Science starts with observations then uses the scientific method to reach a testable and falsifiable theory. ID cannot do this because it presumes an intelligent being created the earth designing everything in it. ID, though it is not creationism, is an offshoot rooted in that religious belief. ID is not science. It is a belief attempting to gather empirical evidence to support what it already assumes is the reality; therefore it cannot be referenced as science, or an alternative science, because it is not.

[harvey1]

The problem with Intelligent Design is that it presumes what it is trying to prove. This is not science. Science does not start with a premise and try to work backwards to prove what they've already assumed. Science starts with observations then uses the scientific method to reach a testable and falsifiable theory. ID cannot do this because it presumes an intelligent being created the earth designing everything in it. ID, though it is not creationism, is an offshoot rooted in that religious belief. ID is not science. It is a belief attempting to gather empirical evidence to support what it already assumes is the reality; therefore it cannot be referenced as science, or an alternative science, because it is not.

How is an explanation that relies on an extraterrestrial involvement in the history of earth's natural environment an affirmation of the consequent? Are you saying it is impossible for an extraterrestrial intelligence to influence the direction and complexity of life? That seems to be your position. I don't see why it would be impossible for life to be influenced by extraterrestrial intelligence.

The basis for IDism, if I understand it correctly, is that natural processes on earth cannot explain natural history on earth, therefore we must look to extraterrestrial involvement (e.g., extraterrestial biological intelligence, extraterrestrial cyber intelligence, or possibly even an extraterrestrial intelligence outside the universe itself). The argument is that if we eliminate natural earth-born sources of complexity, then we must turn to non-earth-born sources of complexity. Why is that in principle off the mark?

[micatala]

Well, you certainly follow the debate more than I. However, from the limited amount that I read, it seems as though they are your non-creationist types who do care about science. Can you provide references to support your statement? I would be curious to see some of their extremist views in print.

A good reference on the background and history of ID is Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. It documents the motivations of main proponents and funders of ID and the Discovery Institute. Jonathan Wells, in particular, is motivated by his 'Moonie' beliefs. It is true that not all of the proponents are young-earth creationists, but I think it is fair to say that they are largely all against evolution, and this is due to their religious and generally creationist beliefs.

Now, this does not in and of itself mean ID is false, but given that it is definitely not anywhere close to being accepted or even entertained as a legitimate hypothesis within the mainstream scientific community, it does not belong in a high school classroom, at least not in a science classroom, except as digression or an example of non-science.

I would not say that putting bad science in the classroom is unconstitutional, however, and this is partly why, I think, the constitutional religious issue is being raised. It is also being raised because of the history of this issue (coming out of previous creationism cases) and the documented background of those who are proponents of ID.