Matt McClure mentioned something I didn’t know before:
The DI describes ID as “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection”.
Here is the part I didn’t know: That natural selection is 100% undirected.
What they mean by undirected is “Unperturbed. No perturbations.” How can they know? Lets think slightly deeper. What if there is/was a perturbation? Is it natural or unnatural? How could they know? If it was natural how do they know there was an intelligent cause versus an unintelligent cause? Again, how can they know?
What has happened is DI has made assumptions, and rolled these assumptions into the definition of DIID. And I didn’t previously know this.
I conclude that DIID is totally metaphysical because it has no epistemological basis. Therefore it cannot be scientifically falsified.
This is not my understanding of what ID was supposed to be.
What made me think about all this? The following discussion.
Matt McClure said:
I make no arguments against Divine Design because I believe it’s true. However, the problem with Discovery Institute Intelligent Design (DIID) is that it claims to be something it is not.
To be considered science, it must lend itself to empirically testable (i.e., falsifiable) hypotheses from which conclusions can be made, and no scientific conclusion can be made without the gathering and analysis of data. In contrast, Ben Stein’s quote above is an attempt to make a conclusion based on the lack of data.
The reason DIID is not science is that it begins with an unsupportable presupposition. The DI describes ID as “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection”. Immediately we see the problem: How do they know that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not direct natural selection? How do they know that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not direct ordinary natural processes in scientifically undetectable ways? How do they know? Answer: They don’t know it. They only assume it, and yet this assumption is completely unsupportable. So how can DIID possibly be science when its primary assumption is empirically unfalsifiable?
Given that the transcendent intelligent designer is God (i.e., the God of the Bible), then everything is designed whether it looks designed or not and whether it has a “naturalistic” explanation or not. So how can intelligent design possible be empirically testable when there is nothing un-designed for which to objectively compare?
The problems with DIID go beyond scientific veracity. Given that the transcendent intelligent designer is God then we can consult the Scriptures about God, and Hebrews 11:3 says “by faith we know” God did it. It does not say “by empirically based methods of inquiry we know”. Therefore, the premise that science can affirm God as Creator is inseparable from the premise that science can replace faith, and that premise is scientism. Despite the claims of Dawkins and Meyer, God is not a testable scientific hypothesis. Someone very important once said “thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test” and then later said “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”.
ID (not necessarily DIID) is true, but ID is not science because the Designer is transcendent of nature and science is limited to the study of natural things. DIID falsely positing itself as science is the reason DIID has lost in the courts, and it is the reason why it will lose in the evangelical field as well.
My thoughts:
Here is the central question poses by the above:
“How do they know that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not direct natural selection?
They don’t.
Also,
How do they know that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not direct ordinary natural processes in scientifically undetectable ways?
This is a separate question because it is more general than just natural selection. It extends to all natural processes.
And the answer again is, they don’t.
To me there is yet a third question. How do they know that an intelligent designer will not perturb ordinary natural processes so they give a different outcome than ordinary natural unperturbed processes would have given?
They don’t.
So, How do they know? Answer: They don’t know it. They only assume it, and yet this assumption is completely unsupportable.
Also, how can DIID possibly be science when its primary assumption is empirically unfalsifiable?
We do know one thing. Natural processes, left to themselves, are not likely to produce the physical results we see. It would take a lot of faith to believe it could or did. And it still would not explain the non physical aspects of the universe. Love, hate, justice, fairness, etc. The intangibles which have no natural explanation but nevertheless are real.
So DIID defeats atheism. But it does not defeat EC or TE.
Matt McClure also said:
DIID does not do what science does. You need to go back and read my comment because DIID still begins on the unsupportable, unfalsifiable presupposition that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not divinely guide natural processes in scientifically undetectable ways, which is especially problematic for believing Christians because that presupposition is clearly contradicted by such scriptures as Psalm 139:13-15, Proverbs 16:33, and Acts 1:26.
What about this presupposition? That DIID posits that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not divinely guide natural processes in scientifically undetectable ways?
How do they know? They cannot. So they have made a terrible mistake.
Stated slightly differently, what they also cannot know is this: How is it that an intelligent designer, employing just the laws of the universe, could not perturb ordinary natural processes so these perturbed processes give a different outcome than ordinary unperturbed natural processes would have given?
Again, they cannot know. But they dismiss the idea anyway without giving a reason.
Seems to me DIID actually would support both DIID and EC equally well if they would allow that God, being in the universe can perturb natural processes.
Matt gives Psalm 139:13-15, Proverbs 16:33, and Acts 1:26 for consideration.
Psalm 139:13-15 speaks of God’s ongoing creation activity. That which takes place after the beginning.
Matt McClure Also said:
DIID does not do what science does. You need to go back and read my comment because DIID still begins on the unsupportable, unfalsifiable presupposition that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not divinely guide natural processes in scientifically undetectable ways, which is especially problematic for believing Christians because that presupposition is clearly contradicted by such scriptures as Psalm 139:13-15, Proverbs 16:33, and Acts 1: