ID Prediction Summary

It is laudable that Meyer takes the step to explore predictions that ID would make. Predictions that are testable are a vital part of the scientific process. But just making a prediction isn’t sufficient to indicate viable science. Astrologers and tasseologists can also make predictions and sometimes they may be right. Predictions must also be based on causal factors that are understood independently to exist and whose adequacy can be independently verified. The predictions must clearly differentiate between competing hypotheses.

It is unfortunate that this set of dozen predictions is very weak on all counts. It is unlikely to make any difference in the debate. These tend not to be definitive in terms of distinguishing between ID or non ID and will only extend the discussion.

7 comments to ID Prediction Summary

  • Kenell Touryan

    Randy
    I appreciateed the detailed, well thought out and erudite analyses that you have made regarding the weaknesses of Meyer’s contention that ID can be considerd scientific (In his book Signature in the Cell). As of lately, I have come to the conclusion that our real issue should not be   whether ID is scientific or not, when compared to TE. Our real challenge at ASA is the secular religion promulgated by ‘Darwinism’ as evident in the publications of both Nature and Science.
    One may question the 2nd law of thermodyanamics (proven to be correct 99.99999%) or Einstien’s Theory of General Relativity (proven to be correct to within 99.9%), but one dare not raise an issue against Darwin’s ”Origin of Species” in all its various forms, in academia, professional circles, or Journals. Every aspect of human understanding, whether through biological, social, religious evolution can now be fully explained by Darwinism, according to the secular world view.
    For example, check the following recent articles in Science: 18 Dec 2009 and 2 April 2010. In the former, Science selected as breakthrouhg of the year, ArdipithicusRamidus (AR) as a hominin, based on a few skeletal pieces and constructed a ‘lovely female of the year’ cover! When I pointed to the editor that their 2nd, 3d etc, choices  were all objectively verifiable , measurable breakthroughs, where as the AR was mere speculation based on scant data, Science refused to publish it. As for the April article ,a Post Doc had revealed the existence of a primitive culture among chimps. She ended it with a sweeping statement ” we are all apes…can we handle it?”
    Note the recent book by Cunningham (an MD) where he tries to show that a scientist cannot be a believer. Imagine a mere technician (MDs are mostly expert technicians), using the time-worn arguments against a reputable scientist, Francis Collins (who supports TE!) to prove that someone like Collins cannot be a a good scientist! Add to this the diatribes of militant atheists like Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris…then one can appreciate where the real battle lies!
    As ASA members, it is time we closed ranks among IDers and TEs. We need to support and encourage each other, pointing our ‘guns’ at today’s Darwinism, with its myriad, unwarrneted extrapolations to all aspects of human life. Unlike the materialists, we have the same world view after all , and all of us, ID or TE are subject to the same attack and ridicule by the secular movement.

    Ken Touryan, Fellow

    • Randy Isaac

      Ken,

        Thank you for your comments. Yes, I strongly agree that as Christians we need to focus on our unity in the body of Christ and in our commitment to the doctrines of creation, incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. We do indeed share a worldview that differs substantially from the materialist view and we should rally in a united front.

        But I would suggest that your last statement needs a little more clarification. You wrote “Unlike the materialists, we have the same world view after all, and all of us, ID or TE are subject to the same attack and ridicule by the secular movement.” I would venture to point out that not all attacks and ridicule are the same. We have biblical injunctions that our persecution be due to our faith in Christ Jesus and not due to misconduct. Augustine warned that we not speak nonsense about matters that are clear to secularists as well as Christians. We need to be careful that any attacks and ridicule that we receive from the secular movement are truly based on a difference in faith and a Christian worldview rather than on faulty logic. It is not the same to be ridiculed by them for believing in a young earth as it is for believing in Christ. The attacks on ID by the secularists are not solely based on differing theistic views but on fundamental flaws in logic.

       Regarding your comment about the recent discussion in Science magazine, I wonder if you could clarify your statement. You wrote “In the former, Science selected as breakthrough of the year, Ardipithicus Ramidus (AR) as a hominin, based on a few skeletal pieces and constructed a ‘lovely female of the year’ cover!” What is your concern? Do you not agree that this was a hominin? Do you think there is insufficient evidence to identify this specimen? Why do you have a concern with the proposed reconstruction of individuals based on key skeletal pieces? I would be very interested in knowing what you think the issues are. 

      Randy

  • Kenell Touryan

    Randy,
    My point regarding ‘we are all under attack, whether ID or TE ‘ is based more on the super-faulty logic used by the lady (forget her name) that concludes that ‘we are all apes’, or Dawkins, who makes the totally unscientific pronouncation that Darwin or evolution has made atheism safe (paraphrasing his statement). Compared to such statements, trying to show that ID is scientific is mild!

    My comment on AR is not that the skeletal remains could not be a hominin. My remark is based on the level of certainty when one compares the 2nd and 3d choices for what Science considers the 2009 breakthrough. There is a big difference in making inferences based on incomplete,  past records and constructs a full blown face on the front page of Science versus contemporary observations  based in hard data (astrophysical), or empirically testable activities, as in  nanotevhnologies.  
    Cheers
    Ken

    • Randy Isaac

      Thank you for the clarifications. I would only add that the “level of certainty” in science is a function of the quality of data and the analysis and not a function of past records vs contemporary observations. I think one of the strongest parts of Meyer’s book is his defense of the validity of historical causal analysis. He says he diverges from Thaxton on this point and I think he does a good job of showing that one can have confidence in historical analysis. If only he had followed his own advice rather than claiming that ID is so uniquely correct that it can be an exception from the normal rules of causal existence. I do think it is worth pointing out that historical sciences are not a stepchild or somehow inferior to contemporary observational sciences, as you seem to imply.
      Randy

  • Larry Parsons

    Ken,
    M.D.’s are “mere technicians” – yikes!!  I think that was a rather incautious statement – Francis Collins is an M.D. as well.
     
    I appreciate your main point, but as one of those “mere technicians” I had to comment.  The physician’s statement was sufficiently unfounded that an ad hominem truly wasn’t necessary in undermining it!
     
    In Christ,
    Larry

  • Kenell Touryan

    Larry,
    OOps, sorry for stepping on toes unnecessarily. I use the words ‘mostly technicians’ not include the whole ’set’. Francis Collins IS and MD but also a research scientist.
    My apologies
    Cheers
    Ken

  • Larry Parsons

    Apology accepted, Brother!  Thanks for your very thoughtful post on which I commented – I share your sentiments!
     
    Larry

 

April 2010
M T W T F S S
« Mar   Dec »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Email Notification for Posts