I.D can explain more of the observed facts evolution can: how evidence works.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Intelligent Design is capable of explaining more of the things we see than the theory of evolution can.

There are a great many questions which biologists have not answered yet, and many which they may well never answer. There are even some things which at first glance look seemingly paradoxical from an evolutionary PoV (counteradaptive display characteristics like the peacock's tail are a classic example, and there are some very ingenious suggestions as to how something like that evolved; genetic predisposition to homosexuality is another one).

By contrast, "God did it" is a perfectly plausible answer to every question, peacock's tails included. As a way of explaining why we *do* see what we *do* see, ID and similar supernatural theories are more powerful than any kind of science.

The reason evolution is both more plausible and more useful than supernatural theories is that evolution *couldn't* explain a great many things that we *don't* see. That means that it has predictive power, and can thus be used to develop technology and plan further experiments.

By contrast, the "God did it" theory can support and evidence you already have, but it doesn't help you at all when it comes to guessing what else God might do.

The definition of evidence for a hypothesis is *not* "an observation consistent with that hypothesis", its "an observation that would be more likely to occur if the hypothesis were true than if it were false".

The probability of the world being as it is under ID is low - God could make it this way, or he could make it any number of other ways. But only a small subset of those possibilities are compatible with evolution, and so seemingly being in one of those possibilities (or almost in it, if you accept seeming paradoxes as weak evidence against, which if you're being consistent you should) is evidence for the stronger hypothesis.

[eShirl]

1. Deus ex machina, literally.

Deus ex machina is a cop out, IMHO.

[tblue37]

2. The peacock's tail, the extravagant proboscis of the male

elephant seal, and other such excesses are signals to females that the male is so healthy and fit that he can afford to "waste" resources (i.e., calories) on such displays. (The calorie is the most basic economic unit. If a living entity spends more calories than it takes in, it dies.)

It isn't hard to figure out how sexual competition would lead to the fittest, strongest males getting more females and thus getting more of their genes into the next generation, and any male that could produce such an extravagant display without being weakened by it would have to be pretty darned fit.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. "Are" is overly confident, I think.

That's a plausible hypothesis, certainly.

[HereSince1628]

21. The peacock's tail as a consequence of sexual selection is also supported by

comparative studies in animal behavior that look at the peacock in context of species closely related to peafowl, what those studies found is that the degree of physical extravagance and the role of the behavioral display are quite indicative of both the source of the tail display and its elaboration.

Intelligent Design requires evidence of the planning/design. It has never shown any such evidence. It would be ridiculous to say "Show me God's drafting table, his pencil sharpener, the copy machine that made the over-sized prints", but that sort of thing is actually what is required.

What I.D. does do all of the time is apply legal standards to biological investigation. The most persuasive argument for ID isn't evidence based , it is based in the concept of creating doubt. It does this in a parallel fashion to the notion of creating 'reasonable doubt' among a jury of people with no special education.

Unfortunately for ID, among scientists the jurors are actually not naive people dragged off the street, scientific juries are educated.


It's not enough to create a legal concept of doubt, routine science works best by slam dunk negation, advances in understanding require very clear positive evidence.

[The Magistrate]

3. The Problem With That, Sir, Is That It Is Untestable

The hypothesis 'da diety done done it' cannot be put to a test which could either vindicate it or refute it.

The supernatural claim to explain everything fails to actually explain anything.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. That's a red herring, I think.

I don't particularly care whether I.D. is "scientific" or not. What matters is a) if it is true (answer: there is no reason to believe that it is, but that's not the same as saying that it isn't), and b) if it is useful (answer: not at all).

There's no reason to suppose that all true statements about the universe - or even all useful true statements about the universe - should be susceptible to such tests.

And not being susceptible to such a test doesn't mean they don't explain things.

[The Magistrate]

6. If You Cannot Test The Validity Of An Explanation, It is An Article Of Faith

Prove the existence of a diety....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. Or a guess. But that's an orthogonal question to whether or not it's right. N.T.

[The Magistrate]

10. Claiming It Does Explain, Sir, Claims Validity For It, Making It An Article Of Faith

One may subscribe to it or not, but an article of faith it remains. Faith, recall, is generally defined in religious matters as belief maintained in the absence of evidence the belief is true, or even in the face of evidence it is false.

Since your stated view here, that 'intelligent design' is a superior explanation to evolution, prove the existence of something to do the designing. Unless you can do that, you have nothing, no explination, superior or otherwise, for anything, at all....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. That's not my view, stated or otherwise - was that a deliberate or an accidental misstatement?

I don't for a moment claim validity for I.D. What I do claim, since you ask (although it really wasn't the point of the OP) is that it's compatible with all the observable evidence, and therefore the belief that ID is wrong (and, far more importantly, that The Matrix is wrong) and that evolution (and, more generally, the evidence of our senses) is right can only ever be a guess. We can say "Occam's razor" as a reasonable-sounding explanation for that guess, but it's still just a guess.

Moreover, and closer to what I was actually talking about, once one makes a fairly limited basic set of guesses (the universe is roughly as we perceive it, Occam's razor, cause and effect, the validity of human reason, Descartes's invisible deceiver does not exist, the Wachowski brothers were wrong, etc) one can use Bayesian statistics to expand those to a much wider set of consequences in a sensible way.

And I certainly don't claim that ID is a "superior" explanation to evolution. I think that technically it either has size one but zero power, or power one but zero size, and that what one wants in a hypothesis is a high product of size and power, but it's a long while since I studied that area of stats, and I may be completely misapplying those terms. What it *is* is an explanation fully compatible with all the observed facts (arguably in that respect the word "superior" really is applicable). But - and this was the whole point of the OP, which you seem not to have grasped - the measure of the evidence for a hypothesis is not "are these observations possible/likely under this hypothesis?" but "are these observations more likely under this hypothesis than under its converse?"

[The Magistrate]

14. Then This Whole Thing, Sir, Is Not Worth Disturbing the Path Of a Single Electron Over

And like those little bundles of energy, I have other things to do and other paths I prefer....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. I strongly disagree.

I think that a lot of people don't really understand how evidence works, and wouldn't know Bayesianism if it bit them on the nose, but that it's one of the most important sets of ideas out there.

[MattBaggins]

44. "I think that a lot of people don't really understand how evidence works"

Sorry to be blunt but you would be at the top of that list.

in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous:

I do not believe the skydaddy belief fits that definition of evidence.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

57. Well, no. Of course it doesn't, and I didn't say it did. Please read before commenting.

For one thing, a deity would be something you would collect evidence *for*, not evidence for something else, unless it actually manifested in front of you, and even then the evidence would be your observation rather than the thing itself.

But, of course, this has nothing much to do with anything I've said anywhere in the thread.



To summarise it in one line, in case you can't be bothered to go back and read it in depth:

Evidence for a hypothesis is any observation which would be more likely to occur if that hypothesis were true than if it were false.

[CreekDog]

17. you know what Intelligent Design is, don't you?

if it were scientifically strong as Evolution, for example, pillars of Intelligent Design would have been explained, tested and shown as rigorous as Evolution.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. What do you mean by "scientifically strong"?

I think that the germ of what you're saying is about right, but the vocabulary you're using to express it is imprecise.

I think that useful categories include
"Is this theory compatible with the observable evidence?"
"Does this theory have predictive power?"
"Is this theory parsimonious?" (that is, does it follow as a direct consequence from very limited assumptions, or does it require large and sweeping assumptions).

All true statements lie in the first category. It is only worth acting on a theory if it meets all three. Evolution meets all three. ID meets only the first, so we can reasonably act as though it isn't true, but shouldn't place any confidence in that.

"Is this theory scientifically strong" seems to overlap both the first two categories, but rather more nebulously.

[zerosumgame0005]

53. um, no

ID does not fit the first since "god" is not an observable thing

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. I'm afraid that's a complete non-sequitur; I think you may have misunderstood.

"Is this theory compatible with the observable evidence" means "If this were true, would things inevitably look different to the way they are".

An omnipotent being could choose to design a universe exactly like the one we now live it, therefore it is compatible with the observable evidence.

Are you adding an extra double-negative, and arguing about whether the *non*existence of a designer is *in*compatible with the observable evidence? In that case the non-observability of the designer would be relevant, and indeed the non-existence of a designer is fully compatible with the observable evidence.

But the existence of an unobservable designer is also fully compatible with that evidence. The furthest we can legitimately go in rejecting it is to quote Laplace and say "I have no need of that hypothesis" - which is what my point about parsimoniousness was.

[zerosumgame0005]

55. a fine example

of applied idiocy. postulating a "designer" could produce a universe like this one is not evidence of such a deity. or any deity. no matter how you break it down. or how you twist logic to fit your preconceived notions.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

56. Please read before commenting.

What you appear to think I have said has virtually nothing in common with what I actually did say, except possibly some of the same words in some order.

This makes it very hard to have a discussion.

[DonB]

34. A perfect debunk

of 'da deity done done it' in just two simple sentences. Very good work!

[SidDithers]

8. We seriously have proponents of Intelligent Design at DU?...

There is no structure in the living natural world that can't be explained by evolution through progressive natural selection.

Sid

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. I've never seen any, but it's a useful illustration.

Or did you misread/not read my post, and assume I was one?

[Bolo Boffin]

11. "God did it" is not an explanation of anything. It is a suspension of explanation.

"God did it" can explain everything in your view. That means it explains nothing. It's a short circuit of the scientific process.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. No and yes respectively.

""God did it" can explain everything in your view. That means it explains nothing." is a pleasing-sounding paradoxical epithet, but not actually logic.

"It's a short circuit of the scientific process." - yes, absolutely. The scientific process is about arriving at theories which can explain the observable evidence but which couldn't explain other evidence, because such theories have predictive power. The more things such a theory couldn't explain, the more use it is because the more specific its predictions.

[MattBaggins]

45. No it is purely a suspension of explanation

I can just as well say "unicorns did it" or a "leprechaun farted and everything just came flying out his ass" and those statements would have as much "evidence" as saying a skydaddy did it.

That is none at all.

[DeadEyeDyck]

31. why does existence exist?

[Bolo Boffin]

40. Why is yellow yellow? n/t

[mathematic]

15. You make a good point about the meaning of "explain"

To people already predisposed to the scientific worldview, "explain" means "scientifically explain" or, perhaps, "rationally explain" or similar. But there are literally billions of people that don't have this worldview so when we engage in explanation we need to be aware that there are people that don't find these explanations convincing or openly reject scientific explanations (like the anti-"scientific materialism" poster here on DU). Some people are so hostile to this type of explanation that they'll accuse you of all sorts of wacky things, like trying to oppress them with your technical language.

The sad fact is that most explanations are useless to most people so, apart from satisfying their own curiosity, A Wizard Did It is more than enough of an explanation.

[DetlefK]

18. ID pretends that the Intelligent Designer is the only reasonable explanation. It's not.

It can be proven with a very abstract and universal thermodynamic model, that life can spontaneously evolve from non-life. (Not limited to organic life, though the conditions for the process are easiest met in that case.) It's just a matter of time and luck.

Ergo: The creator of life was EITHER the Intelligent Designer OR a random process.

And as long as we can't tell which of both it really was, we have to answer a new question: Which of the options is more likely?

[TrogL]

19. I much prefer "we wouldn't be having this discussion"

Why is the sky blue?

1. "God made it that way." Unprovable. Useless.

2. "It contains water vapour. If it wasn't there, there would be no rain, no water-based being such our selves would exist and we wouldn't be having this discussion." Provable. Useful.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. 2 is not provable, it's wrong

The reason the sky is blue is that blue light bends more when it enters the atmosphere - I believe the process is known as "Raleigh scattering".

I *think* that this is why the sky is darker blue round the edges and whiter near the sun, but I'm not sure of that - it may just be an optical illusion.

[Johonny]

25. For someting to be wrong-it has to be provable doesn't it?

A lot of assumptions that are considered provable end up to be wrong. Many would argue; one of those things is I.D. I would never argue such a thing because a magic fairy in my basement doesn't allow me to

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. No, absolutely not.

An obvious concrete counter-example is statements about events outside earth's light-cone.

All provable statements are true, but the converse is not the case.

On edit: WTF? I assumed you had said "for something to be right, it has to be provable". Where do you get "For something to be wrong, it has to be provable" from?

[Johonny]

33. In the process of proving something right or wrong- I.E. is it provable

All provable statements are true- not correct. To PROVE this to you.

Prove: to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of-

Proving is a process if you don't believe me look it up
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/provable

How not to prove something: For instance GOD may have made the sky blue because of water vapor but he tricks you into thinking it is blue do to light refracting in the atmosphere. You think you know the right answer but only because GOD has created the world to fool you. My explanation the same as your explanation of ID versus evolution. GOD has created all this evidence that evolutionary process is real, but it is all a trick. ID is true and is so by default because GOD made it so.

You claim water makes the sky blue is provable, I.E. something that can be proven. I am saying to do this you must be able to gather evidence that it is right or wrong and then chose which process is the best explanation for a phenomenon. In other words your may create a question that can be proven true or false and then declare it unlikely to be the best explanation for being false. Or you can just declare it is true by default and say god did it. So you ARE WRONG if you think provable things can only be TRUE. I am right to say claiming something is provable means you can test its validity. My oldest sibling is a woman. This can be proven true or false. It is a statement that can be proven. This turns out to be false. You probably won't accept you are wrong on this point but... I'm not sure what more I can say. You obviously care a lot about this subject but you should at least understand the basics to discuss this.

[hobbit709]

20. Huh???

[CBGLuthier]

24. Yours is the first truly appropriate response to the OP

I hope english is not the OPs first language.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. When criticising language use, make sure not to omit apostrophes...

[CBGLuthier]

32. I do believe that my intent was clear

which is more than I can say for your OP. Still not sure if you are for or against ID. But thanks for the correction.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. Against, of course, as is made plain in the OP - try actually reading it.

ID and evolution are both compatible with all the observable evidence.

ID would be compatible with any conceivable observable evidence, past, present or future. It therefore has no predictive power, and is useless.

Evolution would be incompatible with practically anything except what we actually do see. It can therefore be used to make predictions, and is useful.


The point I was trying - and clearly failing - to get across is that "evidence" is best understood in terms of Bayes' theorem:

(Estimate of probility of Hypothesis given Observation) = (Probability of Observation given Hypothesis) x (Initial estimate of probability of hypothesis)/(Initial estimate of probability of observation under average of hypotheses)

P(H|O) = P(O|H)P(H)/(P(O|H)P(H) + P(O|notH)P(notH))


In this case, the observation is "facts compatible with evolution". The probability of that given that evolution is a correct hypothesis is 1; the probability given that ID is a correct hypothesis is less than 1. So whatever your initial estimates of the probability of the two hypotheses (the P(H|O) term on the RHS), you should increase the likelihood you assign to evolution in light of it.

More generally "evidence for a hypothesis" is "any observation that is more likely if that hypothesis is true than if it isn't".

[MattBaggins]

47. Bayes requires facts and relevant data

The Skydaddy hypothesis has neither of those.

[Ian David]

26. Then try praying instead of taking antibiotics. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. Try reading posts instead of guessing what you think they might say. N.T.

[Ian David]

30. I don't think anyone seems to understand what you're trying to say. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

35. As a theory I.D. Is useless as it is not falsifiable.

In typical fashion the neo-creationists find difficult problems and announce "god did it". But there is no way to falsify the claim. It is, consequently, useless.

It is impossible, Popper argues, to ensure a theory to be true; it is more important that their falsity can be detected as easily as possible.

Darwinian evolutionary theory makes testable, falsifiable claims. ID, not so much.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. Absolutely, but I think the point is possibly better cast in terms of predictive power.

ID is compatible with everything we have observed.

Evolution is compatible with everything we have observed.

ID is compatible with everything we might possibly observe in the future, and therefor cannot be used to make predictions.

Evolution is only compatible with a very small subset of the things we might observe in the future, and can therefore be used to make predictions.


The two most obviously important questions about a theory are "is it true?" and "is it useful?", I think.

"Is it falsifiable?" and "is it scientific?" turn out to be equivalent to the latter, because predictive power and falsifiability are both synonyms for "there are future observations which would not be compatible with it", but we can cut out the middleman if we want to.

[alarimer]

36. So utterly wrong

I don't even know where to begin.

[KittyWampus]

37. Intelligent Design Does NOT automatically mean "God". What part of that simple truth do you not get?

Intelligence is not tethered to some one personality that you or anyone else projects onto it.

It is a fact that the Universe operates according to certain Laws which may be determined by observation and put to use.

Intelligence exists.

It therefore had to exist from the very beginning since like begets like.

This belongs in a different form.

It is sad that so many DU'ers are so unable to grasp really basic philosophical points.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. Uh no, ID is crypto creationism.

[MattBaggins]

48. "It therefore had to exist from the very beginning since like begets like."

Nope

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. Almost all of that is nonsense, apart from the last line, which is just comedy.

1) Intelligence is a property of minds; intelligence without a sentient personality is a contradiction in terms.

2) Any intelligent being capable of influencing the origins of life to that extent definitely fits the definition of a god.

3) "Intelligence exists. It therefore had to exist from the very beginning since like begets like." is a complete non-sequitur. You might as well say cheese had to exist from the very beginning, since like begets like - it's simple nonsense.

I do agree with your reflection about the inability of many DUers to grasp basic points, and I'd point to you as a find example.

[MNBrewer]

38. No it isn't.

It explains nothing. You might as well say "because".

[struggle4progress]

39. A key requirement for a good logical theory is that it not prove too much.

Many useful logical theories not only begin by accepting certain claims but also reject certain claims, and among the rejected claims are always claims that (in some sense) have too many consequences

If we suspect Grumpy as the person who gunned Dopey down sometime between noon and 1:00PM on Saturday at The Palace Nightclub in Queens, but Grumpy has alibis for the whole time, we might scratch him off the suspect list. But should Grumpy's alibis prove too much, we will still doubt them: if (for example) Bashful testifies he was with Grumpy in Manhattan from 10:00AM until 12:30PM, and then Doc testifies he was with Grumpy in Las Vegas from noon until 2:00PM, we conclude Grumpy's account of his location midday Saturday has too many consequences to merit serious consideration

Different people in different contexts might disagree on when exactly a theory has too many consequences. Certainly a theory from which one can deduce anything whatsoever is a theory with too many consequences

To posit beings, with powers vastly beyond our own, does not lead to useful logical theories: the assumption permits arguments from which one can deduce anything whatsoever. This, of course, does not necessarily constitute a disproof of any and all religious ideas: it is merely the observation that one cannot reason reliably about beings with powers vastly beyond our own

Intelligent Design cannot be considered a scientific theory, in part because the underlying assumptions appear to prove too much to allow us to construct a useful logical theory there

[SoCalDem]

46. For ignorant bible-thumping republicans, perhaps

for the other 80% of the world (the ones who think and reason), probably not

[Donald Ian Rankin]

51. So, I'm guessing you didn't read the OP either? N.T.

[Puzzledtraveller]

50. I do not need answers, I just am

I find the arguments by both science and religion to be amusing at the least but ultimately boring.

[SidDithers]

52. Kick...nt

Sid