Questions I would like Intelligent Design Proponents to Answer

[Wowbagger]

This is a response, mostly, to this old article: http://www.uncommondescent.com/comment-policy/put-a-sock-in-it/


I would like to stick some I.D. proponents with some good "stumpers" not included in their list (or repeat the ones not adequately answered).

Here are just a few I have collected, so far:

How can I.D. be applied to medical science, to help us fight diseases?
How come the proponents of I.D. are incapable of using it as a framework to solve any real scientific problem, for that matter?

If Evolution was all a hoax, then how come those actively using it in fields such as medical research, agriculture, animal conservation, oil drilling, and organic materials research, etc. seem to think it is a real science? How they are the ones publishing new, innovative results, and not you?

Why is Evolution powerful enough to change what I.D. proponents think, over time. But, I.D. is not powerful enough to change what Evolution proponents think?

Where is the evidence that a Designer exists?
Why are you acting like the question is not even important, if you are going to claim you are doing science?

Why are certain characteristics of designed products absent in most life forms, such as detachable and easily replaceable parts, or "maker" labels, for example?

Why do ID proponents tend to define their terms in non-empirical or non-falsifiable ways?
If I were to claim that the "deducing of an Intelligent Designer" was nothing more than a type of paredolia phenomenon, how could you demonstrate otherwise?

Why do so many ID proponents often (but not always) get scientific concepts wrong, such as junk DNA, macroevolution, thermodynamics, Big Bang Theory, and the whole concept of Natural Selection, etc.?
How come so little effort is made to "do your homework, and "know your enemy" better, before debating these issues on scientific grounds?

Any comments or suggestions for additions?

[Perpetual Student]

This is a response, mostly, to this old article: http://www.uncommondescent.com/comment-policy/put-a-sock-in-it/
...
Where is the evidence that a Designer exists?
Why are you acting like the question is not even important, if you are going to claim you are doing science?
...
Any comments or suggestions for additions?

In my view, that's the biggest question of all. IDers apply a deep scepticism and demand totally irrefutable evidence for every aspect of evolution, but simply wave their collective hands when asked for evidence of a designer. It demonstrates a lack of intellectual honesty, IMHO.

[thull]

"If tomorrow ID replaced evolution as the standard theory taught and used across all scientific fields, how would humans benefit in the days and years to come?"

Another question to add, which may be a bit too leading as "ID is a science" and of course will greatly enhance all our understanding of the natural world and its history.

I really can't believe i read the whole list of Q&A in the link. Which to sum up was: I find the question faulty by design, so my answer will have very little to do with it.

[Lennart Hyland]

If Evolution was all a hoax, then how come those actively using it in fields such as medical research, agriculture, animal conservation, oil drilling, and organic materials research, etc. seem to think it is a real science? How they are the ones publishing new, innovative results, and not you?


Good work Wowbagger! I really like this question! :)

[Dr Adequate]

* Can you estimate approximately how many designers there were? We know from observation of design processes that this number tends to increase with the complexity of the project.

* Does not a study of the natural world suggest more than one designer? Consider, for example, the hummingbird and the hummingbird moth. Serving similar functions, they are based on very different technology. If we found such a situation amongst things that really were designed, would we not infer two competing companies holding different patents?

* Is the world designed well or badly? For example, it seems superfluous to produce both the cold virus and immune systems capable of fighting it off. Was this a cock-up? Or should we again infer two (at least) competing institutions with different and irreconcilable aims?

* Further to the question of whether the universe was designed well or badly, we need to know what constraints existed on the designer, in terms of available materials, labor, and so forth. As someone once said, "An engineer is someone who can do for one dollar what any fool could do with two". Before we can conclude that the Universe is a product of intelligent design, rather than a series of ghastly wasteful blunders, I for one would need to be convinced that, given the conditions obtaning, this was really the best the designers could do.

* Every time we can definitely identify the designers of an object and the means they used to produce it, we invariably find that they used natural and not supernatural means. Given this data, what should we conclude about the means used by the designers whose existence you hypothesize?

* What is the universe for? You claim it was designed. As what? It does not appear to be a means of transport ... or an eating utensil ... or a grouting tool ... or a sandwich toaster ... does not design imply purpose, and if so, could you identify it?

* As you are not aware, many industrialists nowadays don't so much design their "designs" as have them produced by genetic algorithms. Might not the hypothesis that the designers employed similar means explain many features of the natural world which would otherwise seem inexplicable?

[Wowbagger]

Good work Wowbagger! I really like this question! :)

I am tempted to add "economics" to the list, since (as Shermer loves to point out), evolutionary theory could give a lot of insight into economics models.

But, I didn't want to go overboard, with all that, just yet.

[Wowbagger]

"If tomorrow ID replaced evolution as the standard theory taught and used across all scientific fields, how would humans benefit in the days and years to come?"
That almost seems redundant to my first two questions. But, I suppose focusing on educational value might be a good idea.

How about this for a re-phrasing:
"If I.D. were to completely replace Evolution as the standard theory taught in U.S. schools, how would it give our students a competitive advantage in understanding the science of biology, in the world's stage?"

---------------------------------------

Dr. Adequate, you are no-doubt a wizard with words. But, if you don't mind, I would like to try re-rephrasing some of your suggestions. Let me know what you think:
* Can you estimate approximately how many designers there were? We know from observation of design processes that this number tends to increase with the complexity of the project.Honestly, I don't think the number of designers matters, that much, if they cannot identify anything about even one of them, (and refuse to even try).

I probably should have numbered my questions. But, perhaps immediately below the "Why are certain characteristics of designed products absent in most life forms..." question, we could ask:

"Can you explain why life forms look as though they were 'designed by committee'? Or, perhaps 'competing contractors'?" And we can give examples of what we mean.

But, I will think some more on that one.

* Is the world designed well or badly? (snip) I don't think this such a good one. It implies subjective judgment, rather than objective demands. It seems too easy to weasel out of.

we need to know what constraints existed on the designer, in terms of available materials, labor, and so forth. (snip) I could probably add that one below "Where is the evidence that a Designer exists?".

Something like this:
"What constraints existed for the Designer, in terms of materials, labor, and so forth? If we cannot know that, then how else are we to assess the engineering skills of the Designer? (This would seem important, if we are going to replace Evolution in medical research, for example.)"


* Every time we can definitely identify the designers of an object and the means they used to produce it, we invariably find that they used natural and not supernatural means. (snip)
We can shorten this, a little:

"For every example of Intelligent Design given so far, how come Evolution has also discovered a perfectly natural way for it to emerge?
How come the natural method is usually the one making better predictions about the example's behavior?"

* What is the universe for? (snip) Too easy to weasel out of. Maybe we are all here merely for the Designer's amusement.

Besides, it would be more important to identify the Designer, first.

(snip) Might not the hypothesis that the designers employed similar means explain many features of the natural world which would otherwise seem inexplicable? If they answered "yes”, how would that help anyone?

[Wowbagger]

I am also considering asking:

"Why is it so difficult for I.D. proponents to distance themselves from religious fundamentalists?"

But, I think that steps outside the issues of pure scientific inquiry.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I think that the number one question that IDers should be required to answer is:
What is SCIENCE?

They appear to think that science is explaining things, not finding answers. They seem to think that science is a thing, not a process. They appear to teach that recitation of a litany written by someone else is somehow the equivalent of reevaluating evidence, revision of theories, and peer review.

They teach that, "it just makes sense that...," is the equivalent of, "diligent research shows...".

The second question... or task, more like... should be:
Design an experiment that will invalidate Intelligent Design.

I can do it for evolution: Find something (like authentic, undisturbed human remains) in a stratum where no such things should exist.

Scientists design experiments to invalidate their own theories all the time, because science is rigorous in its pursuit of truth, and invalidation is an important part of that rigor. ID CAN'T be invalidated because it doesn't observe, it merely explains, and explaining isn't science.

The Scientific Method is science! Science isn't knowing facts. Science is finding facts.

Evolution may be completely wrong. Intelligent Design may be absolutely right.
BUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN STILL ISN'T SCIENCE!

My last question for the IDers is:
If you're going to call it, "Science Education," then shouldn't it BE science?

(P.S. I'm still believe in God, but if God is Truth then denying the facts he has given us with his own hands is probably a bad idea.

God inspired men to write the bible. In that act, he gave Truth to a bunch of guys that couldn't explain how a fluorescent light works. We should expect scientific accuracy on exactly that level of rigor.

In the end, men wrote the Bible. God wrote, with His own hand, the testimony of the rocks.)

[Dr Adequate]

Honestly, I don't think the number of designers matters, that much, if they cannot identify anything about even one of them, (and refuse to even try). But they do seem to agree on one thing about the designers, namely that there was only one of them. I should like them to consider whether this is the most likely belief given the data.

I don't think this such a good one. It implies subjective judgment, rather than objective demands. It seems too easy to weasel out of. But it is a question that we can answer with respect to things that actually are designed.

We can shorten this, a little:

"For every example of Intelligent Design given so far, how come Evolution has also discovered a perfectly natural way for it to emerge?
How come the natural method is usually the one making better predictions about the example's behavior?" But that's a completely different question.

My point is, when we look at things that we know were designed, say a helicopter or a potato-peeler, and we investigate the processes of its manufacture, we invariably find that it did not involve magic. Every time, without exception. And so on that basis if we come across a designed object where we have no knowledge of the mode of manufacture, such as the Antikythera Mechanism, we still feel justified in concluding that no magic was involved. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, then, we must conclude that if (for example) the duck-billed platypus was designed, the same applies to the duck-billed platypus.

Too easy to weasel out of. Maybe we are all here merely for the Designer's amusement. I think that some sort of conjecture is required to give the hypothesis explanatory power.

Suppose that I find a funny-shaped rock.

http://www.metmuseum.org/special/scholar/resized/3.Vertical-Rock.L.jpg

Someone assures me that a rock with so complex a shape cannot be a product of nature but must be a Stone Age tool. Am I not then justified in asking what possible use it could have been to the cavemen?

If they answered "yes”, how would that help anyone? We win.

[thull]

As you said my question was just a revamp of your question one and two, since it seemed like an easy cop-out answer for them just to say, "well since evolution has been the standard for the last ____ years, ID hasn't been given the chance to show what it can do." I was more curious if a question could be phrased to actually find out what exactly ID'ers think we're all missing out on.

However, such a crafted question will probably be answered with, "We will gain a better understanding of the world we are a part of". An answer that sounds good, but offers no information on why to have ID over evolution.

With that being said, i do like the question regarding why ID should be taught in our schools. As it is newsworthy battleground in the states, i would expect a longer answer even if not much is said.

[thull]

[QUOTE=Gagglegnash;4633994]
Design an experiment that will invalidate Intelligent Design.QUOTE]

This one i like the most.
For they will explain why they can't/won't give one which will show ID isn't science like gagglegnash said
or they will give an untestable example which will show it isn't science
or they will give an example that can be tested, but that they can deny if/when it is shown to be false.

[thaiboxerken]

I suspect the ID'ers answer will be something to this effect "God did it, and you're going to hell."

[Wowbagger]

I think that the number one question that IDers should be required to answer is:
What is SCIENCE?
(snip) Yes, all that seems to be true, for them. And, that is an interesting approach: Get their feet wet with basic science questions, before hitting them with the specifics of ID.

But, for this thread I would rather focus on the ID-specific questions, for now. Thanks!

Design an experiment that will invalidate Intelligent Design.That is one I shall consider! In fact, I wonder why I didn't think to place it on the list, already. (I guess that is what forums are for.)


P.S. I'm still believe in God, but if God is Truth then denying the facts he has given us with his own hands is probably a bad idea. I wonder if I.D. advocates actually realize that Evolution does NOT rule out the existence of God?

Most of them seem to think that Evolution implies that there must not be a God at all. When, in reality, all it does is render God as an "extraneous entity".

But they do seem to agree on one thing about the designers, namely that there was only one of them. I should like them to consider whether this is the most likely belief given the data. I still don't think it gets to the heart of the matter as deeply as the other questions. I would rather see a convincing argument that there had to be at least one creator, before we nag them about how many there really are.

They could simply give an answer that the Designer was experimenting with different designs. Perhaps he even put some of his own designs in competition for each other. Or, maybe his mood and skills simply changed over time. As a programmer, this happens to me: I look at some of my older code, and its "style" is quite different than it is for my newer code.

Obviously, they would have no evidence for their answers. But, then again, they have no evidence, yet, for there being any designer at all. So, I would like to see them establish at least one before moving on to the actual number.


But it is a question that we can answer with respect to things that actually are designed. We would need something empirical to compare it with. We can measure the quality of engineering in cars by measuring specific criteria: fuel efficiency, safety, cost of ownership, etc. Perhaps we can rephrase the question with respect to that:

"Can we assess the quality of the Designer's work, by comparing it to other design candidates he might have had in mind?"

But, I still think it is a weak question, for some reason.

But that's a completely different question. Ah, I see I accidentally misinterpreted your question, and managed to come up with another good one to add the list, anyway!

My point is, when we look at things that we know were designed, say a helicopter or a potato-peeler, and we investigate the processes of its manufacture, we invariably find that it did not involve magic.
(snip) They would probably deny that they are trying to sell "magic". They would see this as a straw-man. We know better. But, I think the question is too easy to weasel out of.

I think that some sort of conjecture is required to give the hypothesis explanatory power. How about something like this:

"How can we deduce the motives of the Intelligent Designer?
Does I.D. claim that there is supposed to be a specific purpose for life on Earth? If so, how do you know what it is? (Or what they are? There could be more than one.)"

I still think it is weak, because it is more important to establish the necessity of the Designer, before we get into motives. For the same reason I would rather not get into the number of designers.

We win. Actually, I messed up that response. I meant to respond like this: 'What if they say NO? How would that help anyone?'

The next question would be: "Okay, what are the special, unnatural processes, then?" And, we are back to the more fundamental ones, I already asked.

[Wowbagger]

OOooooo!!! OOOOOOooo!!! OOOOOooooo!!! Here's another good one I just came up with (thanks, in part to Carl Sagan):


Scientists are usually motivated by the thrill of new discovery. If you want more scientists to take Intelligent Design more seriously, how would you appeal to that?


It is kinda redundant to some of my earlier questions. But, I think I like this type of approach better.

[Typicallucas]

Why do so many ID proponents often (but not always) get scientific concepts wrong, such as junk DNA, macroevolution, thermodynamics, Big Bang Theory, and the whole concept of Natural Selection, etc.?
How come so little effort is made to "do your homework, and "know your enemy" better, before debating these issues on scientific grounds?


I call this a learning disability.

This is where I get stymied in discussions about ID vs. evolution with most of the "ID" people I know... for instance last week I was talking to a friend of mine about some sort of personal troubles and he started going on and on about how if I just "set an intention" the "universe will respond in kind." I jumped on this because it 1) he was basically saying "it's your fault because you aren't praying to the universe" and 2) it is a clear indicator of woo thinking.

I challenged him on this anthropomorphic universe idea and he started describing a "non-Christian" Intelligent Design belief. He kept saying that he didn't think that "all this" could be a result of "random chance," and each time he said that I explained to him that Natural Selection, for one, is the exact opposite of random chance. But he, like most ID believers, couldn't/didn't/refused to understand or remember. The fourth time he brought up the improbability of being so lucky I asked him if he was dropped on his head as a child.

Needless to say it went downhill from there.

[Perpetual Student]

I wonder if I.D. advocates actually realize that Evolution does NOT rule out the existence of God?

Most of them seem to think that Evolution implies that there must not be a God at all. When, in reality, all it does is render God as an "extraneous entity".

That may be true, however if one is advocating ID as a scientific theory, that forces the question of the existence of a creator to be a matter for scientific inquiry and discussion and would require evidence as would any other competing hypothesis.

[Earthborn]

How can I.D. be applied to medical science, to help us fight diseases?Unfair question. What is applied in medical science is an understanding of natural selection, a part of evolutionary thinking that isn't disputed by IDers or even Young Earth Creationists. Also if all science had to have an practical application, we would have to throw away an awful lot of science.

How come the proponents of I.D. are incapable of using it as a framework to solve any real scientific problem, for that matter?Probably because they aren't trying to solve any real scientific problem, but rather are attempting to find scientific problems that the Theory of Evolution can't solve. (Not much luck so far)

If Evolution was all a hoax, then how come those actively using it in fields such as medical research, agriculture, animal conservation, oil drilling, and organic materials research, etc. seem to think it is a real science?Unfair question. Proponents of Intelligent Design aren't claiming that evolution is a hoax. It isn't even claimed to be a hoax by most Young Earth Creationists.

Where is the evidence that a Designer exists?According to proponents of Intelligent Design, the evidence of a designer is in the biological structures that couldn't have formed without a designer. They don't necessarily claim there is more direct evidence.

Why do ID proponents tend to define their terms in non-empirical or non-falsifiable ways?That is an easy question to answer: their whole "research program" consists of criticism of an empirical science.

[Earthborn]

I think that the number one question that IDers should be required to answer is:
What is SCIENCE?I've got an idea. Let's ask them "What is Life? " or "What is the purpose Life?" or "What is Love?" or "What is Truth?"... By requiring them to answer philosophical conundrums that have baffled philosophers for -- well pretty much all of human history, we don't have to bothered by them again. :oldroll:

I can do it for evolution: Find something (like authentic, undisturbed human remains) in a stratum where no such things should exist.You haven't been paying attention to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135514), have you? The Theory of Evolution is so strongly supported by evidence, that no single out of place discovery would invalidate it.

ID CAN'T be invalidated because it doesn't observe, it merely explains, and explaining isn't science.It isn't? I don't think I understand what you are arguing here.

The Scientific Method is science! Science isn't knowing facts. Science is finding facts.Meaningless.

Evolution may be completely wrong.No, it may not.

Intelligent Design may be absolutely right.Intelligent Design may be right, but that does not make the theory of evolution wrong.

[Fredrik]

Where is the evidence that a Designer exists?

It's all around you. Just open your eyes, and your mind.

OK, that answer wasn't serious, but the next one is.

Scientists are usually motivated by the thrill of new discovery. If you want more scientists to take Intelligent Design more seriously, how would you appeal to that?

Wouldn't a moron I.D. believer be a lot more thrilled about discovering evidence of creation than a science nerd would be about discovering evidence of evolution? I mean, many of them think that God is what gives meaning to their lives, so to them evidence of creation is something huge. It would make them feel important, and even loved.

[Wowbagger]

I call this a learning disability. That might be the case, for many of them. Though, I would not necessarily throw that as a blanket statement over all of them.

This might be a good topic for a separate thread, if you would like to start one.

That may be true, however if one is advocating ID as a scientific theory, that forces the question of the existence of a creator to be a matter for scientific inquiry and discussion and would require evidence as would any other competing hypothesis. The hypothesis of Evolution (that natural processes are sufficient) implies that intelligence is not necessary. It does not imply such higher intelligence could not exist.

I.D., on the other hand, implies that it must.

One has a better history of making discoveries, than the other.

I am considering asking a question related to this, but everything I come up with sounds weak.

Unfair question. What is applied in medical science is an understanding of natural selection, a part of evolutionary thinking that isn't disputed by IDers or even Young Earth Creationists. Perhaps it could better to ask: What can be gained by adding ID into the mix, in medical research?

However, a lot of "macro-evolution", which ID specifically denies, is relevant to these fields, as well. Endangered species are examined (physically and behaviorally) with their common ancestors taken into consideration. And "new complex features" on animals, especially insects, are sometimes documented.

Also if all science had to have an practical application, we would have to throw away an awful lot of science.I agree that it is not necessary for science to have a practical application.

But, if there are two competing "theories": One already happens to be way ahead of the curve on practical applications, and the other contributes nothing, you have to bring that up, somehow.

You might like the last question I contributed, about the thrill of discovery, better.

Probably because they aren't trying to solve any real scientific problem, but rather are attempting to find scientific problems that the Theory of Evolution can't solve. (Not much luck so far) I am sure your answer is accurate. But, I would be curious to know what their answer is going to be. Just what problems do they think they are solving?!

Unfair question. Proponents of Intelligent Design aren't claiming that evolution is a hoax. It isn't even claimed to be a hoax by most Young Earth Creationists. Perhaps you are right. I might not pose the question, like that, to someone like Michael Behe. Though, I might still be inclined to pose it to someone like Kent Hovind.

According to proponents of Intelligent Design, the evidence of a designer is in the biological structures that couldn't have formed without a designer. They don't necessarily claim there is more direct evidence.My point is that they do not even seem to think the question is important to answer, scientifically. Even though such evidence would be a profound clincher, if it was discovered.
If an ID was necessary, there should be some early, potentially testable, hypothesis about its nature. Assuming there is a real interest in doing science, right?

That is an easy question to answer: their whole "research program" consists of criticism of an empirical science.I would still like to know how they would actually answer.

No, it may not. Well, with all due respect, It could be wrong. Maybe God, himself, sculpted each individual fossil skeleton, for example. That idea, though not testable, is not ruled out by Evolution, if we are speaking in strict terms.

In another sense: It might be possible that Evolution via Natural Selection is merely an approximation, of some other, more fundamental process, yet to be discovered. It could be possible the Evolution will seem as quaint and outdated as miasma theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory_of_disease ), in the distant future. Miasma was a viable theory, that actually helped fight some diseases, until Germ Theory proved to be much more accurate.



Wouldn't a moron I.D. believer be a lot more thrilled about discovering evidence of creation than a science nerd would be about discovering evidence of evolution? I specified NEW discoveries. Not re-hashes of stuff we already considered.

[skeptigirl]

Not a single ID believer seems to have come to the thread yet.

Seems Earthborn is at least attempting to reply from an ID believer's perspective.

[Earthborn]

Seems Earthborn is at least attempting to reply from an ID believer's perspective.Not really. I am just attempting to reply from the perspective of someone interested in fair questions.

[Locutus]

"Can you explain why life forms look as though they were 'designed by committee'? Or, perhaps 'competing contractors'?" And we can give examples of what we mean.

I think is Dr Adequate's question, a very clever question, very well put. It is perhaps too clever for the average IDer, and you'd need a verifiable torrent of specific examples explained clearly for it to hit home, I'd think. Whilst the logic of the statement is flawless, I think that the whole anti-ID campaign needs a greater understanding of dialectic before the points really start to hit home and sink in. It's not enough to have facts, but say them in a way that leaves the opponent without intelligible response.

[Dr Adequate]

They would probably deny that they are trying to sell "magic". They would see this as a straw-man. We know better. But, I think the question is too easy to weasel out of. Well, "supernatural processes", then.

I'd like to hear how they answer that.

Actually, I messed up that response. I meant to respond like this: 'What if they say NO? How would that help anyone?' Then I'd ask them the follow-up question: "How come you're so sure of that when you weasel your way out of answering every other question you're asked about the methods of, the motives of, and the constraints on the designers?"

---

Here's one: "Suppose some philanthropic millionaire was to offer you and your pals ten million dollars on the condition that instead of using it for lobbying and advertising and publishing propaganda and building creationist museums and holding mutually backslapping conferences, you instead spent it on actual scientific research? What would you do with it that might further your aims?"

[Earthborn]

The hypothesis of Evolution
The hypothesis of Evolution?

(that natural processes are sufficient) implies that intelligence is not necessary.If natural processes are sufficient doesn't mean intelligence isn't necessary. "Intelligence" as usually understood is a natural process, and if it is necessary for evolution it may be the "intelligence" inherent in the process of evolution itself.

Perhaps it could better to ask: What can be gained by adding ID into the mix, in medical research?Perhaps what is gained is a realisation that intervention by an "Intelligent Designer" is sometimes necessary to get the blasted pathogens to do what you want. :)

However, a lot of "macro-evolution", which ID specifically denies, is relevant to these fields, as well.I don't think all IDers deny the possibility of macro-evolution, and I certainly don't think it ID necessitates it.

You might like the last question I contributed, about the thrill of discovery, better.It's okay I guess...

I am sure your answer is accurate. But, I would be curious to know what their answer is going to be.There is an ancient legend that says that there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. The legend isn't true: questions you ask not for acquiring information because you already know the answer, but merely for getting a reaction or alternatively for claiming that another refuses to answer, are stupid questions.

Perhaps before you make a list of "questions I would like [fill in group] to answer" you should ask yourself: "What is it that can be gained from asking all these questions?"

Though, I might still be inclined to pose it to someone like Kent Hovind.I wouldn't call Kent Hovind a proponent of Intelligent Design. He's a Young Earth Creationist. Make that: He's the stupid wing of Young Earth Creationism.

Well, with all due respect, It could be wrong. Maybe God, himself, sculpted each individual fossil skeleton, for example.In that case, it would still be correct within the reality God created.

[Perpetual Student]

Earthborn
According to proponents of Intelligent Design, the evidence of a designer is in the biological structures that couldn't have formed without a designer. They don't necessarily claim there is more direct evidence.

Wowbagger
My point is that they do not even seem to think the question is important to answer, scientifically. Even though such evidence would be a profound clincher, if it was discovered.
If an ID was necessary, there should be some early, potentially testable, hypothesis about its nature. Assuming there is a real interest in doing science, right?

Often, IDers claim that abiogenesis is not possible, using probabilistic arguments as a basis. You may feel that this question is not part of a scientific discussion of ID vs. evolution, but it certainly hinges on the question of a creator. Since a number of mechanisms have been postulated for abiogenesis (along with some compelling laboratory results), is it not logical to ask for similar indications of the alternative theory -- a creator vs. abiogenesis? There was a poster here some months ago that referred to a "supernatural*" event. How about some evidence of that?

*Maybe he said, "paranormal."

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I've got an idea. Let's ask them "What is Life? " or "What is the purpose Life?" or "What is Love?" or "What is Truth?"... By requiring them to answer philosophical conundrums that have baffled philosophers for -- well pretty much all of human history, we don't have to bothered by them again. :oldroll:


Purpose of life: To lead a Christlike life. Easy one.

What is life: The breath of God. Also easy.

What is love: God is love, and the love we feel is the pale reflection of that perfect Love. If I may say, not as myself, but as a proponent of ID: "Duh!"

See, the problem is that when all the answers boil down to, "God did it," and the Bible is the strict, unbending, literal, infallible and perfect word of The Almighty, philosophy is subject to the same kind of treatment as is science under the ministration of ID.

The point is to teach science in science class instead of... whatever it is that Intelligent Design promotes, right?

If you want philosophy of other than the natural sort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy), perhaps it would be better taught in a Philosophy class.

You haven't been paying attention to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135514), have you? The Theory of Evolution is so strongly supported by evidence, that no single out of place discovery would invalidate it.

I didn't know how else to put it without writing a whole paper on the subject. I meant human remainS: Large human populations in the Precambrian; Towns and cities below the CT boundary; Dinosaurs' fossils with the mostly-digested remains of a family of four and maybe an partly eaten TV dinner.

Evolution is science, and is hence open to revision based on new data and new interpretations of old data. The prize goes to the theory that has the most convincing proof behind it.

Either that, or the speed of light is still Roemer's 1676AD 2.14x108m/s.

It isn't? I don't think I understand what you are arguing here.


I can explain anything by saying, "God made it that way."

Why are the fossils stratified? God and Noah's flood put them there in that order as they settled out of the water. Why are oceanic fossils found in, say, Indiana (lots and LOTS of limestone): God created them right where they are for man's use.

Like that.

Explaining isn't science. Finding answers is science. As soon as the finding is over, it stops being science and turns into history.

Meaningless.


So... You mean that the speed of light actually IS 2.14x108m/s?

If it's science, it's open to revision, as above. If it's not open to revision, it's not science. Part of the scientific method is gathering data to support, revise, or falsify your theory.

If all you're doing is saying, "ok - but the 2.14x108m/s is still correct, because our meters have changed length over the years," you're just explaining. ID thinks that, as long as it can explain all the questions, it's good science. All it's really doing is piling untestable hypothesis on top of untestable hypothesis, all of which boil down to, "God did it."

No, it may not.


Then it isn't science, either, but history. Teach it there.

If the theory is still being investigated and revised, THEN it's science, and can still spin off in new and exciting directions as soon as some Kansas farmboy trips over some oddly shaped thing sticking out of a field and tells someone over at the University about it.

Intelligent Design may be right, but that does not make the theory of evolution wrong.


Absolutely, but science isn't about Right or Wrong, either. It's about interpretation of the laws and mechanisms which cause natural events, as we know them today.

If it were about Right and Wrong, then all true science would have to admit that it's probably wrong. In six decades, we've gone from some guys tweaking two pieces of fissile materials with screwdrivers to determine critical masses (http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent1/?file=cw_nuclear_slotin) to the CERN Large Hadron Collider (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/gallery/0007/nov/20/cern?picture=330365576) and Japan's Large Helical Device (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=mSg&ei=IK_rSaeMNpbCMav2-c8F&resnum=0&q=large%20helical%20device&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi).

That's a lot of disproven, "facts," in a pretty short time.

(Heck: I even call them the Three Guidelines of Thermodynamics, because I still remember being taught the separate laws of Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Mass that E=MC² put the lie to. )

So, facts are more [I]fun than opinions! REAL facts are rare, slippery, and volatile while opinions are common, solid, frigid, and unmoving.

I want evolution taught in the science classes of the schools my tax dollars support because it is a complete and valid demonstration of science. I don't really care if it's right or wrong. No one will ever jump up in a movie theater and yell, "(this person/these persons are DYING) / (there is a bomb/several bombs in the theater)... is there a Evolutionary Paleontologist in the house?!?!?" (They won't yell, "is there a COBOL/C/FoxPro/Pascal programmer in the house," either, but I'm actually Ok with that.)

What I'm interested in is that the students for whose education I'm paying are being taught SCIENCE in science class, and ID's not it.

Now, lets go out there, collide some Hadrons, overturn some old facts, and develop some new ones! Lets make sure that we're educating the folks that are coming up to take over the search, too.

[Dorian Gray]

I'm sorry, Wowbagger, but you've turned this thread from being about defense of intelligent design to being about meeting your approval with 'stump-the-ID-er' questions. You aren't discussing the actual topic so much as taking a literal interpretation of your own thread title, claiming the position of arbitor of what questions are worthy of asking a proponent of intelligent design.

What makes you the only one capable of asking a proper question of an ID-er? Let's dispense with the I-Am-The-Decider hat and get back to ridding the world of woo, shall we? Focus.

[Earthborn]

See, the problem is that when all the answers boil down to, "God did it," and the Bible is the strict, unbending, literal, infallible and perfect word of The Almighty, philosophy is subject to the same kind of treatment as is science under the ministration of ID.If you want to argue against something it would help if you knew what it was you are arguing against. ID does not require biblical literalism.

I didn't know how else to put it without writing a whole paper on the subject. I meant human remainS: Large human populations in the Precambrian; Towns and cities below the CT boundary; Dinosaurs' fossils with the mostly-digested remains of a family of four and maybe an partly eaten TV dinner.None of which would invalidate the Theory of Evolution.

Evolution is science, and is hence open to revision based on new data and new interpretations of old data.Revision does not equal falsification. You were talking about designing experiments that would invalidate a theory.

I can explain anything by saying, "God made it that way."You have a strange understanding of the word "explain".

Explaining isn't science. Finding answers is science. As soon as the finding is over, it stops being science and turns into history.History is a science and there is something called History of Science. Also, you mentioned teaching science in schools; I hope you realise that most of the science taught in schools is historical science. Science that has been proven to such a degree that it is no longer up for debate.

Part of the scientific method is gathering data to support, revise, or falsify your theory.Another part is settling scientific controversies, recognising facts and building on already established explanatory foundations.

If the theory is still being investigated and revised, THEN it's science, and can still spin off in new and exciting directions as soon as some Kansas farmboy trips over some oddly shaped thing sticking out of a field and tells someone over at the University about it.Nobody is investigating and revising the theory of a spherical Earth in a way that can still spin off in new and exciting directions. It has a few minor revisions here and there within Eratosthenes' margins of error. It is still science.

So, facts are more fun than opinions!That's just your opinion. :)

REAL facts are rare, slippery, and volatile while opinions are common, solid, frigid, and unmoving.... while scientists often try to find the things that are common to all things, and the solid and unmoving rules everything obeys.

What I'm interested in is that the students for whose education I'm paying are being taught SCIENCE in science class, and ID's not it.

Now, lets go out there, collide some Hadrons, overturn some old facts, and develop some new ones! Lets make sure that we're educating the folks that are coming up to take over the search, too.Apparently you want to "teach the controversy" instead of teaching the long established facts.

[Wowbagger]

I'm sorry, Wowbagger, but you've turned this thread from being about defense of intelligent design to being about meeting your approval with 'stump-the-ID-er' questions.I should probably explain that I am attempting to collect questions, the best of which will be used elsewhere, in a few other forums (where IDers are more prevalent). And, perhaps an article of my own.

Anyone can ask any IDers any questions they want. I do not claim to be the sole arbiter of what constitutes a good question. I am only judging questions for use in my own purposes.

Sorry if that was not clear, before.

Not a single ID believer seems to have come to the thread yet.

I was not expecting any to show up here. I am collecting questions to be used, elsewhere. As noted above.

It is perhaps too clever for the average IDer, See, that would make it problematic. I would like everyone to easily comprehend the question. But, a few good examples could do that, probably.

Well, "supernatural processes", then. Same thing. Most of the "scientific"-sounding ones will just deny their deductions are "supernatural".

I'd like to hear how they answer that. You can always ask them, yourself.

Then I'd ask them the follow-up question: "How come you're so sure of that when you weasel your way out of answering every other question you're asked about the methods of, the motives of, and the constraints on the designers?" So, that would be nice if your intention is to trap them into making contradictions.

Not sure I would go that route, myself. It seems kinda low.

Here's one: "Suppose some philanthropic millionaire was to offer you and your pals ten million dollars on the condition that instead of using it for lobbying and advertising and publishing propaganda and building creationist museums and holding mutually backslapping conferences, you instead spent it on actual scientific research? What would you do with it that might further your aims?" Over a year ago, I asked a similar question, I called "Uncle Benny, the Hypothetical Benefactor": ( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102255 ) The challenge was to appeal to a benefactor who could offer millions of dollars of funding to someone, but first you had to convince him your study would lead to better natural resource management or understanding of diseases.

Yes, I also asked it to some folks who are ID proponents, too. And, no, they never gave any satisfactory answers, yet. But, I was able to give a bunch that involved Evolutionary theory.

I like The Benny method better, because it does seem to be a stumper.

If you already presume they are getting the money, in the scenario, of course they will find a way to spend it! (Maybe they will look really closely at some paramecium, and decide that its parts could not come about through chance.)

I asked Graham Watkins, a parapsychologist, what he would do with the $1 million dollars, if he ever won it from Randi (fat chance, but this was hypothetical). And, his answer boiled down to just doing the same things he always did, only more so. And, maybe with fancier-looking equipment. He had no theories to work with.
I expect ID would answer the same way, but they can probably make it sound reasonable. So, it is not much of a stumper.

It would be more important to hit them at a more fundamental level: Where is the drive to find new discoveries?

The hypothesis of Evolution? Sorry. I think I meant Theory. Good catch.

If natural processes are sufficient doesn't mean intelligence isn't necessary. "Intelligence" as usually understood is a natural process, and if it is necessary for evolution it may be the "intelligence" inherent in the process of evolution itself. That is a different usage of the word Intelligence than what I was referring to.
My usage involved Intelligence somehow being special to higher life forms, and NOT being understood as a purely natural process.

Perhaps what is gained is a realisation that intervention by an "Intelligent Designer" is sometimes necessary to get the blasted pathogens to do what you want. :) :)

Hmmm... I guess in some cases, even if we could anticipate what their answers are going to be, it would be just too delicious to see them give the answer, than to not ask the question.

I don't think all IDers deny the possibility of macro-evolution, and I certainly don't think it ID necessitates it. In my experience, it seems most of them do. Unless that changed, recently.

Perhaps before you make a list of "questions I would like [fill in group] to answer" you should ask yourself: "What is it that can be gained from asking all these questions?" I would like to throttle the minds of ID followers, a little. Do what I can to try to force them to think about their position, in comparison to their "enemy".

That goes mostly for the types of folks who will be reading the answers, and not merely for the folks who will be presented with the questions.

I wouldn't call Kent Hovind a proponent of Intelligent Design. He's a Young Earth Creationist. Which is why he claims Evolution is all a hoax.

Since a number of mechanisms have been postulated for abiogenesis (along with some compelling laboratory results), is it not logical to ask for similar indications of the alternative theory -- a creator vs. abiogenesis? One of my questions asks for evidence of the Designer. But, we can expand on it: What possible mechanisms would the Designer use? And, where is the evidence he used them?

Though, I suspect that will be too easy: We humans are manipulating life forms, even at the genetic level now. Someday we will probably have the power to create life forms from scratch. Why couldn't the Designer use those same methods? So, we are back to asking for evidence of the exact Designer.

[Dr Adequate]

Same thing. Most of the "scientific"-sounding ones will just deny their deductions are "supernatural". Will they say that the data suggest that the designers were not supernatural?

So, that would be nice if your intention is to trap them into making contradictions. They would be free to answer the question. If they could.

Not sure I would go that route, myself. It seems kinda low. So pour me a cup of hemlock.

Over a year ago, I asked a similar question, I called "Uncle Benny, the Hypothetical Benefactor": ( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102255 ) The challenge was to appeal to a benefactor who could offer millions of dollars of funding to someone, but first you had to convince him your study would lead to better natural resource management or understanding of diseases. That's rather a stringent condition: could a paleontologist point to anything?

If you already presume they are getting the money, in the scenario, of course they will find a way to spend it! The question is, what on?

I have a vague memory that this has already happened. The Templeton Foundation or someone gave them money, so they held a couple of conferences. So the Templeton people said: "Hey, this is going great! Can we fund your research ... ?"

Sound of crickets heard.

(Maybe they will look really closely at some paramecium ... For what?

... and decide that its parts could not come about through chance.) They can decide that for free.

What I want to see is some sort of research program.

[Dave Rogers]

Some comments and suggestions on the first few questions:

How can I.D. be applied to medical science, to help us fight diseases?

This is approaching the most important, to me, aspect of the debate. I would like to see this question framed more broadly, something like:

In what areas has I.D. been shown to have superior predictive power as a scientific theory to that of Evolution? Specifically, what experimental results or technological advances have been achieved as a result of the predictions of I.D. which could not have been predicted by evolutionary theory?

How come the proponents of I.D. are incapable of using it as a framework to solve any real scientific problem, for that matter?

If Evolution was all a hoax, then how come those actively using it in fields such as medical research, agriculture, animal conservation, oil drilling, and organic materials research, etc. seem to think it is a real science? How they are the ones publishing new, innovative results, and not you?

Without having previously established that the answer to your first question is "Not in any practical way," and that the answer to mine is "None, and none, respectively," these two questions could fall foul of accusations of the complex question fallacy. It's important to establish (with its proponents, at least) that I.D. is of no practical use as a scientific theory, before going on to discuss why it's of no practical use.

Dave

[Wowbagger]

That's rather a stringent condition: could a paleontologist point to anything? I can come up with a few general ideas:

There could be controversy over how much of an impact a certain nutrient has on bone health. I will call it "Nutrient X", since I do not have any specific one in mind, at the moment. A paleontologist could figure out that bones where (and when) Nutrient X was sparse show one set of characteristics, and bones where Nutrient X was plentiful show another set of characteristics. Perhaps both extremes are detrimental in some way, and they can establish an optimal balance based on the data set that they manage to (literally) dig up.

Also, from an environmental perspective, I am sure there could be tons of stuff we can learn about the Earth's environmental history, by studying the fossils of ancient life forms. Though, specific examples fail me, at the moment. I could probably ask a few paleontologists for ideas.

They can decide that for free. Ah, but at least they would be doing actual lab work for a change, something we accuse them of not doing. And, that would sound reasonable to the sorts who follow them.


In what areas has I.D. been shown to have superior predictive power as a scientific theory to that of Evolution? Specifically, what experimental results or technological advances have been achieved as a result of the predictions of I.D. which could not have been predicted by evolutionary theory?
I like it!

Without having previously established that the answer to your first question I think I will take the "all a hoax" question out. I am convinced that they will see it as a straw-man accusation.
Or, I might reword it differently, at least.

[Myriad]

Why are certain characteristics of designed products absent in most life forms, such as detachable and easily replaceable parts, or "maker" labels, for example?


This line of inquiry is my favorite. It addresses what is supposed to be the very focus of "ID theory": identifying the typical characteristics of designed things, in order to be able to examine things of unknown origin for evidence of design. While most of the other questions are variations of "Why isn't ID more like other sciences?" this question amounts to, why is ID not only failing to achieve, but failing to even attempt, its own claimed core mission? Why is it so easy to point out obvious characteristics of designed things that ID proponents have utterly ignored? (Not only maker labels and replaceable parts, but also safety warning labels, functional specificity of component parts, and lateral reuse of complex functional subunits across different lines of development, such as the computer CPUs in sewing machines and cars.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Wowbagger]

This line of inquiry is my favorite. Was it you who once posted a long list of these things? I have no time to go hunting for the specific post, right now.

But, whoever did, I think that was an initial inspiration for that line of inquiry.

[FramerDave]

Coming in late, so maybe I'm just repeating what others have said...

Science is self-correcting. There are many examples in the history of science of theories once considered true that were later replaced by new theories as new information becomes available. Give some examples of the same from the field of ID.

Science has predictive powers. Assuming ID is scientifically valid, it should likewise be able to be used to make predictions about the natural world. Give some examples from the field of ID.

[Myriad]

Was it you who once posted a long list of these things? I have no time to go hunting for the specific post, right now.

But, whoever did, I think that was an initial inspiration for that line of inquiry.


I did post some posts along those lines, so it was likely me, but I wouldn't presume to claim I'm the only one ever to have thought of those issues or posted about them here.

Repsectfully,
Myriad

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'd like 'em to 'splain endogenous retroviruses.

~~ Paul

[Perpetual Student]

For me scientific evidence for a creator is paramount. Perhaps that is so because of my own personal development and experiences over the years.
As a child (raised in a religious christian home), I rejected religion (god, a creator, etc.) through a personal thought process before I had any knowledge of evolution. Later when I learned about evolution, theories about the formation of stars, planets, galaxies it reinforced the views I had already established. Let's remember there were atheists many centuries before Darwin and Galileo -- going back to ancient Greece, if not earlier.
So, in my view, if one were to argue the case for ID, since ID requires a creator, establishing the existence of a creator is the first order of business. We cannot go on to discuss nuances of the fossil record or genetic evidence, etc. without first discussing the question of evidence for a deity or creator.
Religious people generally point to the christian bible, a book written by ignorant (by modern standards) peasants, shaman and other delusional characters. We are then asked to accept this book as having some relevance to scientific discussion regarding our origins and nature. This is where the discussion begins.
I will not put ID and evolution on an equal footing for discussion. As I said, the first order of business is to establish the existence (or fiction) of the designer. This discussion should be about their scriptures and the alternative (scientific cosmological evidence), in my view. I generally begin with the point that if we need a creator to explain the universe, then we need a creator to explain the creator. Since this leads us to an infinite regression of needed creators, let's just cut the whole need chain short and simply accept the universe.

[juryjone]

All of these questions are great, but...what's the point? The only answer you get from IDers is "la la la I can't hear you" or its logical equivalent. I had a "discussion" with an IDer this past weekend, and got this logical gem:

The fact is - if a person is truly honest - and wants to truly know if there really is a God out there - He can be found by observation in the natural world. And if you want to know what kind of a God He is, you can examine all the religions of the world and see if the "creation story" they give matches up with the observable world. That means the story has to be broad and allow for filling in details as more is discovered.

followed by: "This will be my last communication with you."

This was a person with 36 years experience in a medical profession and studies in microbiology (or so it was claimed). They don't want to answer questions, they don't want to hear answers to their questions - they just want acceptance of their views.

(I tried to go on at this point and describe the difference between IDers and people who see that evolution is true, but it was just an incomprehensible rant, so I'll stop now.)

[Wowbagger]

All of these questions are great, but...what's the point? The only answer you get from IDers is "la la la I can't hear you" or its logical equivalent.We might have some.... ways... of making them answer....


...that are perfectly legal, ethical, and painless, of course!

[MG1962]

I guess my question would be. If we accept a God clever enough to design the universe and influenced the evolution on Earth, how would we intellectual pygmies ever be capable of identifing evidence of this design.

[Fredrik]

Scientists are usually motivated by the thrill of new discovery. If you want more scientists to take Intelligent Design more seriously, how would you appeal to that?


Wouldn't a moron I.D. believer be a lot more thrilled about discovering evidence of creation than a science nerd would be about discovering evidence of evolution? I mean, many of them think that God is what gives meaning to their lives, so to them evidence of creation is something huge. It would make them feel important, and even loved.
I specified NEW discoveries. Not re-hashes of stuff we already considered.
I don't understand your reasoning here. Are you suggesting that there's been a point in history when biologists could get a bigger thrill finding strong evidence of evolution than a creationist today would get if he finds strong evidence of creation? I don't believe that's the case. To a creationist, evidence of creation is also evidence that he will live and be loved forever. Actual science can't offer anything like that. Their pseudoscience can't either of course, but the point is, they think it can.

So I would say that the motivation in the form of the "thrill of new discovery" is stronger for them than for us, assuming that they believe that there's evidence to be found.

But maybe I just don't understand your question (the one in bold above). What sort of answers can they give you? If you wanted to convert a bunch of string theorists to do research on loop quantum gravity, it wouldn't help to tell them it can be thrilling to discover new things. You'd have to convince them there are lots of very promising results already, and that there are many more just waiting to be found. Maybe that's where you were going with this question. You want to encourage the I.D. guys to explain what promising results have been found already and why scientists should believe that there's more to be found. In that case, I think you need to rephrase the question in a way that suggests that more clearly.

[Lonewulf]

We might have some.... ways... of making them answer....


...that are perfectly legal, ethical, and painless, of course!

Like talking like Captain Kirk?

[Dave Rogers]

Like talking like Captain Kirk?

Wowbagger: Now, please answer my questions, or we'll move on to William Shatner's reading of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds".

Intelligent Designer: Nooooooo! No more! Please, Nimoy's "Bilbo Baggins" was too much, I can't take any more!

I like that idea.

Dave

[sphenisc]

Not really. I am just attempting to reply from the perspective of someone interested in fair questions.

Which is why I always enjoy reading your posts.

[Wowbagger]

Wowbagger: Now, please answer my questions, or we'll move on to William Shatner's reading of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds".
That would be unethical. I am not a monster, you know!

[Lonewulf]

That would be unethical. I am not a monster, you know!

Lie in bold!

[dlorde]

If creatures are the creations of an intelligent designer, why are there so many examples of poor (even incompetent) design <favorite examples here>, and why does a process of natural selection answer the poor design question so much more effectively?

[Earthborn]

That is a different usage of the word Intelligence than what I was referring to.
My usage involved Intelligence somehow being special to higher life forms, and NOT being understood as a purely natural process.If intelligence isn't a purely natural process, then what is it?

Which brings us to perhaps the most important questions to ask a proponent of Intelligent Design: What is ID's working definition of "Intelligence" and in what ways does it differ from forces assumed to be unintelligent?
What is ID's working definition of "Design" and in what ways does ID presume designed things differ from things that are not designed?

Hmmm... I guess in some cases, even if we could anticipate what their answers are going to be, it would be just too delicious to see them give the answer, than to not ask the question.If they suspect that is the reason you asked the question, then they'll probably refuse to answer. And I wouldn't blame them.
Someday we will probably have the power to create life forms from scratch. Why couldn't the Designer use those same methods?The Designer no doubt could have used such methods, and ID seems to assume that It at the very least did create mechanisms within life forms from scratch.

[Wowbagger]

I'd like 'em to 'splain endogenous retroviruses.
That would be nice. Here is a rough draft of a question I could add:

"Evolutionary studies include the that of endogenous retroviruses, that is: a concept where traces of DNA, from viral infections, are copied throughout our own DNA strands, that seems to match the data extraordinarily closely, (and even help us understand a variety of diseases such as multiple sclerosis). How does this fit into the Intelligent Design paradigm?"

If we accept a God clever enough to design the universe and influenced the evolution on Earth, how would we intellectual pygmies ever be capable of identifing evidence of this design. I think they would find that question insulting, and be put off from answering the rest of them.

So I would say that the motivation in the form of the "thrill of new discovery" is stronger for them than for us, assuming that they believe that there's evidence to be found. It is not the level of thrill. It is the type of thrill. Maybe I should specify: "new discoveries" as those which "no one has ever known, nor could have even fathomed, before".

If creatures are the creations of an intelligent designer, why are there so many examples of poor (even incompetent) design <favorite examples here>, and why does a process of natural selection answer the poor design question so much more effectively? Too easy to weasel out of. They could just claim that the design is really not as poor as we claim it is. Or, that it is "only a matter of opinion", anyway. (which I would disagree with, since we can judge design objectively, by measuring various criteria) But, either way would sound too reasonable to the folks who would read the answers.

If intelligence isn't a purely natural process, then what is it? I wouldn't know. This is their claim, not mine.

What is ID's working definition of "Intelligence" and in what ways does it differ from forces assumed to be unintelligent?
What is ID's working definition of "Design" and in what ways does ID presume designed things differ from things that are not designed? Both are good things to bring up. I will consider asking a series of questions about their working definitions.

[UnrepentantSinner]

"Couldn't you find a better public face for your inanity than snivelling bloviator Casey Luskin?"

Though I suppose that specifically would be for the DI.

[Wowbagger]

I am surprised no one provided these links:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fabnaq.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/stumpers.html

[Dave Rogers]

I am surprised no one provided these links:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fabnaq.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/stumpers.html

Most of the questions there seem more to address creationism, YEC and Bible literalism than ID. In fact, it could be argued that it's the inability of creationists to come up with satisfactory answers to those questions that led to the change of strategy from creationism to ID.

Dave

[BPSCG]

(Skipping to the end, so apologies if someone posited this question already...):

Is the designer still alive? If so, how do you know?

Puts the IDiots in the position of either having to acknowledg that the designer is eternal (i.e., God), or that ID has nothing to do with God.

[thaiboxerken]

. In fact, it could be argued that it's the inability of creationists to come up with satisfactory answers to those questions that led to the change of strategy from creationism to ID.

Dave

It could be argued.. but it would be a statement that denies the facts. The reason for the change of strategy was because Creationism was found to be religious in origin. So, the Creationists simply took their same "arguments" and replaced "God" with "a designer." ID is simply Creationism in disguise.

[Wowbagger]

Most of the questions there seem more to address creationism, YEC and Bible literalism than ID. That is probably more true with the first link, than the second.

Some of the questions could be transformed into more general I.D. stumpers, such as those refering to specific scientifc findings.

But, I'll work out the wording, later.

[rocketdodger]

A fasifiable hypothesis is that our Designer is in orbit around Sirius.

If all humans prioritize working together to produce ships capable of travelling to Sirius, we will advance faster than if we embrace evolution and only increase cell phone technology.

Sir, I have just defeated your arguments. Not only is ID falsifiable but it is also more useful to humans.

[Wowbagger]

A fasifiable hypothesis is that our Designer is in orbit around Sirius. I wish intelligent design advocates could commit to something like that!

Not only is ID falsifiable but it is also more useful to humans.Maybe as far as space travel is concerned.

But, while you are awaiting budget approval for such a massive undertaking, we would like to investigate some other options that will lead to innovative solutions to our biological problems now.

[rocketdodger]

Maybe as far as space travel is concerned.

But, while you are awaiting budget approval for such a massive undertaking, we would like to investigate some other options that will lead to innovative solutions to our biological problems now.

People don't care. People want their bling bling and unless you force them to reach for something greater, you get cell phone innovation.

Going to sirius will require advancements in biological science far beyond what the pursuit of bling leads to.

[Wowbagger]

Going to sirius will require advancements in biological science far beyond what the pursuit of bling leads to.

Until we confirm that the I.D. is on Sirius, do you tihnk we will be able to apply I.D. to help make those advancements necessary?

[Perpetual Student]

(Skipping to the end, so apologies if someone posited this question already...):

Is the designer still alive? If so, how do you know?

Puts the IDiots in the position of either having to acknowledg that the designer is eternal (i.e., God), or that ID has nothing to do with God.

Where is the designer? Does he/she/it move around? What are his/her/its dimensions? What is he/she/it made of? What does he/she/it now do? How did he/she/it come to be? Will he/she/it die? Is there any shred of scientific evidence that would give us answers to any of the above?

[MikeSun5]

Gagglegnash said it best earlier. Anything can be explained by saying "God made it that way."

If Evolution was all a hoax, then how come those actively using it in fields such as medical research, agriculture, animal conservation, oil drilling, and organic materials research, etc. seem to think it is a real science?

How does one go about using evolution? Either way, I think I get your point, and I've heard IDers explain it like this: When God created Adam, he created him as an adult male. Adam did not have to grow older, he was born old. Same with the Earth. It's only 6,000 years old, but it was created as a 6 billion year old planet.

Getting IDers to answer these questions within your parameters is futile. You can't apply logic to crazy.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Acceptance of Intelligent Design would require a redefinition of science to include the supernatural. What benefit would the sciences obtain from accepting supernatural answers? Would a doctor be required to have a woman with an infection consult a priest or merely have the antibiotics blessed?

[Wowbagger]

Acceptance of Intelligent Design would require a redefinition of science to include the supernatural. What benefit would the sciences obtain from accepting supernatural answers? Would a doctor be required to have a woman with an infection consult a priest or merely have the antibiotics blessed?Most of them would say that was a "strawman" question, and that I.D. does not include the supernatural. (And, simply asking how I.D. would affect medicine was already covered by some of the other questions.)

[rocketdodger]

Until we confirm that the I.D. is on Sirius, do you tihnk we will be able to apply I.D. to help make those advancements necessary?

All joking aside, I think I bring up a good point.

Would I.D. be as offensive if IDers, instead of using it as a tool to advance religion, used it as a tool to gather public support for genuine science and research?

[Wowbagger]

Would I.D. be as offensive if IDers, instead of using it as a tool to advance religion, used it as a tool to gather public support for genuine science and research?No, of course not! If I.D.ers were enganged in genuine scientific research, they would not be nearly as offensive.

They could be like S.E.T.I., but finding stuff out about life, instead of the cosmos.

S.E.T.I. is more respected by scientists, because (with a few minor exceptions, in the past), they are not prone to false alarms of intelligence.

Funny thing is that I.D. likes to compare themselves to S.E.T.I. The big difference is that I.D. is NOT making any new discoveries about anything, at all! They just sit around affirming their conclusions.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Most of them would say that was a "strawman" question, and that I.D. does not include the supernatural. (And, simply asking how I.D. would affect medicine was already covered by some of the other questions.)

Of course, but if it is not supernatural then what is the intelligent designer? If Darwinian evolution is a crock like they claim and, assuming a supreme xenosapient force created us, how did it get here in the first place? I have a feeling that we could toss the debate out the window and refer to such beings as Gods/Supernatural Forces anyways.

ETA: On second thought let me rephrase and include it to answer only those IDers who accept a supernatural force or deity as their ID. What benefit does science have by accepting the answer "magic man dun it"

[Wowbagger]

Of course, but if it is not supernatural then what is the intelligent designer? It could be aliens.

Yeah, I know... you then have to ask where the aliens came from, but that is a question they will save for later.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

It could be aliens.

Yeah, I know... you then have to ask where the aliens came from, but that is a question they will save for later.

Somehow I suspect we just aren't going to get a straight answer

[Wowbagger]

Thanks, everyone, for the contributions, so far! The following is a draft of the questions I chose, so far. I will present them to most target places in parts (not the whole thing at once). (Though, a few places might get the whole thing, at once. It depends on how I judge the "needs" of the audience.)

Any feedback would be appreciated.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 1: The Practical Issues
1A. How can I.D. be applied to medical science, to help us fight diseases?

1B. How can I.D. be used as a framework for solving problems in any scientific field?

1C. If I.D. were to completely replace Evolution as the standard theory taught in U.S. schools, how would that give our students a competitive advantage in understanding the science of biology, on the world's stage?

Part 2: The Designer

2A. Where is the evidence that a Designer exists? And, why do so many Creationists act like this question is not even important, when they claim they are doing science?

2B. How are we to assess the engineering skills of the Designer? Can we determine what constraints existed for the Designer, in terms of materials, labor, and so forth? (This would seem important, if we are going to replace Evolution for use in medical research, for example.)

2C. Why are certain common characteristics of designed products absent in most life forms? (such as detachable and easily replaceable parts, or "maker" labels, for example) What prevented the Designer from giving us these things?

2D. How can we deduce the motives of the Intelligent Designer?

2E. Does I.D. claim that there is supposed to be a specific purpose for life on Earth? If so, how do you know what it is? (Or what they are? There could be more than one purpose.)

2F. Some people are under the impression that life looks as though it was either 'designed by committee' or perhaps 'competing contractors'. But, some insist that there was only one Designer. Can you develop a test to determine which is more accurate?

2G. If I were to claim that the "deducing of an Intelligent Designer" was nothing more than a type of paredolia phenomenon, how could you demonstrate otherwise?


Part 3: The Science

3A. Scientists are often motivated by the thrill of discovering new things. If you want more scientists to take Intelligent Design more seriously, how would you appeal to that?

3B. Could you define your technical terms, (and other words or expressions), that are likely to be misunderstood? For example: What is I.D.'s working definition of "Intelligence" or "Design"? In what ways do they differ from forces that are not intelligent and things that are not designed? (In other words, we are aiming for empirical definitions.)

3C. Why do so many I.D. proponents often (but not always) get scientific concepts wrong, such as: junk DNA, macroevolution, thermodynamics, Big Bang Theory, and the whole concept of Natural Selection, etc.?
How come so little effort has been made to "do your homework, and "know your enemy" better, before debating these issues on scientific grounds?

3D. What observations were originally predicted by your theory?

3E. Can you design an experiment that could invalidate (or "falsify") Intelligent Design, depending on the results?

3F. Why has Evolution, even in its provisional form, been powerful enough to change what I.D. proponents think, over time. But, I.D. has not been powerful enough to change what Evolution proponents think, so far?

3G. How come it always seems to be the evolutionary biologists who are publishing new, innovative results and findings, and not I.D. researchers? (If it is "luck", then why do they get all the "luck"?)

3H. If I were to claim that Intelligent Design studies do nothing but "affirm their conclusions", how could you demonstrate otherwise?

Part 4: The Competition

4A. Can your theory explain why the present distribution of plant and animals in the world came about, the way it is? Why are tomatoes and potatoes only native to the Americas, for example? Why are monotremes and a few placental mammals restricted to Australia? Why could they not have been distributed anywhere else?

4B. Can your theory explain endogenous retroviruses?

4C. For every example of Intelligent Design given so far, how come Evolution has also discovered a possible way for it to emerge, naturally? And, how come the natural method is usually the one making better predictions about the example's behavior? (For example: Evolutionary theory predicted the behavior of mal-formed bacterial agents, than Intelligent Design.)

Part 5: Politics and Values (These are not as important as the other four sections, though.)

5A. Why is it so difficult for I.D. proponents to distance themselves from religious fundamentalists?

5B. Why has so much of the resources spent promoting I.D. been used to fight court battles and school boards, and virtually nothing on labs or new research?

5C. Many creationists claim that Evolution is all a hoax, and a conspiracy theory. Why has there been virtually no effort, on the part of legitimate I.D. researchers to point out how Evolution science has already impacted our lives in positive ways? (Such as in the fields of medical research, agriculture, animal conservation, oil drilling, and organic materials research, etc.) How do you answer the accusation that you are "endorsing madness through inaction"?

5D. Some people are under the impression that the values behind the Intelligent Design movement are only based on fear, oppression, and guilt. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

[sphenisc]

Thanks, everyone, for the contributions, so far! The following is a draft of the questions I chose, so far. I will present them to most target places in parts (not the whole thing at once). (Though, a few places might get the whole thing, at once. It depends on how I judge the "needs" of the audience.)

Any feedback would be appreciated.

...

I'd like to see a question asking what the crux of the ID theory is. Until you got a clear definition of what's under discussion there is too much wriggle room. It's already clear from the thread so far that there's a diversity of opinion on what ID implies, and that, I suspect, is due to there being no clear definition given.
Alternatively you might want to state what you regard as the central claim(s) of ID at the beginning. Proponents can then self-identify even if they hadn't realised they were ID proponents.

[Dave Rogers]

(For example: Evolutionary theory predicted the behavior of mal-formed bacterial agents, than Intelligent Design.)

Minor nitpick: this sentence appears to be missing a word or two.

Otherwise, this looks like a very good set of questions. I look forward to your accounts of how they were evaded.

Dave

[CriticalThanking]

Why are certain characteristics of designed products absent in most life forms, such as detachable and easily replaceable parts, or "maker" labels, for example?I am not a fan of this one as worded. Some things humans design do not have the items specified.

First, you are constrained by the materials chosen. The designers tried attaching a 2 inch label to a single cell, but the rivets kept popping and they gave up. I hear there is a project to attach a labels to the new elements at the end of the periodic table, but we can't seem to get our labels attached within the lifetime of the particles.

Perhaps the designers were not worried about glactic patents. Why bother to encode DNA that would print "Proudly made in Xhtwb Galaxy with union labor" on the skin?

We constantly replace individual cells within the body as part of our life cycle. Heck - stem cells can be anything, including cells that makes more stem cells. It is only the bigger structures that would fall under your replacement part category. Which leads to...

Why don't we make writing paper with detachable and easily replaceable parts? The cost of doing so dwarfs that of making another piece. Similarly, I venture to guess that the majority of life forms reproduce prolifically. Replacing the entire unit with 10 (100, 1000, etc) offspring may be "eaiser" than designing the individual unit to replace/repair large parts. Given the nature of biological materials, this may be the most efficient approach, though not optimal for the individual needing a new part.

CT

[Wowbagger]

Minor nitpick: this sentence appears to be missing a word or two.

(For example: Evolutionary theory predicted the behavior of mal-formed bacterial agents, better than Intelligent Design.)

[Wowbagger]

I am not a fan of this one as worded. Some things humans design do not have the items specified.
I did rephrase it slightly, in the draft:

2C. Why are certain common characteristics of designed products absent in most life forms? (such as detachable and easily replaceable parts, or "maker" labels, for example) What prevented the Designer from giving us these things?

But, perhaps I can word slightly better than that:

2C. Why are certain characteristics commonly found in many designed products absent in most life forms? (such as detachable and easily replaceable parts, or "maker" labels, for example) What prevented the Designer from giving us these things?

[ArmillarySphere]

I think 2C still begs the question of why the designer *should* give us those labels.

I think that if you want to make the ID believers (note: as opposed to proponents who are likely going to covet their ignorance), you need to make the questions free of obvious bias/confrontational mindset against the theory. When trying to actually change someone's mind, it helps a lot to actually come off as giving the theory a fair chance while asking exactly those questions which highlight the weak spots.

You mentioned not putting all these questions to the same person, so I suppose you've already thought of this. I'd just like to flag those questions that will aggravate your opponent AND come across to neutral observers as unfair and aggressive. You may not respect their position, but you need to at least appear to give them a fair chance.

So, going over the questions:
1A-B: Very good.
1C is slightly biased, but not too bad

2A mentions Creationists, not "design proponentists" ;) and is a little biased - rephrase somehow
2B is great
2C begs the question as mentioned
2D-F are great
2G is fine if you're preaching to the choir.

3A could be rephrased along the lines of "Assuming the theory is accepted, list some of the top most interesting research avenues for Intelligent Design" The first part of that is simply to avoid a laundry list of "show evolution is wrong about X"
3B, 3D-E are great.
3C is exactly the sort of thing *not* to ask someone supporting ID - instant hostile reaction.
The rest of section 3 is also pretty bad, but not as much as 3C

4A is good
4B triggers the honest response "What about them?". Clarify the question
4C is biased

5B deserves to be asked, I think - someone who is on the fence deserves to hear the answer to that one.
The rest of section 5 is a little too confrontational.

[Wowbagger]

I think 2C still begs the question of why the designer *should* give us those labels.

(snip) You make some good points I will take into consideration.

[pupdog]

An exciting field in science and engineering is the fabrication of materials based on designs originally found in nature. Why doesn't the Original Designer bring suit against such activity on the grounds of infringement of intellectual property? Can this question be answered without assuming some characteristics of that Designer?

[Wowbagger]

An exciting field in science and engineering is the fabrication of materials based on designs originally found in nature. Why doesn't the Original Designer bring suit against such activity on the grounds of infringement of intellectual property? Can this question be answered without assuming some characteristics of that Designer?

Ah, yes... biomimetics. I hear quite a bit about that, from various Creationists.

I don't think the question could be answered without at least one, small assumption about the Designer: It has no claims of intellectual property, and all of its designs are "public domain".

Though, the study of I.D., as an origin of life, has not been shown to be productive in the field of biomimetics. And, sometimes, Evoluion is.