Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

Michael Behe claims that if Lenski's experiment on e-coli produced some novel function, that would disprove ID.I don't see how it would. Why couldn't the ID proponent just claim that the designer guided the experiment psychically? On theoretical grounds, the ID proponent could claim, "this couldn't have happened with mutation and natural selection. There was an infusion of information from somewhere." How can we rule out the activity of a designer when there are no limits on how this designer operates? Any experiment can be tainted.It seems to me for ID to be falsifiable, there was to be some type of mechanism/limits for how the designer operates.

Thread copied here from the Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

No, they claim on religious fantasy grounds that they haven't the intellect to understand the mechanisms involved. That information was not infused from anywhere. It was evolved by trial and error over many millions of years. Easy. First, even the gods must follow the rules. There is no evidence of their work when there should be if they interfered with natural evolution. We would see the disconnects in the lineages and between species.Second, this designer sucks. The designs look all the world like the ham-fisted glommed-on make-due approach of nature not the sleek intuitive designs of the universe's most intelligent being.We don't have to rule out anything. Apparently there is nothing there. Until someone shows evidence of this cosmic designer or his works there is nothing to justify the continued insistence on this fantasy.

Edited by AZPaul3, : word

They could claim such a thing, which is the problem. Once you throw parsimony out the window you give up any chance of doing science.

quote:

---

For, be it observed, the exception in limine to the evidence which we are about to consider, does not question that natural selection may not be able to do all that Mr. Darwin ascribes to it: it merely objects to his interpretation of the facts, because it maintains that these facts might equally well be ascribed to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all childish enough to rush into a supernatural explanation whenever a natural explanation is found sufficient to account for the facts. Once admit the glaringly illogical principle that we may assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower ones is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects—this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards.
--George Romanes, "Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19922/19922-h/19922-h.htm

---

Refuting one argument would do little to refute the idea of intelligent design. And the followers of intelligent design are reluctant to abandon arguments even if they have been refuted.Intelligent design is not science, nor is it trying to be science. It is primarily religious apologetics, and of a rather dishonest and nasty sort.

If some super-entity can violate the laws of physics willy-nilly, then we can't know anything. If it can change the length of a day, we can't predict when tomorrow will come. If it can suspend the law of gravity, there's no sense in us building bridges. We don't need to rule it out any more than we need to rule out the activities of unicorns or leprechauns. As long as the universe is predictable, their activities are irrelevant.

Yes, that's my point. If "design" includes any type of mechanism how could it possibly be falsified. I'm puzzled by ID proponents like Behe and Meyer saying that if certain experiments produced certain results, ID would be falsified. They would be falsified if they specified or limited the possible actions of a designer. But if design includes actions of a supernatural kind (with who knows what motivations), how would it be possible to falsify that?So it seems to me that ID is unfalsifiable, and unscientific.They seem to have some implicit assumptions in how the designer would behave.

quote:

---

I'm puzzled by ID proponents like Behe and Meyer saying that if certain experiments produced certain results, ID would be falsified.

---

It’s because they want to be able to say that ID is falsifiable, it’s all part of the attempt to pass ID off as science.

First, where did Behe say this? Can you provide a quote or reference?Second, perhaps it would be better to actually wait for such a novel function to be produced and understood before trying to discuss the demise of ID. As of yet, it still hasn't occurred. Because ID wouldn't comment on such a manner of guidance. Instead, it would take a look at what has been observed and evaluate any changes via scientific and analytical methods, just as Behe has already done on reported changes in Lenski's experiment. That is somewhat an unusual statement for an ID proponent to make unless they had already evaluated and presented evidence backing up such a statement. And it wouldnt be claimed on theoretical grounds, but instead on observational/scientific grounds. The question is somewhat backwards, as an ID proponent would rule out chance/necessity even before considering design. Nonetheless, for ID there are limits as to how a designer would operate.I think you might be confused as to what ID constitutes, as well as what criteria would qualify as something falling under design.

What constitutes ID?What criteria would qualify as something falling under design?We have been waiting for the definitive tests of ID's claims for decades. It's about time.Yes, please answer those questions.

quote:

---

That is somewhat an unusual statement for an ID proponent to make unless they had already evaluated and presented evidence backing up such a statement.

---

False. It’s a major strand of ID.

quote:

---

And it wouldnt be claimed on theoretical grounds, but instead on observational/scientific grounds.

---

False again. See Dembski’s abuse of the No Free Lunch Theorems.

quote:

---

The question is somewhat backwards, as an ID proponent would rule out chance/necessity even before considering design. Nonetheless, for ID there are limits as to how a designer would operate.

---

The question is not at all backwards - it is exactly what is needed to make ID falsifiable. And no, ID does not propose any limits on how the designer might operate.

quote:

---

I think you might be confused as to what ID constitutes, as well as what criteria would qualify as something falling under design.

---

ID is a religious and political movement aimed at supporting Creationism. It’s only interested in making a pretence at science for apologetic purposes. And it must be noted that ID is at the nastier and most dishonest end of apologetics.The only real criterion for design in ID is “an ID proponent says so”.

In this video at 38:24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFut_C3DSB8&t=2336s What are these limits and have they been stated? This is exactly what I'm looking for, because I haven't seen anyone giving any parameters/mechanism for how the designer operates. Until these parameters have been stated, I don't see how to rule out the interference of a designer in any experiment.

All erroneous scientific explanations like the old ID and Evolutions are falsifiable.The new ID had falsified them both.Amazon.com

Please spam elsewhere.

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. A purposeful arrangement of parts.But you knew all that already. Then you haven't been paying attention. 1) If an undirected process could be shown to be able to produce the specified complexity (ie, functional arrangement of parts, specified information), then that would falsify ID's claims. As of yet, it hasn't been done. Lenski's experiment would probably be the best yet modern attempt, since it has run 75,000 generations or so (equating to what would be about 2 million years of human development), but even there nothing novel has appeared. 2) By tests that are done intuitively by just about everyone every day, in that when encountering some system that demonstrates specified complexity and when we can determine the origin of it, in our uniform and repeated experience a mind is always behind it.