Creation Scientist Challenges Intelligent Design

Oh, and don't miss: "Interview: Harry Potter - Making Evil Look Innocent?," published on August 3.

One of the world's leading experts in origin of life research issued a statement on Friday saying that intelligent design should not be taught in schools because it is not science.

Note that Reasons to Believe is Hugh Ross's organization--old earth creationists.

Rana and Ross have a recent book out on the origin of life. It is pathetic. I have started several times to write a review, but it will take twice as many pages to correct their errors than they used in the first place.

Does anyone know about the claims of Dr. Rana?

"At Reasons to Believe, our team of scientists has developed a theory for creation that embraces the latest scientific advances. It is fully testable, falsifiable, and successfully predicts the current discoveries in origin of life research," said Dr. Rana.

RtB is an old earth creationist organization so I would expect the same misleading approach to science used by the ID folks. It is interesting that YEC rejects ID and OEC. OEC now rejects YEC and ID. But ID seems to include everyone.

Is there a tear developing in the big tent?

I guess this is the advantage of creationism "becoming more mainstream" - it will split into factions which fight with each other as much as they fight with real science. You can have a definite set of "facts" or you can coexist with other pseudoscientists, but not both.

Note that Reasons to Believe is Hugh Ross's organization--old earth creationists.

— Jim Lippard

Is there a tear developing in the big tent?

— Joe Bough

Why convergence is not consistent with natural selection (Chemist Fazale Rana, PhD)

"Proponents of Intelligent Design lose credibility, for instance, when they say that the Earth is thousands of years old when the scientific evidence and the fossil record clearly prove our Earth is at least 4.5 billion years."

When Dr. Fazale Rana says, "Proponents of Intelligent Design lose credibility, for instance, when they say that the Earth is thousands of years old when the scientific evidence and the fossil record clearly prove our Earth is at least 4.5 billion years." He illustrates his ignorance of the fact that most ID proponents are far more similar to old earth creationists than they are to the young earthers. For instance on August 4th in Dembski's commentary on President Bush's recent remarks about the teaching of intelligent design, he goes to some length in explaining that the majority of ID proponents do not hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and accept the 4.5 byo age of the earth. Rana's comment would make some sense if "Young Earth Creationist" or "Creation Scientists" were inserted in the place of "Proponents of Intelligent Design."

I understand it when anti-ID propogandists try to equate the two terms in order to spread misinformation or confuse readers in order to keep an upperhand. But I cannot understand why the "Reasons to Believe" OEC people can't seem to get this right.

Oh well, maybe (and it seems to me that this is not all that improbable) the reporter who wrote out the story switched the terms himself before the article went to press. I don't know. I am sure there will be more to follow between the creationists and IDists about this.

T Russ, haven't seen you in some time. I believe Mr. Lenny Flank has some questions for you.

I believe Mr. Lenny Flank has some questions for you.

the majority of ID proponents do not hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1

and accept the 4.5 byo age of the earth.

For instance on August 4th in Dembski's commentary on President Bush's recent remarks about the teaching of intelligent design, he goes to some length in explaining that the majority of ID proponents do not hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and accept the 4.5 byo age of the earth.

Well, I think the best place to begin to get a hold of a scientific theory of ID is over ISCID.org. The definition they give in their encyclopedia for ID can get the ball rolling.

"Intelligent design: the theory that the directed organization of living things cannot be accounted for by purely blind natural forces but also requires intelligent agency for its proper explanation. Intelligent design needs to be distinguished from apparent design and optimal design. Apparent design looks designed but actually isn't. Optimal design is perfect design. The adjective "intelligent" in front of "design" stresses that the design in question is actual, but makes no assumption about the optimality of design."

So then, the "theory" behind Intelligent Design is very simply put that an intelligent agency is what best accounts for or properly explains the specified complexity found in biological organisms. ID theory is thus set up in contradistinction with theories which hold that blind natural forces can account for specified complexity. So in a short answer to the first part of your question Rev, thats the theory of ID.

As for testing the theory set forth by ID, that has been one of the main underlying projects of theories such as Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, Self-Organization, and so forth over the past 160 years.

But I guess the best way to go about testing the theory today is to first agree on a definition and understanding of what exactly complex specified information is, then show how it can be produced without recourse to intelligent agency. If that can be shown convincingly, the current theory of ID would then be falsified. A project like this would of course have to be carried out by many scientists and philosophers of science, with reproducible and agreed upon findings, and not simply come to an end with the writing of a few disputed papers claiming to "destroy the idiotic claims of Dembski" or however it would go.

As for testing ID by "the scientific method". I'm not too sure what you mean there. I have had too many years of study in the history and philosophy departments at my university to believe any longer in any so-called scientific method. But if you will tell me what it is that you mean by "scientific method", I will attempt a more fleshed out response to your question.

And if you really want to look into an answer to your query. Read in No Free Lunch pages 1-380. But for a quicker read, check out the essay, "The Logical Underpinnings of Intelligent Design" in Debating Design (the Ruse and Dembski volume)Particularly the section on Eliminative Induction on pages 328-29.

The definition they give in their encyclopedia for ID can get the ball rolling. "Intelligent design: the theory that ...

— T. Russ

requires intelligent agency for its proper explanation

As for testing ID by "the scientific method". I'm not too sure what you mean there. I have had too many years of study in the history and philosophy departments at my university

But if you will tell me what it is that you mean by "scientific method", I will attempt a more fleshed out response to your question.

Exactly--every description of the "theory" of Intelligent Design says pretty much the same thing: "Intelligent design: the...organization of living things...requires intelligent agency"--but this sounds to me like merely a claim, not a theory. There have been some arguments made in support of this claim (particularly by Behe and Dembski), but they have been countered by specific contrary evidence. Furthermore, the important questions necessary to make it a real theory are never addressed--if a designer, who? and if designed, how?

Well, I think the best place to begin to get a hold of a scientific theory of ID is over ISCID.org. The definition they give in their encyclopedia for ID can get the ball rolling.

As for testing ID by "the scientific method". I'm not too sure what you mean there. I have had too many years of study in the history and philosophy departments at my university

By the way, would you mind pointing to any argument being made for ID that isn't just a plagiarized version of something that the ICR-ites were already shoveling on people decades ago?

The original press release for Dr. Fuz's announcement (which I posted in the Statements on ID Education thread here), avers that he is "one of the world's top three leading experts in origin of life research".

It does not say who the other two might be, nor does it disclose just when and where he won his bronze medal. However, it does include contact info for his PR agent.

Rana and "renowned astro-physicist Dr. Hugh Ross" are co-authors of Who Was Adam?, in which they "propose a new model for human origins--a model that is fully testable, falsifiable, and predictive--the very argument that the natural evolutionists use to discredit those who espouse Intelligent Design by saying they cannot scientifically prove their case for a creator."

Hurray - Lenny's long search is over! (Isn't it?)

Rana and "renowned astro-physicist Dr. Hugh Ross" are co-authors of Who Was Adam?, in which they "propose a new model for human origins�"a model that is fully testable, falsifiable, and predictive�"the very argument that the natural evolutionists use to discredit those who espouse Intelligent Design by saying they cannot scientifically prove their case for a creator." Hurray - Lenny's long search is over! (Isn't it?)

I understand it when anti-ID propogandists try to equate the two terms in order to spread misinformation or confuse readers in order to keep an upperhand.

— T. Russ

"But I guess the best way to go about testing the theory today is to first agree on a definition and understanding of what exactly complex specified information is, then show how it can be produced without recourse to intelligent agency. If that can be shown convincingly, the current theory of ID would then be falsified."

This doesn't falsify ID. Just because something could be produced without recourse to intelligent agency doesn't mean it COULDN'T be produced without recourse to intelligent agency. I can drive a nail using a rock, that doesn't mean I can't drive a nail using a hammer.

The 'theory' of intelligent design is not falsifiable.

Before I start to answer some of your questions, or charges/insults, I am going to attempt a little clarification of what I meant by my education leading me to doubt that there is any one particularly setdown, tried and true, "scientific method". I have just completed my undergraduate degrees in Philosophy and History of Science at the University of Oklahoma and throughout my study I had become convinced by some of the arguments of historians and philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn who see scientific theories as devoloping by way of much more than the five to eight step ordered process of "making observations, consulting prior knowledge, formulating a hypothesis, designing a controlled experiment, collecting data, interpreting data, consulting prior knowledge again, then drawing conclusions." This is a fine little model of the means of discovery but has not always been the way in which certain scientific revolutions have come about. Darwin himself didn't exactly follow this model did he? But still Darwins theory of natural selection to explain the diversification and new creation of species is a scientific theory proposed in 1859 to explain a great many observations in the natural world which he made throughout his travels and research. I think that Darwins special theory of natural selction is a good theory (possesss great explanatory power)and still has much to offer in explantaion of natural observations today. Myself, along with many other ID proponents think that his theory, and subsequent derivations and improvements on it, simply fails to explain many discoveries made since his time. (Genetic information, bodyplan programs, molecular machines, the complex interactions between proteins, enzymes, and hormones in the cell, etc etc.) The Complex Specified Information necessary at many levels for the mechanism of Natural Selection to even occur and produce new species is not explained by Darwin's theory. A better explanation of CSI is a theory which posits a mechanism of intelligent agency (which for those of you who don't understand, "Intelligent Agency itself is a mechanism. One which I am now employing to design/specify english letters into complex arrangments in order to convey information/meaning to you)to explain CSI. To falsify this claim, show that nature by whatever and all natural mechanisms (the opposite of Intelligent Agency), can produce CSI.

But right now, I just woke up, (late night last night) would like to drink a latte and take a shower. I will be back later to respond to posts prior to this one, and then maybe look at those attacking what I have just written above.

Cheers,

T. Russ

T. Russ,

Please tell us whether or not "the system is massively improbable" is part of the definition of CSI, or not.

If it is, then saying "CSI systems are too improbable to arise by evolution" is just a meaningless tautology.

If it isn't, then you need to tell us what the real criteria for determining CSI are, and then show that evolution can't produce systems meeting these criteria.

See Definitional Complexity for a summary of your/Dembski's problem.

Before I start to answer some of your questions, or charges/insults, I am going to attempt a little clarification of what I meant by my education

I don't give a flying fig about your education. I just want answers to my simple questions. Forget them already? No problem: *ahem* I want a testible scientific theory of ID that can be tested using the scientififc method. Do you have one, or don't you. What did the designer do, specifically. What mechanisms did it use to do whatever you think it did. Where can we see these mechanisms in operation today. And how can we test any of these using the scientific method. Wave your arms all you want. Just answer my questions.

"making observations, consulting prior knowledge, formulating a hypothesis, designing a controlled experiment, collecting data, interpreting data, consulting prior knowledge again, then drawing conclusions." This is a fine little model of the means of discovery but has not always been the way in which certain scientific revolutions have come about. Darwin himself didn't exactly follow this model did he?

Sorry for a late reply here. I couldn't get to a computer and then when I did, the server was down here at PT. But, should we continue this discussion here or somewhere else. If you look back up at the original comment I made, it was in reference to the oddity in Dr. Rana's quote about ID theorists and whether he might should have said or actually had said YECers.

Of course, my not jumping up and down about disparate activity among various creationist types, and my noted lack of degrading cutdowns about ID theorists, revealed that I supported ID and therefore my own views and ID theory was immediately the new topic at hand. That is perfectly fine with me, (ID is interesting and worth talking about. Although I am still curious about the Quote from Rana...) but should we continue this here.

Quick replies:

Rev: Re-read some of my prior posts, I have not dodged your questions as you seem to indicate. And I asked you for your version of the scientific method so I could then make a fitting response.

Hyperion: If Darwin can be shown to have followed the scientific manner in the way that you showed then lets see...

Dembski and Behe etc made observations (complex specified information, Irreducible complexity), consulted prior knowledge (their scientific, mathematical, and theological training, Neo-darwinism and self-organization) and found them both incapable of explaining their observations, they collected more data on complex specified information, Irreducible complexity, noted the cambrian explosion in genetic information, enlisted other scientists like Scott Minnich. Continued to test whether neo-darwinism or any other available theories could explain their data. Found that chance and necessity could not purchase CSI and that darwinain gradualism could not explain irreducible complexity. Their conclusion was then that certain features in the natural world required a mechanism or explanation able to produce complex specified information, molecular machines etc. Developed the theory of Intelligent Design. And are trying to take it before the scientific mainstream and get a hearing.

By the way, go read Darwin's Origin of Species and see If he even mentions the finches that you seem to think were so important to him during the development of his theory. Geuss what you'll find? Seriously, more people should read Darwin. Especially those defending his ideas.

Dembski and Behe etc made observations (complex specified information, Irreducible complexity),

consulted prior knowledge (their scientific, mathematical, and theological training, Neo-darwinism and self-organization) and found them both incapable of explaining their observations,

they collected more data on complex specified information, Irreducible complexity,

noted the cambrian explosion in genetic information,

Continued to test whether neo-darwinism or any other available theories could explain their data.

Found that chance and necessity could not purchase CSI and that darwinain gradualism could not explain irreducible complexity.

Their conclusion was then that certain features in the natural world required a mechanism or explanation able to produce complex specified information, molecular machines etc.

Developed the theory of Intelligent Design.

And are trying to take it before the scientific mainstream and get a hearing.

Dembski and Behe etc ... noted the cambrian explosion in genetic information...

T. Russ, could you please tell me what a "molecular machine" is? Are we all cyborgs? That would be cool.

T. Rex was here many months ago, and promised he was going to study Elsberry & Wilkins demolitions of Dembski's arguments, and not come back till he could tell us why they're wrong. How's that coming along?

Dembski and Behe etc ... noted the cambrian explosion in genetic information...

RGD:

1) In the religious world, everything becomes true by assertion. Even *evidence* comes true by assertion.

2) Thus, science itself necessarily becomes a process of making assertions. How so? Because religious people SAY so, and that's how things become true.

T. Russ does, as you point out, make one factually incorrect statement after another after another. But by SAYING so, his statements become true. And by denying them, you reveal yourself as a follower of a false faith. He SAYS so.

And so we have the normal spectacle, of scientific types waving around endless actual evidences in the hopes of convincing those for whom evidence is irrelevant.

the possibility that many (most? all?) major IDers are closet evolutionists

Hey Mr Russ, you seem not to have answered my simple questions. Hmmm. I can onyl think of three possible reasons why you won;t just answer my simple questions and tell me what the scientific theory of ID is. Those three possible reasons are:

(1) there IS NO scientific theory of ID, and IDers (like you) are just lying to us when they claim there is.

(2) there IS a scientific theory of ID, but you are too dumb and uninformed to know what it is.

or

(3) there IS a scientific theory of ID and you DO know what it is, but for some unfathomable reason, you want to keep it a big secret from everyone else.

If you won't tell me what the scientific theory of ID is, Mr Russ, would you please at least tell em WHY you won't tell me? Is it reaosn number one, number two, or number three?

My money, of course, is on reason number one.

You, of course, can prove me wrong, right here in front of the whole world, simply by telling us what is the scientific theory of ID. What did the designer do, specifically. What mechanisms did it use to do whatever you think it did. Where can we see these mechanisms in operation today. And how can we test any of these using the scientific method.

But of course you won't. You can't. There isn't any. (shrug)

Rev: Re-read some of my prior posts, I have not dodged your questions as you seem to indicate. And I asked you for your version of the scientific method so I could then make a fitting response.

Don't bullshit me, Mr Russ.

Comment #42000 Posted by Russell on August 10, 2005 02:41 PM (e) (s) T. Rex was here many months ago, and promised he was going to study Elsberry & Wilkins demolitions of Dembski's arguments, and not come back till he could tell us why they're wrong. How's that coming along?

Comment #42000 Posted by Russell on August 10, 2005 02:41 PM (e) (s) T. Rex was here many months ago, and promised he was going to study Elsberry & Wilkins demolitions of Dembski's arguments, and not come back till he could tell us why they're wrong. How's that coming along?

"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity'-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design."

Paul Nelson has to admit there's no theory, to explain why there are no ID experiments. He has more integrity than some of his peers.

Before I start to answer some of your questions, or charges/insults

I am going to attempt a little clarification of what I meant by my education leading me to doubt that there is any one particularly setdown, tried and true, "scientific method".

I have had too many years of study in the history and philosophy departments at my university to believe any longer in any so-called scientific method.

which for those of you who don't understand, "Intelligent Agency itself is a mechanism.

I have had too many years of study in the history and philosophy departments at my university to believe any longer in any so-called scientific method.

I have just completed my undergraduate degrees in Philosophy and History of Science

Wow, you guys are nice. Thanks for all the "statements" and "assertions" given in rebuttal to my post. I guess I should take a look at them.

Granddaughter of Rilke:

Thanks for telling me that my description of the 'method' followed by Dembski and Behe is inaccurate. You explained this to me by way of many great assertions. You made the assertion that Dembski and Behe's observations are just "assertions" and then asserted that IC and CSI have never been demonstrated to exist. Thanks. I'll look that up. Wow! That assertion is everywhere on PT. Awesome! Then you told me that IC and CSI can be accounted for by "such things as AVIDA and the existence of more primitive versions of supposedly IC structures." Wow! I've never heard that assertion before! Okay, actually that assertion isn't all that new. I have a copy of a lecture by Scott Minnich (who may or may not be an actual "scientist" depending on whether you agree with him about things that are deeply important to you) in which these assertions are dealt with at length. But then again you did help me out with another assertion explaining that ID theorists "have not managed to demonstrate that CSI or IC exists in anything." You forgot to point me to the catalogue of evidence supporting this assertion but then again as is common with anti-ID folks you switched on over to a question. You wanted me to provide you with a "catalog of 'specified stuff' that Dembski once claimed needed to be built?" Well, check out any catalogue you like, I am sure you will find plenty of specified stuff in it. But if you don't have any catalogues sitting around, just google the human genome or look up the specific sequence of amino acids which form the GroeS and GroeL or some other proteins. I am told that I am behind in my reading (well, okay I am studying the history of science most of the time)but it still seems to me that Dembski argues the Bacterial Flagella is a fine case of a structure full of specified complexity in need of being built. You mentioned that, "The poster child of ID is the flagellum," and then you asserted that "no one has demonstrated that it is IC or contains CSI." Sorry about that, I guess I have read some really bad stuff. Thanks for telling me that ID theorists have done nothing but misinterpret the significance of the Cambrian explosion. I realize that Dr. Meyers paper is wrong and stupid because you guys say it is, and even though it appeared to me that the fellas over at the DI made critics of Meyers paper look like silly little bluff artists bent on silencing his publication, I am told that that really isn't the case. You also told me other things were not true like, ID theorists have "done NOTHING to take it (ID) to the scientific mainstream." I know, I know, ID theorists never have tried to talk to any other scientists out there in the world, they have never tried to publish any papers anywhere in the scientific literature and so on and on and on. The papers listed at the DI's site under the heading "Bibliography of Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design" are completely made up and therefore constitute NOTHING. Anyways, as you asserted the "scientific mainstream" asserts that ID has no theory, no research, no experiments, no credibility. Then you told me that I didn't realize that. Thanks. Your post was excellent and chalk full of science and reason.

GCT:

"The term "molecular machine" first entered the vocabulary of science in the late 1980's. Today a search on Googleâ„¢ for the term, or its derivatives (protein machines and molecular motors) yields over 60,000 hits. In the biosciences, the term refers to a complex biomacromolecule (or a localized assembly of biomacromolecules) that consumes energy in order to perform a specific action. According to the Foresight Institute, a non-profit devoted to educating society about nanotechnology; a molecular machine is, "A mechanical device that performs a useful function using components of nanometer scale and defined structure including both artificial nanomachines and naturally occurring devices found in biological systems" (iscid.org encyclopedia)

To read more about them go to iscid.org and continue reading their entry. Or for more info, try one of those 60,000 google hits. But for an non ID related source and some examples, go to http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ccmm/latex/node3.html

And uhh, no we are not cyborgs, we are organisms. Just send me an email if you want a definition of organism. Okay? Good Boy.

Russell: Yeah, I read Elberry's stuff. Should we talk about that here too? Man oh man, don't post at PT unless you want to devote your life to answering everybody's questions and comment, both those on topic and off, occuring in the past, present, and future. And remember that no matter what, people will remember you and everything you ever said if you come around here and attempt to discuss ID without being completely set against it. Sheesh...

But in all seriousness. I would like to discuss Elsbery and Wilkins and Elsberry and Shallits papers sometime. Where does that need to go down?

Steviepinhead:

You wrote that "...IDists typically focus on the fossil record from the Cambrian, rather than the "genetic information,"

Have you read the article "The Cambrian Information Explosion: Evidence for Intelligent Design." in Debating Design? If you want to get up on your reading, check it out. Also, If you haven't read Meyers paper from the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington email him and he'll send you a hard copy. Oh but wait, according Rilke's Granddaughter that would never happen because ID types do not want to take their ideas to the scientific mainstream.

Whatever the case, your comments are false. For it is readily apparent that ID theorist Stephen Meyer is arguing about the explosion of information. But then again... Stephen Meyer probably goes to Church occasionally and is therefore wrong and Cambridge probably only published that article because they were forced to by fundamentalist zealots with big money.

RGD:

Thank you for your assertions about the religious world. I feel very informed now. I don't study religion in the way that you must, so thank you for enlightening me and thanks for "saying so."

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank:

I'll go with option number four.

(4) No matter what I tell you the theory of ID is, you will assert that it is not a theory for such and such a reason. But, I still hold to the definition over at iscid. "Intelligent design is the theory that the directed organization of living things cannot be accounted for by purely blind natural forces but also requires intelligent agency for its proper explanation."

As for some of your questions that I might attempt some answers to...

What did the designer do specifically? ... Well, I would say... Designed the natural world from the big bang on through the crystallization and formation of the four fundamental interactions (electromagnetic, gravitational, strong, and weak interactions), the minting of the laws of nuclear physics, the distribution of elements in the cosmos, to the origin of biomacromolecules and the genetic codes for proteins, enzymes, organismal forms, on up through the origin of human beings and everything else in between. What ID theorist are trying to understand is whether or not any features of the designers "design" are yet detectable and quantifiable by modern scientific methods.

What mechanisms did it use to do whatever you think it did?
This is actually a very interesting question and deserves serious thought and attention. But I think the answer will be something along similar lines to the answer of the following question? By what mechanisms do the intelligent agents on pandasthumb use to write their responses specifying English letters into meaningful complex sequences?

Where can we see these mechanisms in operation today?
All over the place. Everywhere and anywhere that intelligent agents specify matter into complex arrangements which we recognize as design.

BTW: I am not bullshitting you Mr.'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Steve: See above for what I have to say about discussing Elsberry. Here, Now?

Your assertions that Behe has "utterly" backtracked on IC and Dembski has backtracked on NFL, and admitted that natural processes can generate CSI are over exaggerations. Behe and Dembski are doing science and modifying and extending their theories to account for growing knowledge in the field.

And no, I wasn't around when some grad student wanted to know where the "Newton of information" quote came from so he could pass it around and laugh at it. Man, how cool is that. Very Scientific!

How old is that Paul Nelson quote (I don't think it is very recent) and does he stick by it today, and did he go on to clarify his position? Is it possible that he meant that a theory is in need of developing and continued attention among those in the scientific and philosophical academies. I ask these questions seriously if anyone here knows. On some blogs, people answer each others questions and help them find things like this out. Anyone have any info on Dr. Nelsons current opinions?

ts: Your a real sweetheart. Thank you for all the cutdowns. But for one, I don't think I misunderstand Kuhn. And since you mentioned them, do you really think Popper, and Lakatos, and the entire history of science, reveal that there is some objective form of a particular "scientific method."

I'm not too sure you are at all right in your statements on intelligence. You focused your comments on defining the word intelligence for me. Thanks. But I am not talking about Intelligence and Agency, but Intelligent Agency. I'm looking more into this at the moment and won't comment anymore about intelligent agency as a mechanism until I sort out what I think about it. You could be right about it. Somewhere above, I posed the question "By what mechanisms do the intelligent agents on pandasthumb use to write their responses specifying English letters into meaningful complex sequences?" What do you think the answer to that question is?

Also, I didn't mean to brag or argue that I have had many many years of education or anything like that but was only saying that over the course of my humble undergraduate years, I had been taught that the development of scientific theories doesn't always follow some set down tried and true method.

And Uhh, I guess I'm okay with you cutting down the philosophical education system.

Everybody have a good day.

I'm looking more into this at the moment and won't comment anymore about intelligent agency as a mechanism until I sort out what I think about it.

"By what mechanisms do the intelligent agents on pandasthumb use to write their responses specifying English letters into meaningful complex sequences?" What do you think the answer to that question is?

But, I still hold to the definition over at iscid. "Intelligent design is the theory that the directed organization of living things cannot be accounted for by purely blind natural forces but also requires intelligent agency for its proper explanation."

How old is that Paul Nelson quote (I don't think it is very recent) and does he stick by it today, and did he go on to clarify his position? Is it possible that he meant that a theory is in need of developing and continued attention among those in the scientific and philosophical academies.

What did the designer do specifically? ... Well, I would say... Designed the natural world from the big bang on through the crystallization and formation of the four fundamental interactions (electromagnetic, gravitational, strong, and weak interactions), the minting of the laws of nuclear physics, the distribution of elements in the cosmos, to the origin of biomacromolecules and the genetic codes for proteins, enzymes, organismal forms, on up through the origin of human beings and everything else in between. What ID theorist are trying to understand is whether or not any features of the designers "design" are yet detectable and quantifiable by modern scientific methods.

What mechanisms did it use to do whatever you think it did? This is actually a very interesting question and deserves serious thought and attention.

But I think the answer will be something along similar lines to the answer of the following question? By what mechanisms do the intelligent agents on pandasthumb use to write their responses specifying English letters into meaningful complex sequences?

Where can we see these mechanisms in operation today? All over the place. Everywhere and anywhere that intelligent agents specify matter into complex arrangements which we recognize as design.

BTW: I am not bullshitting you Mr.'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

(4) No matter what I tell you the theory of ID is, you will assert that it is not a theory for such and such a reason. But, I still hold to the definition over at iscid. "Intelligent design is the theory that the directed organization of living things cannot be accounted for by purely blind natural forces but also requires intelligent agency for its proper explanation."

(4) No matter what I tell you the theory of ID is, you will assert that it is not a theory for such and such a reason.

But, I still hold to the definition over at iscid. "Intelligent design is the theory that the directed organization of living things cannot be accounted for by purely blind natural forces but also requires intelligent agency for its proper explanation."

Which demonstrates your bad faith, since it has been noted again and again that THIS IS NOT A THEORY. It is a raw claim with no explanatory or predictive qualities

I have never said anything about my little philosophy degree "qualifying" me or making me better educated than anybody here. I only first brought it up to explain where and when I became convinced that scientific explanations do not come about by any one particular set of steps often refered to as the "scientific method."

So I guess that means we aren't going to learn from you what the scientific theory of intelligent design is, or what the intelligent designer did to bring about its designs. It was quite amusing that you answered Lenny's question "What did the designer do, specifically" with "Designed the natural world ...". I'm not sure whether that's bad faith or rank stupidity, but it really doesn't matter either way, the result is the same.

What did evolution do? Design the natural world. Well, that's one theory... However, I would not call it rank stupidity or bad faith. Evolution is a good, and interesting theory worth serious thought and consideration. Can it account for all design found in Nature? At this juncture I have not been convinced that it can. Sorry to disappoint you. Another explanation for design in the natural world just might be that it was designed in much the same way that a computer scientist designs a programm, or an engineer designs a machine.

Call me crazy for thinking this possible in the first place, and call me wicked for willfully thinking about it, call me stupid for finding the theory worthwhile, but don't go to bed at night thinking that you said anything whatsoever helpful to resolving your case against ID.

"The term "molecular machine" first entered the vocabulary of science in the late 1980's. Today a search on Googleâ„¢ for the term, or its derivatives (protein machines and molecular motors) yields over 60,000 hits. In the biosciences, the term refers to a complex biomacromolecule (or a localized assembly of biomacromolecules) that consumes energy in order to perform a specific action. According to the Foresight Institute, a non-profit devoted to educating society about nanotechnology; a molecular machine is, "A mechanical device that performs a useful function using components of nanometer scale and defined structure including both artificial nanomachines and naturally occurring devices found in biological systems" (iscid.org encyclopedia) To read more about them go to iscid.org and continue reading their entry. Or for more info, try one of those 60,000 google hits. But for an non ID related source and some examples, go to http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ccmm/latex/node3.html And uhh, no we are not cyborgs, we are organisms. Just send me an email if you want a definition of organism. Okay? Good Boy.

— T Russ

Call me crazy for thinking this possible in the first place, and call me wicked for willfully thinking about it, call me stupid for finding the theory worthwhile, but don't go to bed at night thinking that you said anything whatsoever helpful to resolving your case against ID.

— T Russ

What did evolution do? Design the natural world. Well, that's one theory...

However, I would not call it rank stupidity or bad faith. Evolution is a good, and interesting theory worth serious thought and consideration. Can it account for all design found in Nature? At this juncture I have not been convinced that it can. Sorry to disappoint you.

Another explanation for design in the natural world just might be that it was designed in much the same way that a computer scientist designs a programm, or an engineer designs a machine.

Call me crazy for thinking this possible in the first place, and call me wicked for willfully thinking about it, call me stupid for finding the theory worthwhile, but don't go to bed at night thinking that you said anything whatsoever helpful to resolving your case against ID.

mr. russ i have such high hopes for you! since ts and lenny wont help me perhaps you can. i stand to lose $50 if i cant come up with a scientific theory of intelligent design by labor day and i'll pay you the $50 just to save face!!!!! i think its important (as i have previously predicted) that i.d. isnt just a "scientific alternative to evolution" it really has to be a total "scientific alternative to science!" Starting with quantum gravity at 10-43sec and moving all the way through everything replacing all physics, chemistry biology geology and cosmology. Just think of the savings of education in public schools when all these subjects can be covered in a sentence! just please dont make the the
proposed mechanism of action metaphysical and remember you cant disprove i.d. by "proving evolution." i cant wait to see the egg on ts and lennys faces when it is fully articulated in all its intelligent glory. my concern is if the designer has been moving all the quarks and leptons in the observable universe for all of these years what happens to free will?

Well, that's one theory...

However, I would not call it rank stupidity or bad faith

Evolution is a good, and interesting theory worth serious thought and consideration.

Can it account for all design found in Nature? At this juncture I have not been convinced that it can. Sorry to disappoint you.

Call me crazy for thinking this possible in the first place, and call me wicked for willfully thinking about it, call me stupid for finding the theory worthwhile, but don't go to bed at night thinking that you said anything whatsoever helpful to resolving your case against ID.

Call me crazy for thinking this possible in the first place, and call me wicked for willfully thinking about it, call me stupid for finding the theory worthwhile, but don't go to bed at night thinking that you said anything whatsoever helpful to resolving your case against ID.

what happens to free will?

Why oh why why why don't IDers ever answer any of my questions . . . . ?

once again lenny and ts have failed to see the silver lining in the cloud. We now have a clear method to eliminate all those costly texts and teachers and labs that we are wasting our childrens time with in public school and instead we can teach them to say "do you want fries with that?" in 30 different languages!