Can ID be disproven?

[davefoc]

Is there any similar kind of statement that you would find acceptable?

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by davefoc

Is there any similar kind of statement that you would find acceptable?

I posted a bit too early before--I wanted to say that I think it is very noble of you to be trying to find middle ground here. I am giving thought to whether a statement of any sort would work.

"This book explains the development of living organisms by a process of mutation and natural selection. The views in this book relating to evolution, mutation and natural selection reflect current mainstream scientific ideas about these issues. That is the purpose of a textbook, and as such reflects the purpose of your education. If this offends you, tough. If your sensibilities are so delicate that you take conservative conclusions based on overwhelming evidence as a personal affront, please pass the plate, take up a collection, and buy a freakin' clue. It is not personal. In evolution, as in every other area of science, we simply follow the evidence."

Ok, I don't think that one would help. But it made me feel better.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by davefoc

Suppose this was ID statement that was put in the front of a biology text book:
"This book explains the development of living organisms by a process of mutation and natural selection. The views in this book relating to evolution, mutation and natural selection reflect current mainstream scientific ideas about these issues. There are alternative views about the development of living organisms than the ones put forth in this book. In particular some people believe that the nature of life is such that some form of intelligent design is required to explain it. Theories relating to intelligent design as an explanation for the nature of living organisms are not discussed in this text book. "

Would ID'ers accept this statement (or a similar one) as adequate? Would evolutionary believers accept this statement (or a similar one) as an acceptable intrusion into a science text book? Would this statement pass constituitional muster?

I'm not sure I'd accept that statement as it doesn't really offer anything of value to the science course.

One statement that I think might make it in (perhaps incorporating it with your wording), would be something along the lines of "the theory of evolution makes no metaphyical claims as the existence or attributes of God. It is a scientific theory relating to the development through time of the life forms of the planet earth, and offers niether assumes nor denies any role played by God."
Of course that's poorly worded, but I think you get the point - evolution isn't relgion. As, I think, Meadmaker seems to be trying to point out, it's possible that God did play a role in the process of evolution. There is no evidence for this, however, and as such God does not play a part in the theory of evolution.

Niether, though, does the theory suggest that god didn't play a role, it just doesn't account for that role because it has no evidence to base such accounting upon.

Now I'm not sure that would satisfy ID people, but it seems to get the basic point across - understanding evolution doesn't mean you have to be an atheist. I think at the least it should appeal to the middle ground - religious people who might feel threatened by the apparent implications of evolution.

[Meadmaker]

I think the Roborama statement, or something similar, would do a very good job of placating a lot of people Of course, not all ID supporters would like it, because some of them are also creationists. However, that isn't the point. I don't think many people who read this forum are concerned about the feelings of creationists or intelligent design supporters anyway.

The Dover, PA school board wanted to put forward something related to the claims of intelligent design, though. If we wanted to specifically mention that theory, but remain on firm scientific ground, we could make a statement like this:

"the theory of evolution makes no metaphyical claims as the existence or attributes of God or any other spiritual entities. It is a scientific theory relating to the development through time of the life forms of the planet earth, and offers niether assumes nor denies any role played by God. It reflects the judgement of mainstream science about the development of life, and is supported overwhelmingly by scientists.

There is a theory referred to as "intelligent design" that asserts that there is evidence from the study of biological structures that those structures were the product of the work of a designer, and were not the product of a random process. This hypothesis lacks experimental evidence, but neither has it been disproven. It should be noted that this theory is not inherently incompatible with evolution and some supporters of this theory also believe in evolution.

Because this theory is not supported by the scientific mainstream, and because there is no specific experimental evidence to support this theory, this theory is not presented in a biology textbook. Some books have been written on the subject, and they are available through bookstores and might be available through your library."

So what good would such a statement do for the skeptical side of the debate?

First, it would make a point that evolution does not exclude the existence of God, which all by itself would take away a lot of the creationist thunder.

Second, it would point out that the claims of intelligent design are not actually incompatible with evolution. This would divide a lot of the supporters of ID. It is my belief that ID gets a lot of support only because there is a perception that scientists are pushing "godless" dogma on young minds. We should make it clear that we are not.

Meanwhile, it makes a true and correct statement about the state of scientific knowledge about evolution and intelligent design.

Does anyone disagree with that?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by clarsct

ID does not predict, it teaches us nothing. It is not science.

It does predict. Go back to my fruit fly experiment. We are going to subject fruit flies to severe pressure in an isolated population.

The theory of evolution predicts that, given time, those fruit flies will change into something that isn't a fruit fly, and has certain anatomical structures that are well suited to survival in that environment.

The "theory" of intelligent design predicts that any change to the fruit flies will not involve the development of new structures that appear to have been designed.

Example of one type of change: I imagined that we are going to give the flies plenty of food, but it will be in strange boxes. The boxes will have screen coverings, with mesh that just barely allows the fruit flies to get their little mouths to the food. After some generations, small-mouthed fruit flies will dominate in the cages. Then, we will make the boxes different, so that the food is actually at the bottom of short tubes. The flies can only get the food if they have very small mouths, but which can stick out from their face a bit.

The theory of evolution says that if I do this often enough, and allow enough time for evolution to work, that eventually, I will end up with a fruit fly with a long, narrow, almost mosquito-like mouth. Or maybe a better analogy would be a fruit fly with a long, narrow, mouth, similar to the long, narrow, beak of certain Galopogos Island Finches.

The theory of ID says that that will never happen because those finch beaks were designed.

There's your prediction. The experiment hasn't been run. (Has it? In some form?) If that's the case, then isn't it a valid scientific hypothesis?

[davefoc]

I think I'd be fine with something like that meadmaker.

I think some ID'ers wouldn't like this line:

Quote:

and because there is no specific experimental evidence to support this theory,

Some of them go nuts with these convoluted explanations of how the natural world is consistent with their interpretations of biblical inerrancy. I think they would claim that their rationalizations of biblical stories and the natural world is science. I think that's crap, but I don't think a compromise is possible if you evilutionists insist on calling it crap.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

The theory of ID says that that will never happen because those finch beaks were designed.

In which case I think they've missed the whole point. Evolution is nothing more than adaptation by design ... both internally as well as the dictates of the surrounding environment.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

In which case I think they've missed the whole point. Evolution is nothing more than adaptation by design ... both internally as well as the dictates of the surrounding environment.

Evolution has nothing to do with design, Iacchus.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

In which case I think they've missed the whole point. Evolution is nothing more than adaptation by design ... both internally as well as the dictates of the surrounding environment.

No, it isn't. Evolution is nothing more than the changes in allele frequencies over time.

The theory suggests that there are a few mechanisms that cause those changes - for example differential reproduction, which itself might be caused by the adaptivity (is that a word?) of the phenotypic effects of a specific allele to the current environment relative to other alleles that are found in the gene pool.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

In which case I think they've missed the whole point.

If you are saying that ID supporters have missed the point, I doubt you will find much in the way of argument on this board.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

The "theory" of intelligent design predicts that any change to the fruit flies will not involve the development of new structures that appear to have been designed.

It makes no such prediction at all. There is a lot of mumbling about it, and clearly some IDers would like it to be the case, but that's it.

ID makes the claim that the evolution of irreducibly complex biological mechanisms is highly unlikely. There is no empirical evidence for this. Dembski attempts a logical proof for the flagellum, but fails.

As an example, does the recently evolved ability of bacteria to digest nylon involve a designed structure?

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

The theory of evolution predicts that, given time, those fruit flies will change into something that isn't a fruit fly, and has certain anatomical structures that are well suited to survival in that environment.

Although this also seems to me what evolution implies -- predicts? -- do our resident evolutionists agree? Or if not, why not?

Quote:

The "theory" of intelligent design predicts that any change to the fruit flies will not involve the development of new structures that appear to have been designed.

Paul says 'no'. I tend to say 'yes'; that would to me be a prediction that ID should make.

Originally Posted by Paul

As an example, does the recently evolved ability of bacteria to digest nylon involve a designed structure?

No, but do you suggest the bacteria are no longer bacteria? And you say 'evolved', I say 'mutated', and in the presence of nylon, survives better than strains that don't digest nylon. And, was this feature found 'in the wild' or forced in the lab?

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Taffer

Evolution has nothing to do with design, Iacchus.

Really? So how is it that man evolved to the point where he can create his own designs? Are you saying that these are not a part of the evolutionary process, or what? If not, then where the heck did they come from?

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

...
As an example, does the recently evolved ability of bacteria to digest nylon involve a designed structure?

Apparently, not every one shares your view that nylon digesting bacteria are evidence for evolution:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

The article was well above something that I could easily understand, but I think the basic idea is that the bacteria had some genetic material all along that could digest nylon. The genetic material preexisted in plasmids that were designed into the bacteria so that it could adapt to different environments.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

If you are saying that ID supporters have missed the point, I doubt you will find much in the way of argument on this board.

Which, is why I say the only possible argument they could maintain, is that evolution is guided ... which, of course is a reflection of its design.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Which, is why I say the only possible argument they could maintain, is that evolution is guided ... which, of course is a reflection of its design.

Circularity, illustrated in one sentence...

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Really? So how is it that man evolved to the point where he can create his own designs? Are you saying that these are not a part of the evolutionary process, or what? If not, then where the heck did they come from?

Well, since this can evolve without any design, prove to me that evolution was designed.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

It makes no such prediction at all.

I suppose we should ask someone who believes in ID what predictions it makes.

I noted in another thread in the politics forum that a lot of people who criticize ID haven't read anything written by an ID supporter, only by ID detractors. The same is true of evolution's detractors. Most of them only read anti-evolution material.

My understanding of ID is that it predicts no complex structures can evolve by random processes. Applying that to the fruit flies, they would say that maybe bigger flies or smaller flies might come about, but they would still be fruit flies, with no new complex structures.

P.S. The stuff about nylon-eating bacteria requires some study. Response to come, someday.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Taffer

Well, since this can evolve without any design, prove to me that evolution was designed.

Nice try.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

My understanding of ID is that it predicts no complex structures can evolve by random processes. Applying that to the fruit flies, they would say that maybe bigger flies or smaller flies might come about, but they would still be fruit flies, with no new complex structures.

Oh, well, you see you need to get away from the notion that true randomness exists. That way you can allow for all facets of evolution and still say that it was designed.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

My understanding of ID is that it predicts no complex structures can evolve by random processes. Applying that to the fruit flies, they would say that maybe bigger flies or smaller flies might come about, but they would still be fruit flies, with no new complex structures.

What about flies that have legs instead of antennae?

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Nice try.

So you have no evidence that a design is required? Colour me surprised...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Hammegk

Paul says 'no'. I tend to say 'yes'; that would to me be a prediction that ID should make.

ID does not have a crisp definition of what is "designed." That is why I said it makes no predictions about designs. ID does have a squirrelly definition of "irreducible complexity" and claims such biological mechanisms cannot evolve. Perhaps I am splitting hairs.

Originally Posted by davefoc

Apparently, not every one shares your view that nylon digesting bacteria are evidence for evolution

Yes, the IDers will say it's adaptation instead of evolution.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I noted in another thread in the politics forum that a lot of people who criticize ID haven't read anything written by an ID supporter, only by ID detractors. The same is true of evolution's detractors. Most of them only read anti-evolution material.

I have read Dembski's No Free Lunch.

Quote:

My understanding of ID is that it predicts no complex structures can evolve by random processes. Applying that to the fruit flies, they would say that maybe bigger flies or smaller flies might come about, but they would still be fruit flies, with no new complex structures.

Dembski has an explanatory filter that tries to identify biological objects with "complex specified information." He claims these cannot come into existence by any naturalistic means. However, the only object he analyzed was the flagellum, and only by treating it as a discrete combinatorial object. I have never seen an analysis of the probability of an object coming into existence by an evolutionary means.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

.

I have read Dembski's No Free Lunch.

~~ Paul

Sorry. Wasn't clear. I suspected that you had read that or other ID works, and that the "they" in my post wasn't meant to refer directly to you.

Nevertheless, I think ID supporters would predict a different outcome of the experiment than would evolution supporters. I think ID is testable, but it would take a long time to run the test.

There is one sense in which it is not truly testable. Suppose we ran the fruit fly test and some new, highly unlikely, structure appeared. The ID crowd might very well say that God just did that because he wanted to trick you. After all, "thou shalt not put the Lord your God to the test."

My point is that it is theoretically testable, and therefore we shouldn't be hostile to mentioning it in a science class. "Ok, class. There are some people who think this:....but since we can't run the experiment, that won't be on the test. Meanwhile, genes mutate and plants and animals change over time. That has been tested experimentally, and you will be tested on those experiments. Class dismissed." The fact that there is extreme hostility toward even allowing a teacher to say that demonstrates that there is more going on here than a debate about science.

[Taffer]

ID is in no way theoretically testable, for one simple reason. ID'ers say "God made the world as if evolution happened". (Taking the general stance, here, not the "evolution is false" stance). They then make a prediction, using evolution. We then test it and find that the prediction was wrong. Evolutionists say "well, our theory must be wrong", and go about making it 'right'. ID'ers say "oh well, God made the world as if evolution happened, except here". See? ID can never be wrong.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Meadmaker: So you're saying that ID is testable by running an experiment where we watch to see if evolution can produce a structure that is ... what? Irreducibly complex? Not a structure we would "expect" on a fruit fly? The source of a speciation event?

Pick one. Then tell me exactly how ID predicts that your chosen event could not happen, and fails if it does. Make sure you get the details right, because I wouldn't want any IDers to say that you'd chosen a goalpost that has nothing to do with ID.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

ID does not have a crisp definition of what is "designed."

Reminds one of the definitional difficulties we find in The Theory, huh?

Originally Posted by Taffer

ID is in no way theoretically testable, for one simple reason. ID'ers say "God made the world as if evolution happened". (Taking the general stance, here, not the "evolution is false" stance). They then make a prediction, using evolution. We then test it and find that the prediction was wrong. Evolutionists say "well, our theory must be wrong", and go about making it 'right'. ID'ers say "oh well, God made the world as if evolution happened, except here". See? ID can never be wrong.

Nominated for best strawman of the decade....

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Meadmaker: So you're saying that ID is testable by running an experiment where we watch to see if evolution can produce a structure that is ... what? Irreducibly complex? Not a structure we would "expect" on a fruit fly? The source of a speciation event?

Pick one. Then tell me exactly how ID predicts that your chosen event could not happen, and fails if it does. Make sure you get the details right, because I wouldn't want any IDers to say that you'd chosen a goalpost that has nothing to do with ID.

~~ Paul

For the sake of arguement, I'll take the question, although it would be better to ask Behe or Dembski, but since they aren't here, I'll go for it.

Not a structure we would expect on a fruit fly. ID predicts that such a change would take a series of steps, but that the intermediate steps would not result in positive selection pressure, and therefore it wouldn't evolve. ID says that if we want fruit flies with mosquito-like beaks that could get the fruit out of deep, narrow, holes, we would have to design them.

Oh, by the way, while we are here, you might as well predict exactly what evolution predicts would happen during the experiment, and make sure you get the details right. That way we can compare the relative predictive quality of the two hypotheses.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Not a structure we would expect on a fruit fly. ID predicts that such a change would take a series of steps, but that the intermediate steps would not result in positive selection pressure, and therefore it wouldn't evolve. ID says that if we want fruit flies with mosquito-like beaks that could get the fruit out of deep, narrow, holes, we would have to design them.

ID doesn't predict that. ID says that if the result is irreducibly complex, then there were intermediate steps that had no selective advantage. It doesn't predict that any particular result will be IC. However, Dembski has recently backed away from this stance and now says that one has to determine that there were no possible evolutionary pathways to the object. This is, of course, impossible.

Quote:

Oh, by the way, while we are here, you might as well predict exactly what evolution predicts would happen during the experiment, and make sure you get the details right. That way we can compare the relative predictive quality of the two hypotheses.

What experiment? Exactly how are you going to apply pressure on these fruit flies?

Originally Posted by Hammegk

Nominated for best strawman of the decade....

How do you figure? With ID, evolution is just fine except when they pick a sacred object and claim it could not have evolved. Do they choose the sacred objects based on a theory of ID? No, they just pick objects they think are cool.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

What experiment? Exactly how are you going to apply pressure on these fruit flies?

However you like, Paul.

The point is that someone said ID wasn't scientific because it makes no predictions. That isn't true. ID says that complex structures can't evolve, because they are irreducibly complex. Therefore, given an opportunity, complex structures won't evolve. Evolution, or perhaps I say unguided evolution, will sometimes end up creating complex structures if selection pressure creates an advantage for those structures and their intermediates.

The point of my question about predicting what happens when evolutionary pressure was applied to fruit flies was to demonstrate that making such predictions in more than the vaguest terms is very close to impossible. No biologist alive today can predict exactly what will happen or how long it will take. Therefore, demanding that ID people do the same is rather silly.

If I subject fruit flies to selection pressure, in whatever manner I choose to, evolution predicts that eventually I will end up with something that isn't a fruit fly, and has a form that is very well suited to its new environment. Intelligent Design predicts that you will end up with a bunch of dead fruit flies, because they can't adapt to their environment quickly enough without the hand of a designer. It's not that difficult to grasp.

[bagtaggar]

Maybe I'm missing something here.

Evolution is a robust, thoroughly tested theory supported by mountains of observational and laboratory data.

There are dozens of known examples of observed speciation occuring within the span of a couple hundred years, the Feroe Island field mouse is one such example.

The genetic code of many species testifies to the presence of evolutionary processes, as predicted by the theory. We have endogenous retroviruses, retroposons, pseudogenes, LINEs and SINEs that match the fossil record for known evolutionary changes.

We observe daily how bacteria, through rapidly accelerated evolution (due to their incredible reproduction rates), develop resistance to anti-biotics, adapt to new harsh environments, and find creative ways to take advantage of changing resources.

The fossil record very strongly supports evolution. Whatever holes in the record there are, they are more than made up for by any of the above evidences, and are still the subject of research.

I could go on and on. Evolution is a strong theory. It makes accurate predictions. It is supported by mountains of evidence from hundreds of different scientific disciplines. Every single componant of the theory, natural selection, speciation, variation, mutation, etc has been thoroughly demonstrated and proven in many different redundant ways.

Intelligent Design consists of two things. A list of complaints about philosophical elements of the theory of evolution, and a strong religious componant that invalidates any notions of objectivity.

I can't for the life of me see why there is even a debate. This is so silly.

[davefoc]

I don't want to put words in Meadmakers mouth but I believe he is saying that theoretically ID makes predictions that are testable. Whether as a practical matter they are or not is a different question. Further I do not think he is saying that even if a test was devised that tested ID that an IDer would accept the results or not attempt to weasel around the results.

Meadmaker wrote:

Quote:

..ID says that complex structures can't evolve, because they are irreducibly complex.

I think what is meant by this sentence is that irreducibly complex structures can not arise through a process of evolution. I take this to mean that things like eyes and wings aren't generated by a process of evolution because there would be no point to even a very simple eye unless it worked so an organism is not going to all of a sudden sprout the simplest of eyes through a random mutation process.

So the only testable prediction is that an organism won't all of a sudden evolve an irreducibly complex body part or process. It seemed like the digestion of nylon was a perfect example of a violation of a ID prediction. But alas it wasn't. At least not to an IDer who explained it by just claiming that the ability to adapt to different environments already was designed into the bacteria, so digesting nylon was really nothing new.

[bagtaggar]

Ah ok.

The problem I guess is that there are no known irreducibly complex pathways/systems. Behe (the biggest proponant of the idea) attempted to convince his readers, for example, that systems like the immune system, blood clotting, and the photon receptor process in the eye are example of irreducibly complex systems. He failed however to provide more than a foggy suggestion as to why these systems are irreducibly complex, and his book has never been successfully peer reviewed.

In fact, the vast majority of the biology community fail to see how any of the systems he mentions are irreducibly complex. I know I've run across more than a few papers talking about how the blood clotting system is actually very redundant, and I think I've mentioned in another thread that pharmaceutical companies perform genetic knock-out tests that demonstrate how supposedly irreducibly complex biochemical pathways manage to function after one or more of their componants has been removed.

So, ID basically has a hypothesis. It is not a theory. The hypothesis that an irreducibly complex system would demonstrate intelligent design is somewhat reasonable (although it's very debatable, and, quite the cop-out). However no such irreducibly complex system has yet been discovered.

Thus, it's just a hypothesis, it's not a theory.

[PatKelley]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

However you like, Paul.

The point is that someone said ID wasn't scientific because it makes no predictions. That isn't true. ID says that complex structures can't evolve, because they are irreducibly complex. Therefore, given an opportunity, complex structures won't evolve. Evolution, or perhaps I say unguided evolution, will sometimes end up creating complex structures if selection pressure creates an advantage for those structures and their intermediates.

The point of my question about predicting what happens when evolutionary pressure was applied to fruit flies was to demonstrate that making such predictions in more than the vaguest terms is very close to impossible. No biologist alive today can predict exactly what will happen or how long it will take. Therefore, demanding that ID people do the same is rather silly.

If I subject fruit flies to selection pressure, in whatever manner I choose to, evolution predicts that eventually I will end up with something that isn't a fruit fly, and has a form that is very well suited to its new environment. Intelligent Design predicts that you will end up with a bunch of dead fruit flies, because they can't adapt to their environment quickly enough without the hand of a designer. It's not that difficult to grasp.

Testing the ID paradigm. That would involve actually creating some positive testable statements.

Okay, I'm an ID proponent, and to prove intelligent design, I would say that it requires a falsifiable hypothesis. Saying Evolution hasn't created life is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

To prove an intelligent creator, I would say that organisms do not get all of their instructions from DNA or related molecules, but from another source. To falsify this, I would have to show that no other source provides instruction preferably by breeding organisms that have all one type of gene, subjecting them to selective pressures, and showing that mutation had occurred, use this DNA and only this DNA (No other part of the original organism) to replace the nuclear material of another organism, and subject it to the same selective pressures. If it still survives, ID falsified. If it does not, it only shows that DNA is not the only possible mechanism of inheritence and survivability.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by PatKelley

Testing the ID paradigm. That would involve actually creating some positive testable statements.

This has been done. Meadmaker's suggestion is very close to the mark. Behe's recent testimony in the ID case provides another one -- put a whole bunch of bacteria that do not have flagellae into a test tube and see if over several thousand generations, they evolve one. The position of ID is that they will not.

Unfortunately, this is a test, not of ID vs. evolution, but of ID vs. a pale shadow of evolutionary theory, since the position of evolutionary theory is that the bacteria probably will not evolve flagellae, either. There aren't enough bacteria in a normal test tube, the thousands of generations aren't long enough for an expected event of such magnitude, and we have no idea what sort of evolutionary pressure would be appropriate to apply.

The real problems are twofold. First, even if a bacterium "evolved" a flagellum, that could simply be the mark of the Designer at work, so even a "negative" result (from the ID perspective) wouldn't disprove ID. And second, as the attorney pointed out in his closing arguments, no one from the ID side of the debate is actually interested in running such a test.

[uruk]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

However you like, Paul.

The point is that someone said ID wasn't scientific because it makes no predictions. That isn't true. ID says that complex structures can't evolve, because they are irreducibly complex. Therefore, given an opportunity, complex structures won't evolve. Evolution, or perhaps I say unguided evolution, will sometimes end up creating complex structures if selection pressure creates an advantage for those structures and their intermediates.

The point of my question about predicting what happens when evolutionary pressure was applied to fruit flies was to demonstrate that making such predictions in more than the vaguest terms is very close to impossible. No biologist alive today can predict exactly what will happen or how long it will take. Therefore, demanding that ID people do the same is rather silly.

If I subject fruit flies to selection pressure, in whatever manner I choose to, evolution predicts that eventually I will end up with something that isn't a fruit fly, and has a form that is very well suited to its new environment. Intelligent Design predicts that you will end up with a bunch of dead fruit flies, because they can't adapt to their environment quickly enough without the hand of a designer. It's not that difficult to grasp.

So what would call it when a strain of bacteria or virus under the pressure of vaccines and antigen turn into a strain that becomes resistant or jumps species as has been observed on numerous occasions?

[davefoc]

I think there is a third problem with this test drkitten suggests.

Just because an organism doesn't have a particular body part doesn't mean that the organism doesn't have the genetic code for that particular body part.

Lately there seems to have been an increased understanding how the expression of genes is controlled. It is certainly conceivable that the bacteria in question just needs to have the flagellum genes turned on to get a flagellum. So what would the generation of a flagellum prove? Perhaps not more than a single mutation occurred that allowed the flagellum to develop.

I suppose it is theorectically possible to analyse the genes that control the development of the flagellum and decide whether they represent something completely new or they just represent an expression of genes that were previously inactive. If they were completely new that would be a pretty strong case for the idea that some mechanism previously believed to have been irreducibly complex by an ID advocate could be created through a mechanism of mutation and natural selection, but I also have a gut feel that something as complex as a flagellum is not going to be created through evolution in anything like the the span of a human life.

[uruk]

The thing I noticed about I.C. is that they look at a complete functioning system with all it intricate parts and get dumbfounded that it could have developed over time. It's like looking at a fine rolex watch and marveling over the intricate gears and figuring that the watch could not have evolved from a simpler design since when you remove one part the watch stops working. they forget that chronometers first started out as a stick in the ground.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

As Bagtaggar said, let's have the ID folks demonstrate, empirically or logically, that some particular biological mechanism is irreducibly complex. Then we can start the experiment to see if we can evolve the mechanism in a really big test tube.

Until then, the goalpost of irreducible complexity is moving about as if some MIT students are using it for a football prank.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

Davefoc,
Quite right. I don't feel like words have been placed in my mouth.

Originally Posted by bagtaggar

So, ID basically has a hypothesis. It is not a theory. The hypothesis that an irreducibly complex system would demonstrate intelligent design is somewhat reasonable (although it's very debatable, and, quite the cop-out). However no such irreducibly complex system has yet been discovered.

Also quite right. When talking about ID, I frequently call it a hypothesis, or I talk about a "theory", including the quote marks. It is a genuine theory, in that it is a framework that explains the available evidence, but it lacks experimental confirmation.

My interest in the topic comes from my experience back in the days when I was a Christian. Back then, I believed in both evolution and intelligent design, although the word had not yet been coined at least in the popular press. I believed that God formed the world and created laws of physics and all of that stuff. Then, he guided the process of evolution with his own direction. When he needed it, he would introduce a "random" mutation here and there so that life evolved under His direction in the manner He wanted.

I don't believe that anymore, but I abandoned that belief based on theological musings, not scientific ones. In fact, I think that belief is completely and totally compatible with all science as we know it. In other words, ID and evolution are not contradictory.

So why the hostility? Why the debate?

I think the only explanation is that the most vocal people on both sides are talking about religion. On the ID side of things, the loudest proponents are basically creationists, who think that God made whole fish all at once complete with scales. On the evolutionary side, there are an awful lot of people who absolutely refuse to accept the possibility that God interferes with the process, even though that lack of intervention is in no way provable.

Neither position is scientific. Creationism is inconsistent with physical evidence, and unguided evolution is beyond what science can confirm, and yet there are people who will hold to either side and insist that they are totally and completely scientific. They aren't.

Meanwhile, ID goes a bit beyond what I believed when I was a Christian. It asserts that the biological evidence absolutely contains evidence of design, that certain structures could not happen by chance and selection pressure alone. That is a scientific claim, but testing it is very, very, difficult. As such, it is in the category of an unproven, untested, hypothesis.

I have no problem with science teachers saying, "Some people believe X, but we haven't tested that, and we aren't sure how to do it. Meanwhile, we have tested a lot of the following things, like the age of this rock, and they will be on the test. Please study." I think if teachers were allowed to openly discuss the religious implications of the theories of the origin of life, and then debate the evidence that actually exists, the average student would be smart enough to sort out the nonsense from the good stuff. What are we afraid of?