Title Author Date

ID Prediction Strumfels, David Aug 21, 2005

I'm wondering why I haven't seen what seems to me the most obvious refutation of Intelligent Design "Theory". A scientific hypothesis makes
testable predictions which can disprove it: the so-called falsifiability criterion. ID's critics often object that ID makes no testable predictions, and so is not science, but this is not correct! ID makes one very straightforward, easily verified prediction: that neither complexity nor intelligence exist in the universe.

The reason ID makes this prediction is that it requires intelligence to exist before the kind of complexity that characterizes living things can appear. However, intelligence itself requires complexity; for example, as in a human brain, or an artificially intelligent computer (if one is ever built). If there is any doubt about this, ask yourself whether any simple
thing, like a rock, could ever be intelligent. That is absurd, of course.

So intelligence requires complexity as a pre-existing condition. But according to ID, complexity requires intelligence as a pre-existing condition as well! If two things are the result of each other, and only each other, then logically neither can exist. According to ID, I do not exist. Since I do exist however, ID is thereby falsified. QED.

Darwin's theory is satisfying precisely because it shows a way out of this conundrum: under the right conditions complexity, and hence intelligence, can also be the result of simple processes "guided" by the blind (not
random!) laws of physics and chemistry. Of course, Darwinism may someday fail to explain some particular complex biological adaptation (anyone who ever does discover this will probably win a Nobel prize, even if he's a
creationist), but even if it did, ID would not be a viable alternative.

ID proponents should be challenged with this argument, especially as their only possible counter-argument is to openly admit that their Designer is supernatural; i.e., God. This wouldn't put off their supporters of course
-- they know they mean God -- but it would instantly prove in any court room that ID is just Judeo-Christian doctrine masquerading as science, and that it has no more right to be in the public schools than mandatory prayer
and Bible reading. The argument should be made more public because unfortunately there are many naive people being bamboozled; people like
even non-rightwing politicians and newspaper editors who are being flummoxed into thinking the "present both sides" argument has validity.
They need to see just what is going on here, how they are being used.

Title Author Date

ID Prediction MSR Aug 24, 2005

If you want to make sharp, insightful points designed to skewer ID proponents, it would be helpful to perhaps do more reading and discussing theology, design theory, and critiques of Darwinism. If you clearly don't comprehend what they believe, you may gain a hearty chuckle from Darwin's True Believers, but you won't persuade anyone else. For instance, the ID Prediction comment harks back to a theological question that has been around for centuries. Bringing it up as though it was something new..."Who made GOD/the Designer/the Alien Master General/whatever"...makes you sound like you haven't done a lot of research. If you are going to argue against ID folks, familiarize yourselves with their reasoning. It's much easier for ID people to know how you think....they have all been to school, they've been taught (sometimes almost exclusively) by atheists/agnostics, and popular culture repeats simplified versions of secular science constantly (not that those espousing it understand it, either, but they aren't arguing, rather they are parroting, which is a different exercise).
I'm guessing that many readers of this site have little understanding of what it means to be a believer in God. Perhaps more alarming, they don't seek to find why many who don't believe in a conventional god also don't put faith in everything the Darwin-believers tell them. It's dangerous to misunderstand your enemy, and from looking at your site, this is a problem for some contributors here.

I will risk sounding simplistic here, but please...try having an honest conversation with your opponents, if only so that you can formulate some more interesting arguments.