Posted by: Caleb | May 16, 2008

Intelligent Design and Scientific Method

One of the common criticisms against ID is that it fails to use the scientific method. I was skimming through an ID website that I hadn’t visited before and found this useful article that lays out the scientific method used by ID researchers.

Here is an excerpt:

Many critics of intelligent design have argued that design is merely a negative argument against evolution.
This could not be further from the truth. Leading design theorist William Dembski has observed that “[t]he
principle characteristic of intelligent agency is directed contingency, or what we call choice.”1 By
observing the sorts of choices that intelligent agents commonly make when designing systems, a positive
case for intelligent design is easily constructed by elucidating predictable, reliable indicators of design.

Design can be inferred using the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion.
Design theorists begin with observations of how intelligent agents act when designing, to help them
recognize and detect design in the natural world. - Casey Luskin

Posted in External Link, Intelligent Design, Science, Scientific Method

« The Case Against Intelligent Design Fails
Evolution Failing as a Theory of Everything? »

Responses

Many critics of MAGIC have argued that MAGIC is merely a negative argument against evolution.
This could not be further from the truth. Leading MAGIC theorist William Dembski has observed that “the principle characteristic of SKY FAIRY MAGIC is directed contingency, or what we call choice.” By
observing the sorts of choices that SKY FAIRIES commonly make when MAGICALLY CREATING systems, a positive case for MAGIC is easily constructed by elucidating predictable, reliable indicators of MAGIC.

By: BobC on May 17, 2008
at 3:57 am

So you actually think that Dembski has developed a formal method for detecting design, and that he is not engaging in mere arm-waving? Great! If it is really possible to use Dembski’s techniques to detect design, then you should be able to actually put these techniques to the test.

Here are five alphabetic strings. Four of them are just random strings of letters. The fifth string was designed by me-it is an English sentence encoded using a standard cryptographic technique that does not require the use of a computer.

String 1: qxoigpfrrqnglbn
String 2: jezpnmtottrtwci
String 3: zzvxtodudponqxb
String 4: rgsojkybqxjdqwu
String 5: ahxfsfyevzyozcg

Please identify the designed string, and tell me how you used Dembski’s “design filter” to identify it. Mind you, I am not asking you to decrypt the designed string. I am only asking you to use Dembski’s techniques to do what he claims to be able to do: to detect design.

Please refer to Dembski’s publications for the details on how to apply his “design filter”.

Good luck!

By: John the Skeptic on May 17, 2008
at 4:04 pm

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories