Isn’t intelligent design supposedly untestable? After all many who argue against the idea of intelligent design being a science like to point that out. For example, William Menta writes his viewpoint in the Kalamazoo, rebuking a 12th grader for suggesting intelligent design is a science, he argues…
“Lodes gave a definition of science filled with some reasonable and intelligent-sounding quotes. Lodes called a scientific theory “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world.” What she neglected to tell the audience is a scientific theory is also something that can be tested. Any statement that can be considered scientific is something that we can design an experiment to check. In science, we explore possibilities to see if they can be proved wrong.”
“Intelligent design does not meet that criterion. Those who agree with the philosophy of intelligent design simply state a belief that the world is so complicated someone must have designed it…”
In 2005, Time had it’s own spin, “How Intelligent Design Flunked Its Test Case” where Judge Jones ruled that intelligent design was not testable therefore not a science…
“However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions…”
Listen folks, the whole untestable argument against intelligent design is a lie. For two reasons, firstly, an hypothesis or theory need not to be correct in order to be considered a science. Secondly, which brings up “irremediable complexity” in a research paper published in science. How can you refute something you can’t test?
A team of biologists from Canada and the Czech Republic decided to refute part of the concept of “irreducible complexity” for observations of specialized complex biological systems that do not show the flexibility to evolve. So they came up with “irremediable complexity” which means once a system by chance mutations, then directed by natural design create a new complexity in animals without the option of being able to go back once it was obtained. What they are suggesting is a kind of “ratchet” mechanism that increases complexity and interdependence, but not necessarily adaptation. But then how can adaptation occur?
Researchers try to solve this problem by suggesting that the function must have been already existed before the complexity accumulated…
“Although compensation for defects caused by “selfish” (self-propagating) DNA elements may seem intuitive, it is problematic to propose that, on the way to evolving compensatory machinery, an intermediate state had to exist that was less fit than its ancestors and sisters. Why would such an intermediate not just die out in competition before its rescue by compensatory complexity yet to be invented? A more workable model is that the compensating mechanism was already present (possibly serving unrelated functions).”
Can you tell me what was said by these evolutionary researchers especially in bold print, a testable idea? It seems the story works better than what is observed in nature. Researchers are beginning to see more information being generated in less space in the genome than previously believed. Scientists have discovered in alternative splicing a fruit fly is designed to produce 38,016 distinct messenger RNAs, “a number far in excess of the total number of genes (~14,500) in the organism.”. Estimated number of functionally distinct proteins that could be encoded by the genome scientists say, is staggering!
There is so little known and understood about alternative splicing which gives biologists an enormous way to go in studying this particular designed area. Learning how nature works is science. Turning the evidence into a creative story which relies on “stuff happens” (anti-reality) is not science. Also, something that is not testable cannot be disproved by the scientific method.
Back to the the paper on “irremediable complexity” which shows irreducible complexity as a testable concept whether you agree with it’s conclusions or not. The paper also had to take issue with neo-Darwinian evolution in regards to adaptation in order to try and refute intelligent design.