Casey Luskin: ID as fruitful approach to science

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 13, 2022

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In his Kitzmiller v. Dover testimony, biologist Kenneth Miller referred to intelligent design as a “science stopper.” Similarly, in his book Only a Theory, Miller stated, “The hypothesis of design is compatible with any conceivable data, makes no testable predictions, and suggests no new avenues for research. As such, it’s a literal dead end…”
Casey Luskin, “Science Stopper? Intelligent Design as a Fruitful Scientific Paradigm” at Evolution News (May 9, 2022)

Luskin offers a number of examples of areas where ID is a fruitful approach, including

Evolutionary computation: ID produces theoretical research into the information-generative powers of Darwinian searches, leading to the discovery that the search abilities of Darwinian processes are limited, which has practical implications for the viability of using genetic algorithms to solve problems.
Anatomy and physiology: ID predicts function for allegedly “vestigial” organs, structures, or systems whereas evolution has made many faulty predictions of nonfunction.
Bioinformatics: ID has helped scientists develop proper measures of biological information, leading to concepts like complex and specified information or functional sequence complexity. This allows us to better quantify complexity and understand what features are, or are not, within the reach of Darwinian evolution.
Casey Luskin, “Science Stopper? Intelligent Design as a Fruitful Scientific Paradigm” at Evolution News (May 9, 2022)

The trouble is, many people would just as soon that research into evolutionary computation anatomy and physiology, and bioinformatics, however fruitful, not be done if it undermines a comfortable Darwinism.

This is the 12th and final entry in Casey Luskin’s series, which is a modified excerpt from The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith: Exploring the Ultimate Questions About Life and the Cosmos (2021).

Incidentally, here are two hilarious vids about fake COVID news from Shanghai. Couldn’t think where to put it but wouldn’t want you to miss out.

Note: The content is available. The warning is part of the joke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMJ8Sch0pXc

Comments

seversky:'
Real science is a continuous process of investigation and exploration of observable reality.
You don't know what science entails.
ID is concerned only with confirmation of the existence of their preferred “Designer”.
Two lies in one sentence! ID is NOT about the Designer(s) and ID is concerned with the detection and study of intelligent design in nature.
And once the existence of the Designer has been established, at least to their satisfaction, that will be an end to it.
Your ignorance is not an argument and all you have is your ignorance. Good luck with that.ET_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

The argument: "ID is a science-stopper. If ID is true, then nobody will ever be able to do any science again. Therefore, even if ID is true, we should pretend that it is false, so we can keep our jobs and keep the good memory of Darwin alive." ... is weak. But, it's an argument, of sorts. The quality of one's opposition can be measured in the kinds of arguments they provide. Ken Miller is a perfect example. "Everything is grist to the [anti-ID] mill. Its dialectic can exploit the smallest [imagined] contradictions; it can provoke, exacerbate and envenom every conflict ..." -- Jean OussetSilver Asiatic_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

SA/12 This is where the rubber hits the road with the ID crowd:
Miller is very confused. He doesn’t even understand his own religion. So there’s no wonder why he is so mistaken about what ID is.
It apparently is not enough that you act as the self-appointed arbiter of science, you've now extended that role to theology and religion.....chuckdarwin_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

Fred Hickson You missed this: …at this point, the most honest answer is that we simply don’t know.
:) Talking about self-defeating statements. " life must have emerged from natural processes" "we simply don’t know"Lieutenant Commander Data_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

You missed this: ...at this point, the most honest answer is that we simply don’t know.Fred Hickson_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

Seversky if there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a designer/creator, then life must have emerged from natural processes
:) Another one bite the dust admitting that it's not about science. We knew that Seversky it's not a secret that atheism lack logical coherence AND IS A BELIEF.Lieutenant Commander Data_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

There is order in the universe, which is some of the evidence for ID. Chaos cannot create order. Hurricanes do not come about in random locations. They must meet specific criteria to form. If there were no intelligent designer, there would be no rules in place. Hurricanes could form over any body of water, which does not happen.BobRyan_{May 15, 2022
May
05
May
15
15
2022
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT}

Relatd/13
Kenneth Miller views ID as being against evolution. Where is the attack?
You could review some of the posts on this blog as a starting point.
I respect correct observations and research designed to stop or slow disease processes, but what are Biologists actually telling students? That nothing made you?
Do you have any evidence that biologists are teaching their students that nothing made us?
I don’t think science can make such claims.
Science might argue that, if there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a designer/creator, then life must have emerged from natural processes and there are ongoing investigations into that possibility but, at this point, the most honest answer is that we simply don't know.Seversky_{May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

Real science is a continuous process of investigation and exploration of observable reality. ID is concerned only with confirmation of the existence of their preferred "Designer". I say "preferred" because, for most Western ID proponents, I suspect it is highly unlikely they would accept Allah or Shiva or Zeus as the Designer. Only the Christian God would fill the bill. And once the existence of the Designer has been established, at least to their satisfaction, that will be an end to it. They will no more conduct a scientific investigation into the nature of this designer than Christians have into the nature of their God. So, yes, ID is a science-stopper.Seversky_{May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

Here, https://www.brown.edu/news/2016-02-13/aaas Kenneth Miller views ID as being against evolution. Where is the attack? If he believes man appeared after some mysterious chemical reaction that spontaneously became alive, then where is his knowing that this is, in fact, the way life began? I respect correct observations and research designed to stop or slow disease processes, but what are Biologists actually telling students? That nothing made you? I don't think science can make such claims.relatd_{May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

Relatd True. Darwinism would say that even our belief in God is a product of unguided, purposeless forces that only has value for survival and reproduction. Miller is very confused. He doesn't even understand his own religion. So there's no wonder why he is so mistaken about what ID is.Silver Asiatic_{May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

I am disappointed with Ken Miller's comments. He appears to be confused. He should know that evolution as it appears in Biology textbooks is anti-God. This means that purely natural, unguided, directionless processes led to human beings. God was not a bystander.relatd_{May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

It's very simple really: materialistic evolution theory insists on natural processes only, while ID allows for both natural processes and intelligent agents to act. Therefore ID is broader based and open to more possibilities than materialistic evolution theory, which has ruled out intelligent processes by a priori edict. ID can look at the evidence and see where natural processes work and where intelligent agency seems to be required to account for what has happened. ID is not trying to force anything into the intelligent agency side (much less "everything" as some critics like to claim). Meanwhile, naturalism, having chosen to ignore the possibility of ID must spend a lot of time and resources chasing after extremely unlikely possibilities (while ignoring their probability) in order to account for the evidence. They end up with silly theories for the origin of life, and the appearance of new life forms, thereby wasting the resources, and slowing down scientific advances. Examples abound - "junk DNA" being just one.Fasteddious_{May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

The hypothesis of design is compatible with any conceivable data
Since observations that can be explained by known natural causes are eliminated, then that's not true. Kenneth Miller is a Christian with some very strange ideas about religion as well as about the origin and development of life on earth - including odd notions about the God and the origin of human life. Miller has to reconcile quite a lot of his Christian view with his anti-ID notions - and he has done a poor job of it so far.Silver Asiatic_{May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

I think there’s a typo in the headline; it should read
ChuckDarwin still batting zero. The comment should read
ChuckDarwin is a flake.
Will he ever get anything right?jerry_{May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

I think there's a typo in the headline; it should read:
Casey Luskin: ID As Flakey Approach To Science
chuckdarwin_{May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Fred Hickson:
Science proceeds merrily on without a backward glance at ID.
Intelligent Design offers the only scientific explanation for our existence. Without ID all you have to try to explain our existence is sheer dumb luck. And that is the antithesis of science.ET_{May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

de factoScience
A subset of ID.
proceeds merrily on without a backward glance at ID
Yes, de factoScience is a science stopper. You just agreed with my observation that ID is Science+ Thank you!jerry_{May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

Jerry
ID is not a science stopper
That's certainly true de facto. Science proceeds merrily on without a backward glance at ID. For those unsure, yes that was a bad analogy! ;)Fred Hickson_{May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

n his Kitzmiller v. Dover testimony, biologist Kenneth Miller...
Lied about ID and equivocated when it came to evolution.ET_{May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

Modified from a comment yesterday
ID does not eliminate anything that current science does. ID can do any experiment that current science does. ID can do additional experiments that current science might not do. ID can come to the same conclusions as current science does. ID can also come to some different conclusions than current science. ID will come to a naturalistic explanation in nearly all experiments. But in fact naturalistic explanations can be used to support intelligence based conclusions. ID will do some things differently than current science about its conclusions. For example, it will not make up any unsupported conclusions. It will not use the words “it evolved”, “it was selected”, “it was exapted”, “it emerged” to explain an unknown event or transition. ID will not use its imagination as evidence in science. ID will add to science. I suggest everyone try to understand instead that ID adds, it does not subtract.
A point of view that ID subtracts and restricts and oppresses and misinforms is the opposite of the truth. For example, ID does not reject natural Evolution a priori. ID just says natural Evolution has no likely mechanism based on the evidence. Therefore, non natural explanations should be considered as highly likely. ID expands. It adds. It is traditional science that restricts and limits.jerry_{May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

In his Kitzmiller v. Dover testimony, biologist Kenneth Miller referred to intelligent design as a “science stopper.”
Just the opposite! Research projects usually have four parts: Background: Methods: Results: Analysis/Conclusions: In each area an ID compatible research project can expand on the traditional science research project. In other words ID researchers can do exactly the same research as all other researchers but also do things that add things that will expand the results and conclusions possible that wouldn’t be available in a traditional research project. In other words, ID is not a science stopper, ID is a science enhancer. ID is Science+ jerry_{May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 11 12 13

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply