Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Intelligent Design: It's place in schools...

Yakk · 12-14-2004, 01:58 PM

ID is different than Creationism. ID is different than Darwinism.

ID adds another postulate (an intelligent designer) to a theory (natural evolution). There isn't any testable (testable = an assertion that can be proven false by new evidence) need for that postulate to be added. By good old occam, you cut the postulate unless it is needed.

We know random chance can and does cause evolutionary behaviour in complex systems, and that random chance is acting on life forms. Additional evolutionary agents should be dismissed until you can prove that the existing agents are insufficient.

You can't just show that an intelligent designer is consistent with your evolutionary model -- as noted above, an orange creating reality is consistent with the evolutionary model. You need to show, in a falsifiable way, that random chance is insufficient.

And, given the strength of the 'random-chance' model, you need a really really really strong case to provide another postulate.

After you pull that off, you need to show that there aren't other sources for evolutionary pressure that make fewer assumptions than an intelligent designer -- you need to show, in a falsifiable way, that intelligent design is the best explaination. And you need to hold up testable (falsifiable) predictions that intelligent design supports.

Given the nebulousness of the intelligent design arguement, it basically completely lacks testable (falsifiable) predictions. The best it does is generating a flurry of weak attacks on the random-chance based evolution (that eye's couldn't form in the time allotted, etc).

And that is why Intelligent Design doesn't belong in a Science class. Feel free to place it in Philosophy or Religious studies or even Social Studies.

12-14-2004, 01:58 PM	#32 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	ID is different than Creationism. ID is different than Darwinism. ID adds another postulate (an intelligent designer) to a theory (natural evolution). There isn't any testable (testable = an assertion that can be proven false by new evidence) need for that postulate to be added. By good old occam, you cut the postulate unless it is needed. We know random chance can and does cause evolutionary behaviour in complex systems, and that random chance is acting on life forms. Additional evolutionary agents should be dismissed until you can prove that the existing agents are insufficient. You can't just show that an intelligent designer is consistent with your evolutionary model -- as noted above, an orange creating reality is consistent with the evolutionary model. You need to show, in a falsifiable way, that random chance is insufficient. And, given the strength of the 'random-chance' model, you need a really really really strong case to provide another postulate. After you pull that off, you need to show that there aren't other sources for evolutionary pressure that make fewer assumptions than an intelligent designer -- you need to show, in a falsifiable way, that intelligent design is the best explaination. And you need to hold up testable (falsifiable) predictions that intelligent design supports. Given the nebulousness of the intelligent design arguement, it basically completely lacks testable (falsifiable) predictions. The best it does is generating a flurry of weak attacks on the random-chance based evolution (that eye's couldn't form in the time allotted, etc). And that is why Intelligent Design doesn't belong in a Science class. Feel free to place it in Philosophy or Religious studies or even Social Studies. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.