Falsifiability
At iDesign, a sister club at the University of California Irvine (partially responsible for inciting us to begin this website) Wedge has a post up about the falsifiability of intelligent design. We’ve discussed this here at Cornell a good deal as well– while "God did it" is definitely not falsifiable, ID theory makes a far stronger claim than that; one that is– -theoretically anyway– readily falsifiable. In his words: "Certain features of biological life as we understand it are best explained by the actions of an intelligent agent". (emphasis mine) If evolution or any other theory comes up with a better explanation, there isn’t much more to be said for ID.
He makes the point that it isn’t even an issue if we can never rule out chance and necessity completely; while going for a best explanation, possible explanations we might have ten years down the road really don’t play any role.
That notwithstanding I do think there are some aspects of our universe that by their very nature almost requre intelligence; things which no hypothetical natural law could cover. Almost by definition, no deterministic natural law can ever generate new information; at best they are functions preserving the original information content. Non-deteministic laws, so long as they are non-telic, can generate information, but only by means of contingincy and so of a non-specified sort.
Of course we can never rule out chance completely in any situation; especially when dealing with historical events; but too much reliance on it creates a strong inference against any theory.
A question we ought to look at sometime soon: is natural selection a "Maxwell’s demon" that will bring us out of the "no new information" rut?
I’m glad you liked my post. Btw, I love your names. The only think cooler than taking pseudonym from Beowulf is taking them from Star Wars :-)
Comment by Wedge — March 9, 2006 @ 8:17 pm
Why use a pseudonym at all? Got something to hide?
Comment by Allen MacNeill — March 9, 2006 @ 10:25 pm
I was under the impression that it was a common thing for people to make up ID’s for messengers, chats, e-mail, etc…
No one is hiding anything Allen - it really isn’t as devious as you think - no conspiracy theories here - no cards up our sleeves :)
Comment by Hygd — March 9, 2006 @ 10:50 pm
No, we’re not hiding anything; everyone at Cornell knows who the IDEA people are. Some of us, though, would rather be less google-searchable.
Comment by Freawaru — March 9, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
Allen,
Lighten up a bit. Pen names are fun, and they allow a little bit of creativity into the evolution - inteligent design debate. Like Freawaru and Hygd pointed out, no one has anything to hide and we have active and interesting discussions in our meetings and on our listserve where everybody uses their English names.
Comment by Wulfgar — March 10, 2006 @ 2:10 am
I guess I should have put a ;-) in my post. I don’t actually have a problem with pseudonyms, I just don’t use them myself. For me, it comes down to “owning” your opinions: I find that a lot of people who post on blogs using pseudonyms feel like they can play faster and looser with the truth, and can use ad hominem attacks and such. Not that you folks do that, but a lot of people do (just take a look at most comments in most blogs). I feel that when I use my own name, I have to be more careful about what I say, making sure I don’t exaggerate, or misjudge, or personally attack anyone, because the consequences of such actions will come down on *my* head, not the head of “Darwin’s Bulldog.”
And BTW I like your site; good luck!
Comment by Allen MacNeill — March 10, 2006 @ 3:04 am
http://www.salon.com/ent/video_dog/latenight/2006/03/08/ferguson/
Comment by Allen Macneill — March 10, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
Allen,
I can’t seem to access the link — it seems to only let subscribers log in.
Comment by Wulfgar — March 11, 2006 @ 4:43 am