Thompson Shows Why ID is not Falsifiable

Yesterday, John Haught, a professor of theology at Georgetown, took the witness stand in the Dover trial and a line of questioning by Richard Thompson inadvertantly demonstrated why ID is not falsifiable. According to the York Daily Record, Thompson was trying to make the argument that because God could have made the genomes of humans and monkeys look very similar, the idea that they are related by common descent is merely "conjecture":

If there is a God, then he could have made the monkey and the human with similar genetic material.

In the fifth day of Dover Area School District's trial over intelligent design, John Haught, a Georgetown University theology professor, agreed that was true.

So, the idea that "we came from some monkey or ape is conjecture at this point?" Dover's lead attorney Richard Thompson asked Haught under cross-examination.

I'm sure he didn't mean to do this, but what he really has proven is the distinction between a genuine scientific theory and a non-scientific one. The ID explanation - that God made man and monkeys distinct from one another - is not falsifiable because either set of data can be consistent with it. As Thompson pointed out, it's entirely possible that God made man and monkeys entirely separately, without any ancestral relationship between the two, and just did it in such a way as to make them look very similar at the genome level. He's right, God could well have done so. But if the opposite were true, if the genomes looked entirely different, that would also be consistent with God as "intelligent designer". After all, God can create in any manner he wishes to create, so if the evidence showed one thing, God did it that way; if the evidence showed the opposite, then God did it that way.

Evolutionary theory doesn't have this luxury. For evolution to be true, the evidence can only look one way. If the genomes of monkeys and humans were dramatically different, particularly if they were far more different than, say, humans and rainbow trout, then evolution would be falsified. If life evolved in a heirarchical pattern, with new species branching off from already existing species through preservation of genetic variation, then we must see those same patterns at the genetic level. If man and chimps share the most recent common ancestor, then they should be the most similar genetically and they are. If you go further back in the presumed ancestral chain (using the phylogenetic trees drawn from anatomical and fossil evidence), you should find the genomes being less and less similar the further back you go on the tree because the genomes have had more time to diverge and accumulate changes. And that is exactly what we do find.

The evidence from genetic similarities looks the only possible way it could look if evolution is true, but ID is consistent with any possible data set. If the results were exactly the opposite, showing that our genome was least similar to apes and most similar to, say, ferns, then that's just the way God chose to do it because, as Thompson says above, he can make them as similar or dissimilar as he wants. Or if the results of such comparisons showed no patterns at all and were entirely random, that would also be consistent with ID because, again, God can create in any manner he chooses. That is exactly why one idea is falsifiable and the other is not, and why one is a genuine scientific theory and the other is merely an ad hoc argument.

More like this

During his testimony, Michael Behe continually brought up the big bang as being comparable to intelligent design. His intent was to show that some people objected to the big bang because it had religious implications as well, but that didn't mean that the big bang theory wasn't a genuine scientific…
To continue the dialogue with Rusty Lopez from the New Covenant blog, let's examine his latest posting. I'm going to do this one a bit differently so as not to lose the threads of each specific point of dispute. I'm going to divide this post by those areas and label them as such, and I will put my…
Rusty posted a brief response to my last entry on the testable creation model. I'll paste the comments here because it allows a bit more space to respond: Ed, you really are tempting me to respond... I really think a good, long conversation on this topic would clear a lot of things up. We would…
One of the issues involved in the evolution/creationism battle is the question of demarcation - what separates science from non-science? One of the most popular and, in my view, compelling arguments against Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) is that it is not a genuine scientific theory at all…

Let's get something straight, Ed. There is nothing available in what ID proponents propose to falsify, because ID proponents have not proposed anything to be falsified. They have tried to shoot the equivalent of bird-shot at evolution theory. But they haven't suggested anything about the location or characteristics of this proposed "Intelligent Designer" that can be tested. Until they do, we might want to consider it an interesting science fiction story, but nothing else.

If a similar argument was made in a criminal court, it would be laughed out:

If there is a God, then he could have put the defendant's fingerprints on the murder weapon. So, the idea that the murder weapon was held by the defendant is conjecture at this point?

By Richard Wein (not verified) on 02 Oct 2005 #permalink

[quote]Yesterday, John Haught, a professor of theology at Georgetown, took the witness stand in the Dover trial and a line of questioning by Richard Thompson inadvertantly demonstrated why ID is not falsifiable. According to the York Daily Record, Thompson was trying to make the argument that because God could have made the genomes of humans and monkeys look very similar, the idea that they are related by common descent is merely "conjecture"[/quote]

Thompson's argument fails for another reason!
It is not the accusation of the "conjecture" that counts!

Of course he can reason that God used the same basic material to create the different individuals!

However, there are remnant genetic errors in both primate DNA as well as human DNA that are [u]exactly[/u] the same!

The question is:
[i]"why would an almighty God include the [b]same[/b] DNA error code in both human as well as primate DNA?"[/i]

In a court it already is accepted practice that similarities of text are [b]not[/b] proof of plagiarism but similarities of syntax and semantic errors are!

E.g. If I write an essay about relativity and my collegae also writes an essay about relativity then, [i]of course[/i], the two essays are bound to have great similarities.

But when both of the essays do have the same syntax and/or semantic errors then one of the essays is very likely to be a copy [plagiarism]!

Thus again, The question is:
[i]"why would an almighty God include the [b]same[/b] DNA error code in both human as well as primate DNA?"[/i]

This is a highly relevant question that yet again undermines Richard Thompson's argument!

But it does not stop there!

We know that there is a genetic disorder which results in the body to be completely covered with hair!
(reference: http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA05/wolfman.html)

We also know that there is a genetic disorder which results in a vestigal tail!
(reference: http://daphne.palomar.edu/ccarpenter/vestiges.htm)

As such it proves that people [i]can[/i] both be covered with hair and have a tail (note: though I do not know if a person exists that actually does have [i]both[/i] genetic disorders, but this is irrelevant because we know it is possible)!

Remember! Both are [u]current day[/u] disorders!

This furthermore undermines Richard Thompson's plead of the Godly 'perfection' argument!
While at the same time enforces the evolution argument!

But it does not stop here!

Using scientifically dated hominoid/Hominidae fossils it is absolutely clear that going back in time the skeleton (and specifically the facial) features are going from more human-like to more ape-like features. And [i]yes[/i], as such, conjectures with the decendants of the modern primates!

Richard Thompson [as the creationists representative] has the extra-ordinary claim that man [humans] were created all at once out of the blue!

Extra ordinary claims [u]require[/u] extra-ordinary proof!
And what [i]positive[/i] proof does Richard Thompson have for his extra-ordinary claim!?!
Well, none!!!

Given the above undeniable scientific facts supporting evolution, ignored by crerationists, and the extra-ordinary creationists argument [i]without[/i] any scientific facts and at the same time ignoring the undeniable scientific facts - [note: there are even more scientific facts supporting the evolution theory!] - totally undermines the argument he was trying to make!

...and on the subject of controversy!
No! There is no controversy at all! None!

Yes, there are individuals who have a different [religious] opinion! Like Behe, Dembski, Denton, Gish, Adnan Oktar, and so on...
But these persons have not a single scientific paper that was not rebutted and falsified with the very first scientifically serious peer-review!

Some may ask: "Who the h*ll is Adnan Oktar???

Adnan Oktar is the Islamic creationists preaching the Islamic creationist version!
Oktar has also "proved" that this kind of science is "scientifically" proved in the Koran!

I wonder if Richard Thompson considers Adnan Oktar also a reliable witness for teaching the "controversy"!

Regards, Wim Ahlers.

one could even extrapolate further and suggest that gods can of course create other gods/ goddesses each of whom created their own separate lines of lifeforms in their own images?

Matthew-

Holy cow, how did I miss that post? I didn't think my opinion of the StopTheACLUers could be any lower, but for crying out loud they actually cite Kent Hovind. I see a fisking on the way.

Read the flame wars going on in the comments for a laugh-out-loud good time. Here is a good example of the anti-intellectual diatribe:

Wow, how long did it take you to look all of those big words up in the dictionary? Molecular Agglomeration, Abiogenesis, Atmospheric Milieu, Nucleotide Precursors, and Aggregability. Those are pretty big scary sounding words, did your mommy help you with them? I'm quite sure all of us with working brains, especially Jay and other bloggers who post informative articles here fully understand the evolution theory and don't necessarily disagree that it is a possibility that millions of years ago there may have taken place the development of a living organisim from non-living matter allowed by the gathering of matters consisting of various compounds, phospates and other materials to form basic DNA which is the building block of life. The problem is in that Liberal jackasses like you refuse to accept that this is not the only possibility, and much to your chagrin and torment, that there may be other ideas and theorys out there that also quite satifactorily explain how we got here.

Matthew:

That passage translates into "I ain't never had no need for book learnin'."

Um, I have to tell you, I do believe that some people are going a bit overboard on "falsifiability" regarding a scientific theory. I have a background in physics, and one of the dirty little secrets in physics is that the two great accomplishments in physics in the 20th century, quantum mechanics and general relativity, are inherently incompatible. (It has to do with the uncertainty principle.)

The problem with ID is that the proponents of ID have never--to my knowledge--provided any evidence of the existence of this proposed Intelligent Designer. They have never provided any suggestion of how this IDer might be discovered. Where its location might be. Nothing.

Einstein, when he was formulating his relativity theories, proposed experiments that might test his theories, and they worked out very well. Actually, General Relativity was quite conservative, although the mathematical construct was quite complex--it relied on differential geometry.

Quantum mechanics was basically founded by Max Planck, although it was expanded following the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment in about 1920.

Neither of these theories "falsified" Newton's theories. They showed Newton's theories to be "special cases." For all of the more recent theories, it has been shown that they revert to the Newtonian theories in the "classical" tradition.

Raj,
I wouldn't call the problems between quantum theory and relativity a 'dirty little secret'. It's a well known problem that physicists are working on. Actually, string theory (also known as M-Theory) has been postulated as a way of resolving the incompatabilities of relativity and quantum mechanics. Check out Brian Greene's book "The Elegant Universe" for a good laymans explanation (as far as that's possible!)

By Darth William (not verified) on 04 Oct 2005 #permalink