Competing Strategies for Debunking Intelligent Design

HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Competing Strategies for Debunking Intelligent Design

So I have been checking out different blogs on scienceblogs.com recently, and there really seems to be a serious groundswell of attention and thought concerning the debunking of ID/Creationism relating to the Ben Stein movie Expelled. While the movie serves as a big screen propaganda piece about the ludicrous claim that the mainstream science community is unnecessarily rejecting Intelligent Design, there is a very real discussion between scientists as to the crafting of an ideal strategy of effectively debunking this unfalsifiable and patently wrong psuedo-hypothesis.

The idea brought up by Steven Novella of neurologicalblog's view is basically that ID should be refuted due to the fact "The primary scientific criticism of ID is that it is not a legitimate scientific theory, but rather a transparent attempt at recasting religious faith (creationism) in scientific-sounding jargon. But ID lacks the minimal criteria to be considered science."

Jason Rosenhouse of evolutionblog believes that while Steven Novella's idea is in fact true, the debunking of ID resides with the fact that "The primary scientific criticism of ID is that the specific assertions made by ID folks, about irreducible complexity, complex specified information, the alleged holes in evolutionary science, and so on, are universally false. That's why scientists reject ID." In other words ID is should be debunked because it is in fact wrong about the claims it makes, and we should pick apart each nugget of info they state to dissect and destroy the ridiculous assertions being made.

While each blogger makes fairly compelling arguments on their own behalf, I believe this is definitely one of those issues that has to be fought on many different fronts at once, each argument against ID being specifically tailored to the particular situation at hand. I was talking about the Expelled controversy with someone yesterday who didn't really know hardly anything about the situation(ID/Creationism in schools, the unethical filmmakers and their expulsions of PZ Meyers and other nonadherents to ID, etc) and found that it was such a complex issue to describe and explain. This got me thinking about formulating an effective way of easily revealing the simple problems with ID.

 

One of the blog comments I found particulary elucidating was this of Joe Shelby:

"I think there's the 2 sides of ID and each here (Jason and the first commenter) is addressing their own.

ID side 1 - evolution is false because of (insert creationist claim here). this really translates to "the scientific claims made by ID are false" is the exclusive position that should be taken in higher education academia and the media.

ID side 2 - ID postulates that the problems pointed out with evolution in side 1 above (never mind that they've been proven false and were proven false long before Darwin) can be resolved by acknowledging the actions of some intelligent designer (but we're not going to say who, how, or why). This is the "unscientific" part, the back door to get their religious indoctrination into public schools. This is where their "you're not letting us be science because of your materialistic philosophical definition of science that intentionally denies God exists" at the heart of the Wedge document comes into play.

So yes, there's truth on both sides of the anti-ID argument. And (yes, that framing thing) the right one needs to be used at the right time. science doesn't need to address ID because 1) the claims made by ID on evolutions flaws are false (ID is bad science), and 2) the postulates assumed by ID to explain those claims rely on some supernatural entity (ID postulates a scientifically unsupportable tenant).

its up to the context of each anti-ID writing, or really the specific claim of the ID supporter being reacted to, that the author decides which of the two points is the more important.

when dealing with science in the public media, ID is proposing claims easily shown to be false.

when dealing with science education in public schools, ID is proposing a religious entity as an alternative to the accepted scientific explanations, which is unconstitutional. oh, and its bad science, too.

both are fully legitimate "primary scientific criticisms" against ID."

 

Anyways, I guess I would just like to know what you think is the best way of explaining and debunking ID to people?

 

 

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
HeyZeusCreaseToe

HeyZeusCreaseToe wrote:

Anyways, I guess I would just like to know what you think is the best way of explaining and debunking ID to people?

 

Uncontrollable laughter to the point of tears.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Vermilion
Vermilion's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Complexity therefore _____. Is a false conclusion

My mother sent me a link to the 'Expelled' trailer, which got me fired up quite a bit. Her statements "see, several scientists say this is a feasible scientific argument..." and so on... begged me to rant...

Anyways, the best point I think I made to her is against this irreducable complexity argument. It simply is not logical science. In breaking down the argument it is simply:

1)Many things in the world are really really really really really complex and can't be explained.

2)Therefore, they were created/designed by a supernatural being/force.

 

This is not scientific or logical becase A) Science doesn't stop at complexity... Science investigates complexity to explain it. They are basically giving up on finding the answer here and then B) They are concluding that these things are created by a supernatural being/force simply because they are complex... This is not a logical conclusion. Your facts must support your conclusion, and in this case they do not.

It would be like saying telling your mom at breakfast: "These pancakes taste too good, they must have come from Denny's" Obviously if there is no Denny's take-out box in the house, or receipt, etc.... You are pulling that conclusion out of your ass! And telling your mom she couldn't have cooked that well at that...

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Vermilion wrote:Anyways, the

Vermilion wrote:

Anyways, the best point I think I made to her is against this irreducable complexity argument. It simply is not logical science. In breaking down the argument it is simply:

1)Many things in the world are really really really really really complex and can't be explained.

2)Therefore, they were created/designed by a supernatural being/force.

Ken Miller absolutely destroys irriducible complexity on YouTube, if you check it out. Another great demo on YouTube is the "blind watchmaker" simulation, if you haven't seen it. A guy decided to set up a simulation of a clock evolving from parts like gears and pendulums. It's great.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2356
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
I.D.

Intelegent design is the latest Theist ideal to keep their 'God' in the scientific equation. Quite simply; 'faith doesn't win out so let's try some other angle'. The angle may change but the conclusion does not.  Science and Theology are TWO DIFFERENT persuasions. To compete is to waste your time,' belief and the leap of faith'  are not, CAN NOT, be based on the rational; science is not, CAN NOT be based of a 'leap of faith'.     Theists who winch behind Inteligent design are in fact admitting that Darwin was right and they are not.    Darwin was by the way a minister in the church of England and retired with the rank ( though never served as) a Bishop.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
watchmaker

HisWillness wrote:

Ken Miller absolutely destroys irriducible complexity on YouTube, if you check it out. Another great demo on YouTube is the "blind watchmaker" simulation, if you haven't seen it. A guy decided to set up a simulation of a clock evolving from parts like gears and pendulums. It's great.

Yeah, I actually recommended that Ken Miller video to someone on here recently. I will have to check out that watchmaker clip, sounds interesting.

 

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Competing Strategies for

Competing Strategies for Debunking Intelligent Design

   Fix the TV ......