Now hang on a sec. I'm going to take issue with the author's claim that "[Scientology's] 'engrams' and 'E-meter' are no worse than what's propagated by your average Intelligent Design enthusiast." Not even close.

The claims of an intelligent design advocate are marginalized because they are unfalsifiable. That is to say, not even our best science can demonstrate definitively that intelligent design is wrong. We can say that the Big Bang and evolution through natural selection fit the data very well, but we can't say that intelligent design makes any predictions (about the world we inhabit) that are false.

On the other hand, many of the claims of Scientology are demonstrably false. I'm reminded of Tom Cruise's loud denouncements of antidepressants - all poor Matt Lauer could do was ask "Aren't there documented cases in which they work?" Lauer was right - there are. But Cruise wouldn't let facts get in the way of his crusade. At least intelligent design admits that the facts are what they are - at least it admits that there is something that needs to be explained.

"The claims of an intelligent design advocate are marginalized because they are unfalsifiable. That is to say, not even our best science can demonstrate definitively that intelligent design is wrong. We can say that the Big Bang and evolution through natural selection fit the data very well, but we can't say that intelligent design makes any predictions (about the world we inhabit) that are false."

This is not true. Intelligent design advocates predict that no explanations for evolution of "irreducibly complex" structures will ever be found. When the explanations are found, they ignore them, or claim that they never claimed the structures or processes were examples of irreducible complexity in the first place. ID is an intellectually dishonest exercise in public relations and sleight-of-hand.

The whole point of the intelligent design movement is to wedge (their word) religious belief into science. As such, it is nothing but religion. It dresses up religious beliefs in what amounts to scientific mumbo-jumbo. How is that different from Scientology?

Religion = What I believe in.

Cult = What you believe in (If it doesn't match mine)

Oh, and I completely agree on intelligent design. I mean, even a 4 year old can see that the world was created 4000 years ago by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The FSM is obviously the most intelligent designer around as no part of intelligent design theory predicts him to be false.

Wait a minute, ID doesn't make ANY predictions.

Intelligent design advocates predict that no explanations for evolution of "irreducibly complex" structures will ever be found. When the explanations are found, they ignore them, or claim that they never claimed the structures or processes were examples of irreducible complexity in the first place.

All this shows is that intelligent design theorists are bad at guessing which features are "irreducibly complex." (It may also be intuitive evidence that there are no irreducibly complex features). But you wouldn't say that a scientist who makes a hypothesis, tests it, and finds that he was wrong is not a practitioner of science, would you?

Here's the way science works: You formulate testable hypotheses. You make potentially falsifiable predictions based on the hypotheses. You do experiments to test the predictions.

Here's the way Intelligent Design works: You believe something to be true. You make potentially unfalsifiable predictions based on what you believe to be true. Somebody else points out that your predictions have already been falsified. You continue to act as if they predictions are true.

The predictions made by ID aren't scientific. The prediction is "we'll never be able to find an explanation for this." This isn't the same thing as a null hypothesis, but it does turn out to be wrong.

Intelligent design "theorists" aren't unsuccessful scientists, or bad scientists. They're anti-scientists.

What testable hypothesis' have ID proponents put forth?

Can you name one? If so, what is the test?

What would it take to disprove ID theory?

What does ID theory predict?

Dawkins does a good job on Design theory in his book "The God Delusion". I don't have it here but I can paraphrase his arguement:

Basically, the arguement goes, ID theorists believe that life here on earth is so complex that it must have been desigend. However, if that is the case, then clearly the designer would need to be at least as complex as his creation, therefore requiring a designer him/her self so what then designed the designer.

I would really recommend the book. It's quite easy to read and much clearer than any sort of religous writing I've ever read. Not to mention quite brilliant.

What intelligent design advocates argue is that if a evolutionary explanation for the origin of a complex biological system cannot be identified we must presume intelligent goal-oriented design. All they're offering is the classic rhetorical fallacy termed an argument from ignorance.

It's the fact that the ID model doesn't identify the natural mechanism by which the supposed (and entirely speculative) designer realizes his design which makes ID non-predictive and unfalsifiable.

I've already admitted that ID is unfalsifiable. I admitted it in the first post in this thread. But if something is unfalsifiable - then, umm, this part should be obvious - it can't be proven false. That being the case, I'm not surprised that you're not having much luck putting on evidence that ID is false.

At the very least, ID had the decency to admit that the world is the way it is, and try to come up with a (very deeply flawed) explanation for how it got this way. Scientology denies that the world is the way it is.

That's interesting, and is sort of the flip side of a conversation I was having with kevclark over on my blog (it's in the comments). We were discussing whether or not a computer could be complex enough to have consciousness, and whether the human brain could be an emergent phenomenon. Seems to me (haven't read Dawkins' book yet) that his argument doesn't hold water--for instance, it is seems possible for a human to design a computer that is more complex than a human. And the ID folks aren't claiming that bacterial flagella are infinitely complex--just so complex that if you remove a part, they won't work. It's certainly possible to design something that complex. Anyway, I'll try to read the book at some point (after I get through the pile on the nightstand).

Sorry, but in a true scientific examination of a theory or hypothesis I don't have to prove something is false. The side positing that the theory is true has the onus of providing evidence to support the theory. ID says that whenever there seem to be no evidence that means god did it. To say that ID is unfalsifiable as a roundabout way of claiming it is true is just a straw man. Poor scientific practice at the very least.

One more try: I am not claiming that ID is true, or that it is science, good or bad. I am not vouching for the character or for the intelligence of the people who believe that ID is an accurate description of how we got here. I am only claiming that it is a consistent set of beliefs.

Intelligent design as an idea is unfalsifiable. Even when you can show how something evolved, you could say "God made it evolve that way," and no one would ever be able to disprove it. But as science, it's useless.

As an intellectual movement it is dishonest and bankrupt. It makes specific claims (perhaps "prediction" is the wrong word)--claims which are quickly shown to be untrue, but which are then constantly repeated. It is no more than the bastard child of creationism, and is specifically designed (word used advisedly) as an attempt to get creationism taught in public schools, as was amply demonstrated in the Dover case. It uses scientific terminology the way that Scientology does--to dazzle the uneducated and stupid into thinking something else is going on. I didn't care for the article as a whole, but the analogy between ID and Scientolgy is apt.

Archaeopteryx:

Seems to me (haven't read Dawkins' book yet) that his argument doesn't hold water--for instance, it is seems possible for a human to design a computer that is more complex than a human.

How is this complexity measured/defined?

Archaeopteryx: straight up, is Scientology unfalsifiable? If so, then the analogy between it and ID is apt. If not, then it isn't. But so far, you've given me no reason to believe that Scientology is unfalsifiable.