Irreducibly Dumb

Another lame-o, writing on Dembski’s blog, asks what he obviously thinks is a killer question:

In any debate on Intelligent Design, there is a question I have long wished to see posed to ID opponents: “If we DID discover some biological feature that was irreducibly complex, to your satisfication (sic) and to the satisfaction of all reasonable observers, would that justify the design inference?” […]

Answer – NO. Because irreducible complexity does not imply a designer and is not a problem for evolution. In fact, irreducible complexity has been proven to evolve. But this dolt clearly hasn’t heard of this, because he goes on to demonstrate even more stupidity:

If the answer is yes, we just haven’t found any such thing yet, then all the constantly-repeated philosophical arguments that “ID is not science” immediately fall. If the answer is no, then at least the lay observer will be able to understand what is going on here, that Darwinism is not grounded on empirical evidence but a philosophy.

Noooo, that’s not what it shows. It shows that ID is grounded on argument from ignorance. That is, it’s not science.

In any debate on Intelligent Design, there is a question I have frequently seen posed to IDists (but is never answered): “If we DID discover some biological feature that (hypothetically) you could demonstrate was irreducibly complex – what would that tell us about the designer. Because if the answer is “nothing” (which it is), then at least we can be clear that ID is useless vacuous nonsense.

Comments

[Lepht]

i'm fairly sure that if there was ever an argument "grounded on a philosophy", it's ID.

Lepht

[EJ]

Because if the answer is “nothing” (which it is), then at least we can be clear that ID is useless vacuous nonsense.

Agreed, it would tell us nothing ABOUT the creator, but in the eyes of ID proponents it would nevertheless confirm its existence, and apparently that is enough. I mean, God forbid that any actual FAITH should be involved!

[Tom Foss]

It's a bait-and-switch, really. ID proposes this platonic ideal of irreducible complexity--some biological feature which could not have possibly arisen through any known natural means. What they want is a genetic mutation that allows a creature to control the weather or travel through time: they want to find the X-Men.

Instead, all they have are eyes and flagella and "look, see, if I remove a part it no longer functions!"

[viggen]

I think that one of the great problems with "Irreducible Complexity" is that it requires a human imposed categorical definition in order to function. "If said feature falls in this category, then it is Irreducibly complex." My experience has been that nature does not function by category; people impose categorical definitions on entities and then new categories must be invented every time somebody finds some exception.

[TheCludge]

First off, outstanding blog. Next, feel free to publish only the first sentence, because I am actually asking for an impartial review of my blog:
http://www.lifeisnotdifficult.blogspot.com/
I understand if it is time prohibitive to do so, but I just wanted a valued opinion.
Thanks.
-TheCludge

[Karl]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_falling

[Karl]

Just edit the words a little bit....

Intelligent Science proposes that the explanation of intelligent design cannot explain all aspects of the phenomenon, so credence should be given to the idea that actual phenomenon of science is at work. Furthermore, IS asserts that theories explaining Intelligent Design are not internally consistent nor mathematically reconcilable with the known laws of physics, making Intelligent Design a "theory in crisis". IS supporters advocate that IS should be taught in Sunday School along with the theory of Intelligent Design so that students can make "an informed decision" on the subject in accordance with demands to "teach the controversy".

[Mechalith]

It's an interesting attempt at parody Karl, but as an actual comparison it falls down in the first line for the simple reason that ID fails to explain anything at all. Faith and science are not on equal footing intellectually and anyone who pretends otherwise is dishonest or deluded.

[The skeptics advocate.]

The fundamental rule of argument is that the one who asserts must prove. Scientists who assert ID are in a sense trying to prove the existence of a "designer". They are actively seeking evidence to prove this assertion, while evolutionary scientists that assert that there is no "designer" do little more than assert. Where is the proof that there is no designer? Recognizing evolution and refuting irreducible complexity only argues against ID claims, and provides no real evidence to support the claim that there is no designer. Dont argue against another's assertion as proof of your own. If you claim no god exists, what is the evidence to support it, and is it really evidence?

[TechSkeptic]

If you claim no god exists, what is the evidence to support it, and is it really evidence?

Sorry, that is idiotic. Can you prove that you don't have 1000 dollars of mine? Could Saddam ever have proven he didnt have WMD?

The claim that must be proven is that there is a designer.

There is no other converse claim that needs to be proven. There is only process. Why start believing in something that there is no evidence for. no one is saying there is no designer. They are saying there is no evidence for one. So why bother with pursuing that?

Everything works with our current models without supernatural intervention. Just because there are areas that we do not fully understand yet doesnt mean we default to a designer theory. It just means we don't know yet. A designer theory requires proof of a designer.

[Tom Foss]

Scientists who assert ID are in a sense trying to prove the existence of a "designer".

No, ID proponents assume the existence of a designer. There's no proof involved. Oh, that's hilarious. You seem to misunderstand that "fundamental rule" of argumentation you mentioned above: the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. Until the ID proponents provide some proof of the existence of their Designer, the evolutionary scientists are taking the reasonable, justified position by assuming it doesn't exist until the claimants provide evidence for the contrary.

It's the ID proponents who have the untenable position, by claiming the existence of this Designer based on no proof, inventing arbitrary standards of "design" and "complexity" based on this assumption, then using those arbitrary standards to justify their assumption of a Designer.

And, by the way, those evolutionary scientists are doing far more than just asserting. They're working on evolutionary science, studying the development of organisms, the history of life on the planet, and using that information to improve medicine, technology, and the planet in general. It's not their job to disprove ID (though quite a few find time to do so anyway), it's their job to do actual, supported-by-evidence science.

. Dont argue against another's assertion as proof of your own. If you claim no god exists, what is the evidence to support it, and is it really evidence?

You misunderstand the matter of the burden of proof (which you invoked at the start of your post) and you misunderstand the nature of scientific proof. Science accepts the null hypothesis--that any given claim is false--until it is disproved by positive evidence. When the ID proponents show some evidence to justify their claim that a Designer exists, then scientists will reject the Null Hypothesis. Until that point, the onus is on the ID proponents to provide some evidence to justify these long years of unsupported wankery.

In the meantime, the biologists will continue working to understand our universe and make the world a better place. You know, real science.