This page is for civil discussion of the nature of Scientific theory, Metaphysics and the nature of Knowing.

• As the remark which led to this was "I am curious to discuss why ID is not a theory." made by BenAveling, I will start with that.

Theory: ID is, for lack of a better phrase, in direct competition with Evolution/Darwinian selection. This being the case, "theory" as used in concurrance with "Intelligent design" is generally understood to mean "Scientific theory." Unless a question is raised, hopefully we can take that as agreed upon (this discussion of "theory" relates to "scientific theory" and not any other use of that word.)

Scientific theory: The best explanation/definition/clarification of theory I have found to date is here: Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories. I find this definition more concise than the WP entry, which is admittedly more exhaustive. From that site: "In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true."

In specific, the confusion surrounding the ID issue is the basic misunderstanding of "theory" as meaning something like "I think I have a good explanation for this." "Theory" actually has quite specific criteria, and ID does not meet that criteria. IMHO one of the, if not the main, point of divergence is this: a theory originates from observable facts or is supported by them. A theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified. (pasted from the WP entry, italics mine, for emphasis as I will use the words below) ID is intelligent design, hence an intelligence, aka the designer - unobservable by the scientific method. A supposition which is not backed by observation is known as a conjecture, which would be accurate for ID.

A brief trip down the "break" in ID as compared to evolution:

Inheritance - not argued by anyone, thank goodness.

Passed on by DNA - again, only very fringe people deny the existance of DNA or that DNA is the replicating factor.

Variations occur - these could be minor, like better resistence to one minor disease, or better "wind" for running, or major, which are often in the form of birth defects. Not in dispute.

ID states that at some point in the past, someone set all this up in virtually the form we have today. And this is the breakdown: There is no evidence for this whatsoever. This is not observable in action or in results. ID is not predictive. ID is untestable (how would one design a test to see if there is a designer??? testing for the existance of God is questionable at best, surely?). It is not systematic, because it ignores the points above, which do not logically lead to the designer idea, but instead point without variation or exception to evolution. It is arguably unfalsefiable (sp?) because in its very nature, it is both unproveable and unproveable as false.

To put it a different way: Darwin was able to posit some sort of inheritence factor which was replicated, with variations, because of observation. That was in the 1800s. In the 1950s, Watson and Crick identified DNA, which was predicted by evolutionary theory. This is an example of a theory being predictive. What can ID predict? Nothing. What can be observed which leads to ID as a hypothesis? Nothing of which I am aware.

I think that's enough to get us started.

I'd like to add a basic disclaimer: I sometimes make errors in choosing my words or phrasing, so I may have mis-stated things and reserve the right to correct. I am not a scientist, noteable or otherwise. Anything stated as fact may be just my opinion entered without clarification as such, and my opinions are of course my own and subject to error. KillerChihuahua 15:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Theory vs Scientific Theory does seem to be at the heart of the problem. Bengaper clearly hasn't accepted that theory==scientific theory. I don't think I automatically do either. For me, scientific theory is a subset of theory, and I suspect the man in the street would agree. I realise that creationists have used 'just a theory' to disrespect evolution, but it seems that we're now saying 'ID is not even a theory'. Now maybe that's not what we mean. Perhaps most people familiar with ID do agree that theory==>scientific theory, but they aren't the only ones we're writing for. I think we should be able to have something that keeps them happy, without confusing people who see a distinction between the two terms.

To paraphase my dictionary: a theory is an explaination for observed facts. Now, ID may not be a good explaination, in the sense of being testable, or predictive, or useful for anything other than annoying evolutionists. But 'a God created the world' is an explaination for the existance of the world. It's no advance on our earliest forebears' theories, but it is, by my definition, a theory.

I don't follow the details, but I accept that there are things that have not yet been explained using evolution. Some people report this as "evolution does not explain X", falsely implying that "evolution cannot explain X" or even "X is incompatible with evolution". That's the dark side of ID.

On the other hand, many biologists are getting very excited by these 'gaps'. By discovering things we don't know, we have an opportunity to increase the things we do know. And that is happening, gaps are found gaps are closed. Probably there will always be gaps. By presenting these challenges, ID is improving our understanding of evolution. That's the light side of ID.

ID and evolution are not direct competitors. The core ID crowd accept a weak version of evolution, in effect they say that a God created everything and, since then, it has evolved. Of course, not everyone who invokes ID either understands it, or subscribes to all of it.

ID is a sort of strategic retreat, which is what I like least about it. It leads to a situation where God exists only where we are ignorant. As soon as we can understand an aspect of life, we evict God from it.

I don't see why a predictable universe must be a godless universe.

Regards, Ben Aveling 20:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• As far as a godless universe, there is always the methodology of saying "gee, is that how god did that!" - which seems to work for a lot of people - as opposed to "gee, now we have a scientific explanation, so we don't need god anymore".

The reason theory (dicdef) vs. theory (scientific) matters is that the ID debate is, de facto, opposed to evolution, which is a scientific theory. Accuracy is important. Hence, if we cannot use the same (strict) meaning for ID (which we cannot, as it clearly does not meet the criteria), then it is less confusing to avoid using the word "theory" in relation to ID at all. To have to specify every time the word is used in the article is another alternative, and its easy to see how much more tedious and bizarre that would be.

Id is a theory (not a scientific theory, please see the dicdef) which states...

heheheheh no. KillerChihuahua 21:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Leaving aside the very real problems caused by actually using the word, you do agree that it is a theory?

Assume for the sake of argument that you do.

Would the question then become; is it possible to describe ID without either implying that ID is a scientific theory or implying that ID is not a theory?

Regards, Ben Aveling 06:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Do I agree that it is a theory? That's not as simple a question as it appears. By dicdef it is; but in context it is not. ID has been approved to be taught in Kansas in Science class and is on the table in other states, there is the "Teach the controversy" component - it is masquerading as science. Hence, using anything other than scientific criteria and terminology would be incorrect. So no, it is not a theory. Not even close. So its not a case of assuming for the sake of argument that I think its a theory and then drawing a distinction; the distinction is already drawn by the nature of ID itself. Because ID is being presented as science, only the scientific meaning of theory can be used to determine whether ID is a theory. Any other meaning of theory is completely out of context and indeed nonsensical.

KillerChihuahua 12:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Let me check my understanding of what you've just said.

ID adherants claim that ID is a scientific theory. We must accept or reject this claim in its entirity.

That sounds like a very strong claim. Perhaps I've misunderstood something you said and I'm overstating your position?

Regards, Ben Aveling 06:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Apologies, I tend to be too verbose, but every time I'm not, the result seems to be lack of clarity.

Disclaimers: I am typing this with limited time. That said, I think it would be more accurate to say this:

As far as "We must accept or reject this claim..." it is more that "We must examine this claim and whether it meets criteria." In other words, does this claim hold water? Regardless of what any adherant or proponent claims, ID is not a scientific theory. It simply doesn't meet any criteria for scientific theory whatsoever. Now, if someone offers a variant of ID which does fit scientific theory criteria, then that would be a theory. (redundant but I hope you understand what I mean?) I am more than open to anyone pointing me to how ID meets scientific criteria. No one has even offered to do so yet. ID can, however, be described as a belief. And last time I checked, no one requires anything for a belief except faith.

KillerChihuahua 14:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply

A belief is still a theory. It helps us interact with the world.

Let me paraphrase my own ignorance.

I can conceive a single cell animal evolving into a multi-celled animal. Perhaps they behaved something the way that slime molds sometimes behave, and 'decided' that it worked for them.

I cannot imagine how a single cell animal could come into existance. I have faith it was through a process of evolution but I cannot even begin to guess how.

I'm not a biologist, they might have some ideas.

I am persuaded that ID, as a whole, is not a scientific theory. I still tend towards describing it as an unscientific theory.

Perhaps we are speaking different languages. I am speaking a dialect in which anyone may have theories. Perhaps, in your dialect, theories are reserved for scientists?

If so, what we are arguing over is nothing interesting, just two fools pushing on opposite sides of a cart, each thinking the other agreed to pull, and wondering why the cart won't move.

Would you prefer to explore the idea that ID is not a theory?

That might be fruitful, or perhaps not.

Let us set aside this fruitless word.

Would you prefer to explore the idea that ID is a explaination?

Because I can be persuaded of that. ID is collection of observations, a little logic, and a conclusion.

If it all held water, it would be an explaination. But it doesn't, so it isn't an explaination.

But a theory doesn't have to hold water. A theory is just a candidate to be an explaination.

So we're back at the cart again.

Maybe ID is a guess? Every theory is a guess, until proven otherwise.

But a guess is a choice between options. ID is more of an exploration of an option, two options in fact. ID is an exploration of Evoltion, in an attempt to find fault - a long an honoured tradition in science. And ID is an attempt to posit an alternate explaination - another honourable tradition.

I could be wrong, but my reading says that ID has managed to find things that Evolution is not able to explain. That is, they have some interesting observations that are valid.

It's the logic that lets them down, in my opinion. Having demonstrated that there are limits to our understanding of evolution, they then propose an alternate explaination, the god of the gaps.

Now if all the gaps are small, I don't see that anyone would care. How did freckles evolve? Who knows? Or cares? Let god do freckles.

But the big stuff, like single cell animals, I think that's important. I'd like to know how they came about. Did God do it? If so, did God evolve from a single cell animal? If not, does God have cells? Saying God did it, so everything is answered doesn't help. I still want to know how God did it.

I digress. Where were we. You were saying that ID is not a scientific theory, so it is not a theory. I'm not sure if I've advanced that argument at all.

I have a theory. I believe I have reached the point where will be a happier person if I go and make breakfast. Or maybe that's not a theory either.

Perhaps you could give me an example of something that is not a scientific theory but is still a theory?

Regards, Ben Aveling 20:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Good morning, that was like a prose poem! Please allow me to take some time and thought before responding to this... it may be a bit of a delay... KillerChihuahua 20:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm listening, I am so sorry! I feel this discussion has gotten a little off WP topic, if you follow, and was trying to figure out where to suggest we move it (off WP servers) and have not located a place yet. I truly did not mean to let it slide this long! if you know of somewhere we could move this, let me know, or we could try email (although that gets spammy and hard to follow after a bit.)

Please accept my apologies, I am a bad puppy! KillerChihuahua ^?!? 04:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Well, I'm not going to rub your nose in it. ;-) I've tweaked the spam trapping. Email is now quite likely to work, if you so prefer. Ben Aveling 10:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I have no idea what the guided/unguided dichotomy means in the context of evolution. An analogy might help. If I drop a ball at the top of a hill, and it ends up at the bottom of the hill, was that guided? Regards, Ben Aveling 20:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of using fuzzy language, gravity doesn't guide. "Guided" means Someone nudged, pushed, caused, or otherwise caused change. If you drop a ball, and it rolls to the bottom of the hill, it is being acted upon by gravity, friction, all kinds of things - but if a Being makes it roll uphill... no, that's not such a good example. The Being (causer, guider, whatever) can make any change - make it bounce left instead of right - but Someone has to have "guided" it in some way. In the way it is used in my answer to Ed, above, Guided means some kind of conscious intent - which obviously gravity lacks. Does that help or have I muddled things?

To futher confuse the issue, some people refer to Darwinian selection as "self-guided" but I personally consider that a misuse of the term, because although there is something causing the effect (like gravity causing the ball to roll) there is no consciousness, therefore no guidance. They are confusing conscious guidance with the much looser term used, for instance, when describing how a chute "guides" cattle to slaughter, or groceries into the bagging area. KillerChihuahua 20:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Is gravity God at work? Or could gravity be God's greatest 'creation'? Ben Aveling 10:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Absolutely. Gravity can be explained through scientific theory; that doesn't mean God didn't make it. What it does mean is that "God made it that way" is not a scientific theory of gravity. So you can look at the theory of gravity and say to yourself, "Cool, so that's how God did it!" But if you say the theory of gravity is wrong, because you know that God did it, you're not advancing a scientific theory. Science doesn't have anything to do with religion, and doesn't attempt it. Gravity is what happens; the scientific theory of gravity is how it all works, and for many deists, God is who made the rules. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 12:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply

This is just my sense of things, but...

1. I'm not sure that there is a recognition by the Darwinists that there is an open issue here. Intelligent Design has a constant stream of people arriving, complaining that it is NPOV, sometimes getting into a fight, then leaving again. There is a 'consensus' that the page is balanced, and represents all views that deserve representation. Now maybe there is really is no common ground that would leave everybody people satisfied, or maybe I'm wrong when I don't think we're looking for it, but I'm not convinced that the whole issue is as open and shut as some people seem to think.
2. There seems to be no recognition by the Creationists that it is possible to believe in God and believe in evolution. Possibly even a lack of recognition that one can be a good person without believing in God.
3. Some people, on both sides, seem to be more concerned with making sure that thier own views are expressed than in understanding why other people hold opposing views. That's only human, but it's become a problem here because nobody is really looking for common ground.
4. Too much expert knowledge. The whole page is so long, and goes into some quite head-stretching stuff. It's hard for anyone who isn't seriously motivated by the topic to buy into it. Most pages on wiki are regularly visited by people who care more about being encyclopedic than thet do about the actual topic. But such a person will have great trouble making changes to the page because it's so dense and so long that the investment in effort to understand it all is too frightening. So we don't get the middle ground, just the extremes.
5. The culture of these pages is such that the almost all surviving contributions are from people who care more about the issue than about creating a good encyclopedia. Now that may be true of a great many pages here. But most other pages still get a lot of passing input that these pages don't seem to allow.
6. I have a suspicion that a very small number of people involved are here at least in part because they like a good intellectual stoush.

I could be wrong. I probably am.

Regards, Ben Aveling 10:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Some good points here - I agree with a great deal of this. One of the reasons the page is so long, though, is because of Creationists coming in and saying, oh we need more cites, more proof, etc. I've seen that happen a lot. It has probably happened on the Evolution side also - I've only seen that happen once, and I reverted the additions, and they never went in after the Talk page was done with it, so I haven't seen it actually happen, but it stands to reason. FYI, many people consider "Darwinist" a slur, because it implies a belief system, which has nothing to do with Evolutionary theory. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 12:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply