Here is where I think we are talking past one another. According to you, ID is “the theory that a designer is responsible for certain features of the universe and of living things” and therefore is not falsifiable. While I agree with you that the theory you describe is not falsifiable, I disagree with you that the theory you describe is ID. Somewhere above this comment you said that you “detect no religious part” in Amy’s description, and what Amy is describing is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design! In the quotes you offer, which I think is a selective mining of the many things Johnson and Dembski have written, Johnson and Dembski (as I’ve pointed out) equivocate between their Christian understanding of creation and the scientific theory of ID. If you look at what Dembski says in The Design Revolution, you’ll find that he defines ID as such:

“According to intelligent design, the world contains events, objects and structures that exhaust the explanatory resources of undirected natural causes and can be adequately explained only be recourse to intelligent causes.” [page 37]

Thus, if critics can show that the events, objects, and structures in question can be explained by undirected natural causes, ID will be falsified! Now, to be sure, the falsification of ID will have minimal effect on the belief of many that God has created the world. If ID is falsified, the only thing it will show is that such design cannot be reliably detected. An example might help. Because of my belief in the Christian doctrine of divine providence, what happened here was, I believe, an act of God. However, I don’t believe that God’s action in this case is empirically detectable. Thus, the theory that God acted is not falsifiable. When it comes to irreducibly complex systems, my belief is that the presence of specified complexity is a reliable indicator that the system in question was the result of purposeful design. To refute that belief what you can do is show that the presence of specified complexity in the complex system or systems in question is the result of undirected natural causes.

Doing this, however, will have no effect on my (religious) belief that God has created the world and everything in it. All that will change is my belief that such design is empirically detectable. I am perfectly fine with that. I make the distinction between God’s creative activity in the world and the detectability of that creative activity. Just because the former is not falsifiable does not mean that the latter is not falsifiable. The detectability of design is what ID is all about. It is not a religious idea, as I have pointed out here.

Then what is religious about this statement:

Therefore, in light of what we know about all the previously observed and verified instances, when one comes across a new instance of recorded, complex, meaningful information in the world, it is most reasonable to conclude that this information also came from an intelligent agent (since we have scientifically developed this principle through observation).

Timbo, the theory that a designer is responsible for certain features of the universe and of living things is not falsifiable. Arguments advanced in support of this idea may or may not be falsifiable. Your (and Amy’s) mistake is to conflate an argument for ID with ID itself. Take, for example, irreducible complexity.

This idea holds certain systems posses interconnected and interdependent features that could not have arisen during an evolutionary process. The flagellum is one example offered. Blood clotting is another. A number of biologists have shown that these systems are not in fact irreducibly complex; there are animals (e.g., the dolphin) that lack one of the components of the system, but their blood clots all the same. Thus, the idea of irreducible complexity is falsified, but that doesn’t falsify the theory of ID itself. It simply means that the theory of ID is not supported by the concept of irreducible complexity because the latter is shown to be false.

To be clear, I did not actually write that a Google search would show ID has been falsified. If I inferred that ID is falsified by showing that some of its principle arguments are unsound, then I apologize, for that is a mistake.

What I think is going on both in your arguments and in the quotes from Haught and Miller is a failure to grasp the distinction between a Christian doctrine of creation and the theory of ID.

I’m not sure how you come to this conclusion when it is ID that is specifically referred to in practically all the quotes I offer, and not just from Haught and Miller, but from Johnson and Dembski, who are as closest to ID as you can possibly get. Are you arguing that your understanding of ID is more correct than theirs?

What I think is going on both in your arguments and in the quotes from Haught and Miller is a failure to grasp the distinction between a Christian doctrine of creation and the theory of ID. Some of this failure to distinguish the two is forgivable, for, unfortunately, some ID proponents equivocate the two at times (although they do note the distinction from time to time). To put it succintly, the Christian doctrine of creation (CDC) is not falsifiable. That God has created the world and everything in it and ordains all that occurs is clearly a statement of religious faith. The theory of intelligent design, in and of itself, is vastly different. It simply states that features of the natural world are best explained by a designing intelligence, nothing more. To be sure, ID, which is an empirical theory, is quite compatible with CDC, and this compatibility is what leads Christian proponents of ID to identify the designer as God. But when they do this, they are (again, unfortunately) equivocating between separate things (ID and CDC). In your statements that ID is not falsifiable, you are failing to make a distinction between ID and CDC, taking the fact that CDC is unfalsifiabie as proof that ID is unfalsifiable. Yet when you argue that ID has been falsified, you demonstrate that you have not distinguished between ID and CDC.

In every single observable instance in the natural world where complex, meaningful information has been recorded and passed on through a material substance, the source of that information has been an intelligent agent.

No. I did not say that ID is invalid because its proponents are motivated by religion. What I said is that ID itself is based on religion, as its proponents make clear in the quotes I provided.

Johnson: The intelligent design movement starts with the recognition that 'In the beginning was the Word,' and 'In the beginning God created.'

Dembski: Indeed intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

Dembski: … intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces.

Besides nearly the whole of the scientific community’s rejection of ID as non-scientific, many theistic scientists identify the theory’s religious foundations:

Ken Miller: As the Dover trial showed, ID is nothing more than old-fashioned creationism, distinguished only by its advocates’ willingness to be disingenuous about its origins, motivations and goals.

Theologians agree. “Georgetown University theology professor John F. Haught said that while intelligent-design proponents do not explicitly identify God as the creator of life, the concept is ‘essentially a religious proposition.’”

On what scientific basis does ID come to the conclusion that life does not come from non-life? This is merely a proposition without evidence. Remember, arguments from ignorance are not scientifically valid.

As for what ID actually does say on the origins of life, I’ve found precious little. One recent article (for some reason, I can’t hyperlink directly to the article. I keep getting an error when trying to post. Go to discovery.org and search for “On the Origins of Life” by David Berlinski) essentially says, “The scientific model currently does not seem capable of answering the question. Perhaps we should revise the model. Failing that, let’s wait and see.” If there are more explicit views, I’d be happy to read them.

2. ID shows that complex systems within the cell only work as a unit and do not function without all of their parts, therefore there’s no purpose for a single part on its own, and no reason to “select” it (since it would offer disadvantages as a non-working part rather than an advantage). Someone (and I know they’re working on this) could give a plausible explanation as to how the parts could have been chosen one by one in a way that the organism could have survived.

This is the idea of irreducible complexity as propounded by Michael Behe. Supporters of evolution have already answered it, such as in the example of the flagellum. Behe himself admitted while testifying in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.”

3. ID says meaningful information only comes from an intelligent source. Someone could show an example where random causes created a complex, meaningful message.

This is the idea of specified complexity as propounded by William Dembski. A number of refutations exist. See, for example, Dissecting Dembski’s “Complex Specified Information”.

So far, nobody has been able to falsify ID in any of these ways.

I’m not sure how you can make this statement in light of the volumes of available articles that a simple Google search would reveal. There is also the matter of the scientific community’s near wholesale rejection of ID, which certainly cannot all be explained by philosophical bias.

Out of curiosity, what would falsify naturalistic Darwinism for you? (For example, Darwin said that if #2 could be shown, then his theory would be falsified.)

Easy. If evidence of a creature, e.g., a humanoid, were found in an era that evolution says it should not exist yet, e.g., the Cambrian, that would falsify the theory.

A response to the rest will follow as time allows

Therefore…what? If you say that because ID scientists are motivated by religion, therefore what they present is invalid, that is the genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter in the least if they see the evidence they're presenting as connected to a larger picture of the world. When determining the truth of a person's theory, I don't care if that person is a worshipper of the sun if he's arguing that the earth goes around the sun (this was actually the case of someone named Bruno in the 1500s). The question is, is he right about what he's asserting? Should we reject what Bruno said because he was motivated by religious reasons? That's not logical.

The ID scientists do not assert scientifically that the designer is God. That's outside the scope of their field. But certainly most of them (not all) believe in a God, and most (not all) of those are Christians. The point is that the research is to show what they believe to be true about science (i.e., what's true about the natural world–that it is designed), and they're not trying to prove more than that (i.e., what science can't show about the Designer), even if they believe it.

And again, many scientists are using their research to prove naturalism and disprove religion. So…what? Nothing follows from that at all. The discussion should focus on the evidence at hand, not motivations.

Show that the object(s) in question are the result of unintelligent causes and ID is falsified!

What experiment would possibly show this to you? You’re presupposing a proposition—objects have intelligent causes—then asking for proof of its negative, when it’s incumbent on you to show the validity of the proposition first.

By way of illustration, suppose I claim that all your actions are the result of the influence of creatures called thetans. I say my theory is falsifiable because if you can show your behavior is not thetan-influenced, then it is falsified. You’d rightly respond “Hogwash! You need to show the existence of these thetans first!” See? The validity of my theory supposes the a priori acceptance of my proposition (thetans exist, a designer exists). How can I falsify it based on a non-falsifiable proposition I’m required to accept first? In the words of that great philosopher Homer, “That’s unpossible!”

(Btw, if you didn’t notice, I didn’t pull this illustration out of thin air. The idea that non-observable creatures called “thetans” influence our behavior is believed by Scientologists.)

The rest of your objection commits the genetic fallacy. The fact that many proponents of ID are Christian no more invalidates ID than the fact that Richard Dawkins is a militant atheist invalidates the macroevolutionary thesis that he espouses.

This is the second instance in which I’ve been accused of committing the genetic fallacy. As before, the accusation is incorrect.

If I had simply stated, “ID is not about science because its proponents are fundamentalist Christians,” then the genetic fallacy accusation would hold. But when I actually quote those same proponents in support of my assertion, then it is valid argument. The proponents of ID are explicit in its linkage to religion. William Dembski said in 2005:

…intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces. This evidence is available to all apart from the special revelation of God in salvation history as recounted in Scripture.
… To be sure, creationists who support intelligent design think it does not go far enough in elucidating the Christian understanding of creation. And they are right!
… Even so, there is an immediate payoff to intelligent design: it destroys the atheistic legacy of Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. This gives intelligent design incredible traction as a tool for apologetics, opening up the God-question to individuals who think that science has buried God.

Previously, I stated that ID proponents identify the designer as God, which the authors of this blog denied. In light of the quotes I’ve provided, do you still maintain this position?