In a research only sort of way could someone point me to any scientific proof for ID?

Question

In a research only sort of way could someone point me to any scientific proof for ID?

Answer 1

> In a research only sort of way could someone point me to any scientific proof for ID?

Nope.

We don't have proof for ID.

We don't have any good evidence for ID either. The observations and experimentation tend to support an evolutionary explanation.

You can read Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" -- but it's not about proof or evidence. It's more about "here are some biochemical systems that are so complex that I can't imagine how they could have evolved."



> Please, please don't tell me that there is no proof or any thing backing up Intelligent Design.

Oops



> If you have nothing more to tell me other than evolution is right and ID is creationism please go away.

I didn't say it. That would be Judge John E. Jones III, in a court of law. See the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District



> I am sick and tired of hearing this and I've learned along the way that scientists are actually extremely close minded and don't like to listen to others without forming a biased opinion first.

Young scientists aren't so close-minded. Some graduate from universities every year.

But they're still subject to:

a) Does the evidence support the hypothesis?

b) Does the evidence support this hypothesis rather than some other hypothesis?

c) Can experimentation be designed to test the hypothesis?



> Ok sorry for the rant, now if there's anyone out there who's read thouroughly into the theory of ID, would you mind giving me a good resource for it?

Read the Michael Behe book, "Darwin's Black Box." Behe is totally wrong, but his book will make you think. Nothing wrong with thinking every now and then, I'd say.

But before you read the Behe book, you may want to get a background in biology. I recommend

Campbell & Reece Biology, 7th edition or newer.

My local public library has copies of both these books (which is good, because the Campbell & Reece book is pretty big).



> I've read the outline to of pandas and people, and all of it is basically stating that evolution has holes therefore the problems it has shows ID must be present to make sure that we continue evolving.



The "Of Pandas and People" book is rather egregious. The early drafts were religious.



> I don't need to know why evolution is wrong, I'm trying to find a book that explains ID thoroughly and goes into why it works.



The problem is that for ID to work, we'd need to find evidence for the Intelligent Designer(s). Their nature is completely unknown. Any American supporter of ID you pin down will eventually come around to admitting that he believes that the agent of intelligent design is God (the God of Abraham).



> I've read about irreducible complexity, and a little about information mechanisms but the technical jargon is not helping me understand the topic.

That's why I'd recommend reading Campbell & Reece Biology to get a good grounding in biology first.



> Basically I'm just trying desperately to find scientific evidence to back up ID

Like I was saying, you need to locate the Intelligent Designer(s). Good luck with that. With global warming, it's likely that the signature of Slartibartfast has melted.



> just to make it a scientific theory

It's not a theory. It'd need evidence supporting it, to be a theory.



> I should win my debate.

Why are you debating this? Do you have a teacher who is a master debater?



> Weise Ente

He's an educated and intelligent contributor to Yahoo Answers in the Biology section. One of the good guys.



> However I have no choice in what I want to think for this debate as my english grade depends completely on it.

Oh My Goodness. You've been assigned to argue FOR a case that already lost in a court of law, with your grade hanging in the balance? Your teacher sucks big time. Please have your parents call your principal and get this j-ck-ss fired right now. I am NOT KIDDING. Here's the link to that court case again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Answer 2

You consistantly talk about 'bias' and 'open/close mindedness'...



There is a massive bias and closemindedness in the scientific community.

Scientists are BIASED to to theories with supporting evidence, experimental results, and that actually meet the criteria of science.

They are CLOSE MINDED to those that don't.



You're basically saying that despite I'd's lack of evidence (if you don't want to hear it, tough. It's the way it is) people should still consider it as strongly as they do evolution or any of the abiogenetic hypotheses.

That reminds me of an old addage, "don't be so open-minded, your brain ight fall right out."





Science works on the basis of skepticism. If you don't have good reason to believe something, you shouldn't.

Saying "we don't know how ___X___ happened, so it must have been designed by some supernatural force" isn't science (much less a theory), because it works on a lack of evidence, not as an explanation for availible evidence. The evidence you DO have is the only thing you shoul base your conclusions on, not the evidence you're missing.







P.S. If ID doesn't "need" a creator entity, then who's this "intelligent agency" they keep rambling on about.



And you should read the 6th through 8th editions of 'Of Pandas and People'... But I see truthseeker's beaten me to the punch

Answer 3

> "In a research only sort of way could someone point me to any scientific proof for ID?"



No.

I accept your point that ID is not Creationism, in that "Creationism", as used in such discussions, almost always involves a Judeo-Christian God, while ID just suggests that there is a "Designer" (or Designers) of unknown nature or provenance.



But before we get any deeper into the discussion - I have to say that no-one can give you any scientific "proof" of ANYTHING. Science does not prove things, it observes things and suggests explanations for things; it might DISPROVE those explanations on further study, but it never, never PROVES anything. Ever.

What it does do is find EVIDENCE for its theories - so I'm going to treat your question as "could someone point me to any scientific EVIDENCE for ID?"



> "I am sick and tired of hearing this and I've learned along the way that scientists are actually extremely close minded and don't like to listen to others without forming a biased opinion first."



The only pre-formed opinion scientists have about any scientific subject is "What is the evidence they are bringing to bear?"



> "if there's anyone out there who's read thouroughly into the theory of ID, would you mind giving me a good resource for it?"



There are plenty of these - try the wikipedia entry for one:

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

It evenly discusses the theory and its history, and includes plenty of pro-ID links.



> "I've read about irreducible complexity, and a little about information mechanisms but the technical jargon is not helping me understand the topic."



Irreducible Complexity is the argument that some features of organisms are organised such that they cannot have evolved to be that way. Typical examples include the bacterial flagellum, the bird wing, the vertebrate eye, etc.

Essentially, the argument goes: if I remove any feature of the vertebrate eye (the lens, the retina, etc.), then the organ as a whole ceases to function. Therefore it cannot have been assembled in a stepwise manner, as proposed by the theory of evolution.



Unfortunately, the argument misses the point that that is not how evolution describes anything evolving.

The eye did not evolve: first the lens, then the retina, then the cornea, etc. All these features will have evolved simultaneously: a light-sensitive membrane (proto-retina) will have evolved alongside a transparent, light-focussing structure (lens or cornea).



> "Bsically I'm just trying desperately to find scientific evidence to back up ID, not discredit evolution or say ID is superior or something, just to make it a scientific theory. If I can do this, I should win my debate."



An admirable goal - and one that many people in the pro-ID camp have been attempting for decades. The reason there isn't any evidence out there to easily find is because of the unfortunate lack of any such evidence.



And you've inadvertantly brought up another issue with ID as a scientific theory. For a theory to be scientific, it must display three crucial features: it must be parsimonious, it must be predictive, and it must be falsifiable.

- Parsimony (aka "Occam's Razor") means it is the simplest possible explanation which fits all existing observations. Only if the theory fails to fit all data should greater complexity be introduced. ID introduces a Designer which must necessarily be at least as complex as the thing designed, therefore at least doubling the complexity of the model.

- Predictiveness means the model must make predictions which can be tested by experimentation. ID makes none.

- and Falsifiability means that the theory must, in principle, be able to be disproved. ID could only be disproved by proving that no designer exists - and since it is impossible to prove a negative, it is not falsifiable.





> "It doesn't support a creator in reality, it's more credible ppl are still leaning towards the amino acid theory, oparin's theory or something like that"



Oparin's Theory was one of the first theories of Abiogenesis. This has nothing to do with Evolution or ID.



> "I meant it can support a creator, but doesn't have to"



No - ID supposes a Designer, not a Creator.

A Designer might not have created the universe, but according to ID, the Designer must first have "seeded" life that it/they designed onto earth, and then been constantly involved down the aeons in "tweaking" the life on earth by (for example) designing the vertebrate eye (which only arose 500 million years ago) and then the bird wing (150 million years ago).



> "I have no choice in what I want to think for this debate as my english grade depends completely on it."



Bummer. No offense, but there is no way this should be being debated in an English class, and you should tell your teacher so.

It would be a bit like asking the class to debate Holocaust Denial or macroeconomics. They are both socially contentious issues that should be discussed in the relevant classe

Answer 4

i read your opening paragraph. I'm going to try and make my response as unbiased as possible



but the concept of ID is that there is a creator-- so the proof, or evidence would be finding evidence of the creator itself. i hope you can see how difficult this may be. i think shouting at the sky and asking the creator to reveal itself would be a rather futile experiment. To my knowledge, there hasnt been anything published in a credible journal that would support ID. I am currently working on research on the topic of evolution and the past few weeks ive been combing through probably thousands of articles on evolution.



Now when i say there hasnt been anything published that would support ID, that doesnt mean they havent published anything that doesnt support evolution. I think there needs to be a distinction between this made. You cant necessarily prove something right on the basis that another thing is false. Example. You have a fruit in your hand. It is not an apple. Can you definitively say that what you are holding is an orange? The fact that it is not an apple doesnt give you any more information on the fruit you are actually holding, which could be a pear. Dont take this the wrong way, but many ID supporters are taking this approach-- especially with the age old "watch in the forest" anecdote, which i wont get into.



Now partially the reason why there isn't much going on in terms of researching ID is that, as i mentioned before, how do you test for it? Is there a way we can actually prove it? Surely, we cant just say "it is because it is" and call it a day. Scientists are too restless to give up that easily.

This is what makes finding credible evidence for ID difficult, not to mention ensuring a non-bias of the evidence, since this hypothesis of ID can be traced back to religious roots.



so, in essence, i dont think there is very much credible, published (as in published in a scientific journal) evidence on ID (remember, as i said before, evidence against evolution doesnt necessarily support ID).



Im glad you're being critical of the theory. its what science is based on. I just hope you're looking in the right places. The internet is a great resource but can be cluttered full of stuff in a disguise that is meant to push another ideology at you.

Answer 5

ID states that flagella, as irreducible structures, cannot work if any portion of the structure is missing.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html

Yet not all organisms have the same protein complement in the structure in a standard flagellum format. Some flagella include > 50 genes products (~30 to build and ~20 to operate) while others use fewer. So what is the exact irreducible version out of the many flagella options? Bacterial flagella are very different from spermatozoon flagella or Archaeal flagella. So which model is the irreducible version?

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

“ In Salmonella typhimurium, more than 40 genes have been shown to be involved in flagellar formation and function". We do not know yet what the minimum number of proteins is in modern bacteria, but clearly a 50 protein model is not irreducibly complex.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=hp&part=A2238

Caddis fly sperm cells for example have a 9+7 arrangement of inner and outer ring microtubules, where as eel sperm completely lack the two central microtubules (having a 9+0 arrangement). The protozoan Diplauxis hatti has a very simple 3+0 arrangement that also lacks many of the other components of the "standard" form while Nymphon leptocheles has a 12 + 0 pattern in the flagellumhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7MF7-4DR0SHJ-63&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1973&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1262700071&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=461de35a7d2b0fe1ef9ffdc778240d77. All function just fine, so which is the irreducible arrangement?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/207/4438/1493

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QSVPK2fNXwkJ:bioeducate.ascb.org/images/FawcettTheCellPDFs/FawcettTheCellChapter14.pdf+Caddis+fly+axoneme+9+%2B+7+flagellar&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a



So, as a theory, how does ID explain the actual data collected on the myriad flagellar forms?

Answer 6

I'm thinking that scientists aren't being competely ignored, and that is what is going to eventually make all this scientific research worthwhile... Unfortunately, it appears that there is this "wait and see" and "take things as they come" attitude among too many though. This is amazing to me, in light of major flooding, heat waves and forest fires becoming annual events instead of 100 or 1000 year events. Unfortunately, "prevention" is obviously not in the vocabulary of those that should really learn the meaning and value of this word. I think also, too many are fatalistic about the world and the future. They do not think it is possible to prevent the things that scientists are predicting. So therefore, if we can keep reporting on and acknowledging global warming events, at some point, the theory could be that more and more people, including ones that could make a major difference in the fight against AGW, will join the efforts and step up to the plate, so to speak. You know what they say, "Rome wasn't built in a day." Of course, we also are left to hope that nothing earth shattering will happen before that time. There are also a lot of things happening on different levels and in different industries and fields of study that would explain why it is taking so long for major steps to be implimented. For example, for centuries, the Dutch have spent a lot of time reclaiming land along their coast from the North Sea. I'm constantly wondering why it appears the opposite is happening in Louisiana. You would think that the U.S. Government, or someone or some corporation(s) with the necessary resources could take a cue from the Dutch and do more to protect the Louisiana coast, like the Dutch have. But no. It appears we are just placing our bets that another Katrina won't hit this area for a long time, so we can leave all the current levees in place at their current rating of being able to defend against another Cat 3 hurricane, which is what they were at when Katrina hit. A tragedy among many that is just waiting to happen, if you ask me... I would like to think that somewhere, something that is going to make a major difference is being done, whether it's finding a way to safely nullify excess CO2 in the atmosphere and / or finding a way to the prevent exhaust of vehicles, factories and biological sources from devastating the atmosphere and surface of the earth in the first place. Of course, this is one time I would be thrilled to find out that, in this case, the environmentally correct position I've accepted is wrong and, bite my tongue, like the deniers say, it's just a part of the natural cycle of the earth's climate (yea, if you like becoming a cave man, or mole creature and living with the dinosaurs!) and oh sure, every will be OK. Yea, right... This is also one time I would really like to do some research to find out that scientific research isn't being ignored and somebody somewhere, other than myself, is concerned and doing something about the current crisis... I wouldn't want to be stuck in the end with everyone saying, "I thought you were doing something about it..." At the very least we can say we tried...

Answer 7

There isn't any. You didn't want to hear that, but it's true.



It will always be true because ID isn't science. Science must be testable. It must be falsifiable. It must be provide a useful model for future work. ID does none of that. It is utterly useless as a scientific theory because it isn't one.



It's a farce. A well designed one, but it collapsed in a court of law. It's dead. Its creators, the Discovery Institute no longer really support it. They've moved on to their next scheme to get creationism in schools. Now it's all about teaching the "strengths and weakness" of evolution. Their literature contains the same lies as before, only with the title changed.



My "opinion" is that of the US legal system and one held by the worldwide scientific community and cold hard evidence.



The DI has had 20 years to do any research on ID. They have a budget in the millions, yet they've never published any data supporting their "theory." They are charlatans.



You are quite simply wrong.

Answer 8

Are you even listening to yourself?



>"I am sick and tired of hearing this and I've learned along the way that scientists are actually extremely close minded and don't like to listen to others without forming a biased opinion first."



Maybe if scientists are saying this over and over, and you are "sick and tired of hearing it" ... then maybe it's not the scientists who are "extremely close minded and don't like to listen to others without forming a biased opinion first."



Just maybe?





Here you are ready to take a position contrary to the world's scientists, and you have such little basis for this opinion that you have to come here "desperately trying to find scientific evidence" to back up your position ... and you don't see that maybe it's you who are "close minded."



Just maybe?



--------------------



Edit. Sorry if I'm being hard on you for taking a position that was chosen for you. My apologies if that is the case.



It is just hard to listen to someone accuse scientists of all people of being "close minded." There is no more open minded group of people you can find. They make a *living* by being open minded. They *have* to be open minded. Because if they are not ... if an individual scientist is blinded by his or her own bias, then there are 50 scientists just chomping at the bit to demonstrate this. You don't survive long as a scientist if you are "close minded."





But I am indeed sorry that you are not finding more information to help you in your report. The problem is that you have come to a science forum ... and ID has very little support among people who actually understand and love science and who are thus up-to-date on the current research.

Answer 9

Click on any of the links in this web site to find out about the validity of ID.



http://www.talkreason.org/index.cfm?category=10



Added:

By the way, I particularly like Of Pandas and People's take on cdesign proponentsists.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_proponentsists.22

Answer 10

The problem you're running into is that you're trying to circumvent scientific theory. Basically whether someone is arguing for or against ID and saying there is no proof or that there is, they are in the wrong. It is because you are basically skipping a step in the process of science by trying to show evidence in that the hypothesis needs to be testable first. If that isn't the case you cannot proceed any further, it doesn't matter what "evidence" has been gathered at that point because it's not truly evidence for whatever is being considered. This is because science cannot be used in the realm of the supernatural. We can gather facts that can support the age of the Earth and technically under science it can (just hypothetically speaking now) be 100, 10,000, or 1 trillion years old. Findings could point to any of those figured and be supported by science. However, the problem with ID in this case, excluding the folks who deal more in misinformation of science to support their ideas, is that trying to tie say the age of the Earth being 10,000 years in Creationism the existence of God cannot be done. The age the earth is testable. God creating it is not. All variants of ID fall into that gap regardless of what deity or supernatural being you are talking about.



Overall, a simplified version is that science is a step by step process. You can't get to step 2 by skipping step 1.

Answer 11

Hi,

Sorry, I’m probably too late to assist you with your outline but I think I can really help you with your debate and I’d be happy to respond to email inquiries as well. I’ve included several of what I think are some of the best sites for investigating intelligent design (including the discovery institute). There are several articles there that go into detail regarding the scientific basis of Intelligent Design (ID) – you might have to do some searching, or I can direct you if you email me. These sites are relatively unbiased since they are merely presenting a logical, scientific pronunciation of their methods and conclusions. On the other hand, evolutionists have reacted with hatred, disdain and frankly, bigotry, in not allowing alternative scientific viewpoints to even be heard in the media (scientific and mainstream) or in our schools. Therefore, you will be hard pressed to find “unbiased” viewpoints from evolutionist sites. This is evident from the responses you have received from evolutionists.



I’ll start by providing you with some brief background on the scientific basis of ID. Although I respect the right of your other respondents to their opinion, I hope to show that their arguments are vacuous, contradictory and hypocritical. I totally agree with you about people making their minds up ahead of time and this is particularly true of the evolutionary establishment (and your evolutionary respondents). Science is supposed to be about questioning what we believe, not about mocking other points of view simply because they disagree with you.



All leading evolutionists have admitted or recognized that living things “appear” to be highly designed. Their stance, of course, is that this “appearance” of design can come about naturally. What ID claims instead, is that living things not only appear designed, but that they actually have been designed. What they do is scientifically examine what our experience tells us are inherent properties of “design” and then attempt to detect these properties in nature and living things in particular. Foremost of these properties is the concept of “complex and specified information” (CSI) which only designed systems possess. A tell tale sign of this property is the discovery of irreducible complexity in biological systems (systems with parts which cannot work independently of each other to perform the same function). In addition, languages and codes (like binary computer codes or programming applications which only arise from an designer) have been known to exist as part of our DNA ever since its discovery.



CSI is information that is both complex and is specified to perform a purpose. Since biological systems have been found to possess CSI and instructional codes, it is a strong indication that they were designed. The procedures to detect design in living things and compare those with systems we know are designed today follows well established scientific methods of research, repeatable observation, testing and investigation.



I find it contradictory and hypocritical of your evolutionary respondents to associate evolution with “science”, but not ID. There are two fundamental reasons for this. First, the majority of science we enjoy today was established by great and renowned creation scientists – Copernicus, Kepler, Ray , Linnaeus, Curvier, Agassiz, Boyle, Newton, Kelvin, Faraday, Rutherford , Maxwell and the list goes on and on. Most of these scientists believed in a literal 6 day creation. Regardless, they all believed AND MADE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS FOR, an intelligent designer. The understanding by these early scientists that the world was both rational (because it was created by a mind) and contingent (a mind acting freely), led to the scientific thinking and methods of today based on discovering the laws of nature instituted by God.



Just to establish this fact further consider these great creation scientists: Johannes Kepler said scientists have the job of "thinking God's thoughts after him". Louis Agassiz, the leading American naturalist of the 19th century, believed that the patterns of appearance in the fossil record pointed unmistakably to design. Carl Linnaeus argued for design based upon the ease with which plants and animals fell into ordered groups. By the way, he developed the science of taxonomy in the search for the original KINDS of life that God had created. Regarding our solar system, Newton said "though these bodies may indeed preserver in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have, at first, derived the regular positions of the orbits themselves from those laws....thus this most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."



The point here is that if belief in (and scientific arguments for) intelligent design first inspired modern scientific investigation, how could mere openness to the design hypothesis (which is investigated today by scientists) not be considered science (or even detrimental to science)! If creation scientists established the science we enjoy today, how is it that you can’t be a scientist and still believe God created the universe!



Second, there is a completely different method of investigating “historical” science as opposed to “operational” science. Operational science follows the scientific method in that what we are studying can be directly observed and repeatedly tested in the “laboratory” such as gravity, medicine etc. However theories about what happened in the past, like evolution, must used abductive reasoning which is an inference to unseen causes based on clues or facts from the present. Speculation about past events requires many and significant assumptions. For example, evolution assumes that everything arose by purely natural means. It also assumes that process of change in species we observe today can be extrapolated backwards to suggest we all arose from a common ancestor. Scientists have shown today that this is not possible because the change we observe today cannot add the huge an unimaginable amounts of CSI necessary to change a molecule into a man.



However, deducing what happened in the past based on what we see in the present can only yield plausible, but not certain, conclusions. There is no way to know for certain what happened in the past because conditions may have been different or events could have occurred which can only be confirmed by eye-witness accounts. Therefore, historical scientists (evolutionary biologists, theoretical physicists, astronomers…) test their theories against multiple working hypotheses to infer the “best” explanation based on the preponderance of the evidence (not “proof”). It is only if the explanation is unique or the only possible cause where we can be fairly certain that it is correct. Even though these methods work well for more recent events, there are still cases were people have been convicted wrongly based on forensic evidence, for example, because evidence from the past must always be interpreted.



The point of all this is that ID scientists use EXACTLY the same historical scientific methods as evolutionists do and yet your respondents falsely insist that ID is not science! If ID is not science, then neither is evolution!



Unfortunately, I’ve used up all my characters and cannot respond to most of the nonsense from your other evolutionary respondents but I’ve picked a few:



ID has nothing to do with the “age of the earth”. However, this respondent makes the false claim that the “age of the earth is testable. God creating it is not”. If the age of the earth is “testable”, then why doesn’t he believe the hundred or so dating techniques which show the age of the earth is in the range of 6,000 years? If God said He created it 6000 years ago and scientific evidence shows it is 6000 years old, isn’t that evidence that He told us the truth and therefore He exists (disagreement on the validity of the evidence notwithstanding)?



Another respondent says you’ve taken a position “contrary to the world’s scientists”. What scientists? There are hundreds of thousands worldwide that disagree with evolution. Since when does popular opinion dictate truth? If that’s the case, evolution is false because surveys show the majority of Americans do not believe in it.



Lastly, one of your respondents says that Oparin’s theory of abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution or ID. Of course it does! Evolution and ID deal with the “CAUSE” of life. Now that we know much more about the complexity of life, origins scientists have a lot more to explain, including the origin of the DNA language and CSI.