So, is it over?

Sure, but the boundaries of anything to be pushed as science have been set by the judge to be the criteria of science itself. So, peer reviewed articles, underpinning of the theory by experiments etc (Demski is saying that even), and no redefining of science by scool boards...

Tara-

Greetings. I am new to the Thumb and have been impressed by some posts willingness to argue the scientific issues without name-calling and showing "guilt by association". In this post you mention that you are in favor of science and against anti-science groups. You categorically put ID into this group. I am curious what you would say to someone who wanted to pursue ID as a research topic, but agreed that the theory is too young and unestablished to be put into the schools. Would this be anti-science? If so, why? Thanks.

Hi bd,

I'd first want to see how they planned to investigate ID "as a research topic." I've not seen any way to test it.

(BTW, hopping in the car for about the next 9 hours, so please have some patience if I don't get back to this until tomorrow).

The Bible is true. No doubt about it! Paul explains God's authoritative Word, and everyone who rejects His history-including six-day creation and Noah's Flood-is 'willfully' ignorant.

BD, you'll find that ID doesn't get any sympathy here or many places in the scientific community. To a person who's just showed up, that might seem biased, or unfair. You might even get the impression that scientists aren't even willing to consider alternative evidence. You might get this impression because many of the ID folks are screaming it from the roof tops.

The reason ID is so soundly dismissed by the scientific community is that it doesn't follow the methods of science.

I wrote a post on my blog that gave a good discussion of ID. I wrote this post primarily for people who are Christian, and who didn't know much about science or ID. I think it details why ID is so empty, both scientifically and from a theological standpoint.

You can read it here:

http://www.ocellated.com/2005/12/08/intelligent-design/

Tara,

Good question. I'm going to throw out a possibility for discussion, but I need to think about this more. Translation: please be charitable.
Just like evolutionists use a theoretical framework to predict what might be and how to investigate, IDers could use an ID framework. Part of the theoretical framework could be that intelligent causation is responsible for new information in biological systems. Moving from theory to reality, the IDer could look at DNA that does not, as we know, have a functional purpose (I've heard the term "junk DNA" used for this). The IDer could speculate that maybe this information isn't for the functioning of the organism, but for the intelligent agent trying to understand this organism. In other words, maybe it's some kind of user manual.
Now the IDer has a hypothesis that they can investigate. The experiment would be some kind of code breaking. While the IDer could be embarrassingly wrong, his hypothesis at least seems to be scientific.
Have a nice drive Tara.
bd

Thanks for the information.

Miah- My understanding of the scientific method is: hypothesis, test, conclusion, repeat. I'm not sure how this necessarily exlcudes ID. Could you explain?

To your other question. While I don't want to associate myself with the Creation Museum (new earth) or it's tactics, I think there are good historical reasons for looking at the New Testament. If you don't exclude theism and the possibility for miracles in your historical study, then the evidence is pretty good. But both theism and historical evidence seem off topic for this blog.

Ocellated- I'll read the stuff at the link and get back to you.

Thanks,
bd

BD,

Please by all means study the idea of intelligent design as a research topic, but im really not sure what you would study and in what context. I fear you would be wasting your time. The problem is there is currently no literature of framework within which ID has ever been addressed honestly by ID supporters. I guess you could compile the claims of the ID movement and then present the rigorous scientific rebutal of those claims. However even this is bit of a pointless task other than to aggregate present information. You see its not actually doing anything new.

The thing with ID is that because it uses psuedo science, scientific language, and forgoes the Scientific Method of testable hypotheses and experimentation it can make claims at a very fast rate.

For instance,

ID philosopher makes claim A B and C based on handwavey psuedoscience. Intellectually honest scientist who probably has too much time on his hands spends hours completing a robust, rigourous , referenced and scientifically accurate rebutal of claim A. In the mean time the ID philosopher has moved on to making claims D E and F. The IDist doesnt care about addressing the complete scientific rebutall of claim a because ID claims are not ment for the scientific community. They are ment to appeal to the general public, teachers, lawyers, religous leaders and politictions.

Infact ID-ists fears peer-reviewed publishing because that exposes it for what it is - scientifically vacuous.

I am curious what you would say to someone who wanted to pursue ID as a research topic, but agreed that the theory is too young and unestablished to be put into the schools. Would this be anti-science? If so, why?

A good example of that might be String Theory. String Theory hopes to eventually be a Theory of Everything - something that will combine the correct predictions of General Relativity (GR) with those of Quantum Mechanics (QM). GR does not work on very small scales, and QM does not work in a large gravity well. So, currently, there is no theory that completely covers black holes or the very earliest universe, for example.

At the moment, String Theory doesn't achieve these goals. For that matter, many consider that String Theory currently makes no testable predictions, and, it is quite possible that String Theory is a dead end. Yet there are many who see promise in the approach. It does not yet predict anything new, but the things that it seems to describe are potentially in agreement with GR and QM.

There are many differences with Intelligent Design (ID). No one is claiming that String Theory is proven, complete, superior, or even factual. ID makes claims which turn out to be unsubstantiated. String Theory advocates are not pushing to have it taught in secondary schools, whereas ID is. ID is based on a God hypothesis, which dooms it to predict nothing, and therefore, ID promises nothing. String Theory has advanced, whereas ID continues to stagnate. String Theory advocates hope to one day have testable predictions, ID advocates seem to care nothing for them.

String Theory is not yet up to the name String Hypothesis, and as a work in progress is perhaps not yet Science. Yet no one seems to doubt that it could be very important Science. ID is also not up to the name the ID Hypothesis, and so is perhaps not yet Science. Yet, ID's advocates present it as comparable, and even superior to the Theory of Evolution - which has such a body of evidence behind it as to be up to being called the Laws of Evolution.

Perhaps the biggest difference between String Theory and ID is that there appears to be no motivation based on evidence for ID. For String Theory, the motivational evidence is the huge bodies of supporting evidence for GR and QM, and yet GR and QM are known to be incompatible. Even if String Theory is wrong, the incompatibility o f GR and QM is worthy of study - pursuit to solution. ID has no scientific motivation whatever. More than any other reason, lack of motivation is why ID is anti-science.

I suspect we'll see more of "teach the controversy" and less push to teach intelligent design

Yes thats a very important point, the "How".

You cannot rationally address ID Creationism without addressing the method of design and subsequent creation. ID-ists would suggest that humans are especially designed so when did this happen? Who did it? What methods did they use?

We can answer comparable questions for all other areas of science, including fringe endevours like SETI. ID by definition avoids suggesting any method, because that would make it falsifiable, and that would kill it.

bd, Considering that ID is founded and shepherdard with the intent to undermine the scientific method (See Wedge Document), it is rather amusing that one could even propose a science of ID. ID's "design" is to remove the objectivity of evidence and to stoke the world view of providence and divine right from within the public school system. There has been no attempt to actually scientifically study the supposed "theory" of ID by even the founders, fellows and "scientists" of the Discovery Institute. Science is against their religion hence the attack on sceince.

Stephen and BD,

Let's cut to the chase, shall we?

"intelligent design" is creationism. It requires a deity to work. Full stop.

String Theory does not require a deity. String Theory is not creationism. String Theory may be weird, but it's not based on the supernatural as is "intelligent design."

"intelligent design" is not science no matter how many op-eds the Discovery Institute writes. "intelligent design" requires gods, demons, fairies, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, unknown aliens, time travellers and beings from the Ninth Dimension. You need to stop dancing around the prospect that "intelligent design" might *someday* be science.

Creationism is not science and it's not going to *someday* become science.

I am curious what you would say to someone who wanted to pursue ID as a research topic, but agreed that the theory is too young and unestablished to be put into the schools. Would this be anti-science?

— bd

Dembski: Life after Dover William Dembski says the Dover verdict is not ID's Waterloo, but merely one battle in a long culture war By William A. Dembski (December 21, 2005) ID: not defeated yet Judge John E. Jones III has ruled in the Dover ID case, not only striking down the Dover school board policy advocating intelligent design but also identifying intelligent design as nonscientific and fundamentally religious. To what degree does this ruling constitute a setback for ID? Let's turn the question around. If the judge had ruled in favor of the Dover policy, it would have emboldened school boards, legislators and grass roots organizations to push for intelligent design in the public school science curricula across the nation. As a consequence, this case really would have been a Waterloo for the supporters of neo-Darwinian evolution (the form of evolution taught in all the textbooks). Conversely, the actual ruling is not a Waterloo for the intelligent design side. Certainly it will put a damper on school boards interested in promoting intelligent design. But this is not a Supreme Court decision. Nor is it likely this decision will be appealed since the Dover school board that caused all the trouble was voted out and replaced this November. Thus we can expect agitation for ID and against evolution to continue. School boards and state legislators may tread more cautiously, but tread on evolution they will --- the culture war demands it! It is therefore naive to think that this case spells the end of ID, which is rapidly going international and crossing metaphysical and theological boundaries. I now correspond with ID proponents on every continent (save Antarctica). Moreover, I've seen ID embraced by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics and even atheists. The idea that ID is purely an "American thing" or an "evangelical Christian thing" can therefore no longer be maintained. Even if ID is stifled among high school students (and with the Internet this is impossible), ID is of growing interest to college and graduate students. Three years ago, there was one Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center at the University of California-San Diego. Now there are thirty such centers at American colleges and universities, including UC Berkeley and Cornell. These centers are fiercely pro-ID. Ultimately, the significance of a court case like this depends not on a judge's decision but on the cultural forces that serve as the backdrop against which the decision is made. Take the Scopes Trial. In the minds of most, it was a decisive victory for evolution. Yet, in the actual trial, the decision went against Scopes (he was convicted of violating a Tennessee statute against teaching evolution). Judge Jones's decision may make life in the short-term more difficult for ID proponents, and it certainly will not be pleasant to endure the inevitable gloating by the victors. But the work of ID will continue. In fact, it may continue more effectively than if the judge had ruled in favor of ID, which might have convinced people that ID had already won the day when in fact ID still has much to accomplish in developing its scientific and intellectual program. Judge Jones's decision may well prove best for fostering ID's intellectual vitality and ultimate success. William A. Dembski is the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, where he heads its Center for Science and Theology. He is also a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture in Seattle.

@bd:

There are a few problems with ID which exclude it from the realm of science. The first and foremost problem is that it makes an assumption that an intelligent agent did it. Now that in itself doesn't mean it is bad (or even no) science. What does is that the logical question which follows from that assumption is not answered: Namely, where did that agent come from? Or: Why did he/she/it do it? If you stipulate that the intelligent agent was just an amateur alien biologist, you've done nothing but relabel the problem. That's not science, that's handwaving. You either have to accept that complex biological structures can arise naturally, or they have a supernatural source. ID'ers flat-out refuse the first alternative, so have to use the second explanation, and that is precisely what excludes it from the realm of science: science does not, cannot deal with the supernatural. That makes it religion by definition---something Judge Jones was quick and very pointedly to observe.

You mention an example of 'junk DNA', hypothesising that it could be some sort of 'manual'. Unfortunately, junk DNA does have a purpose which can be explained very well by naturalistic means: namely to make sure that when errors are made in copying DNA, the odds of them occurring in critical sections are reduced. In addition, not all 'junk' is genuine junk: some DNA is very much functional, were it expressed into enzymes. But for some reason (mutation?), it is not. There is no self-pruning in DNA, so it just stays with the organism. To give an example: I remember reading about the gene which codes for vitamin C; nearly all organisms can synthesize it themselves, save for a few odd species amongst which humans. The gene is still with us, it just isn't expressed, isn't made active. That is why we have to ingest it separately.

Now then, suppose that we were to study the hypothesis of 'the manual'. A manual for whom? By whom? Why is it there? What is in there? How did it get there? If it was put there, what is the nature of the entity putting it there? Why would a manual be put into what we preserve to be 'junk' when the actual manual is right there in the active DNA itself? You will undoubtedly admit to not knowing the scientific answers. That's precisely the rub. You can't study or even answer those questions in a scientific way, because you'll end up with the answer I gave in the previous paragraph. Protection against copying errors, deactivated remnants of very much functional genes, heck, even complete genomes of retroviruses. That is simply what the method of observation, hypothesis, confirmation yields.

And that's why ID can never be studied by the scientific method, unless you rip out its very core, namely that it was all done by a supernatural agent. And then it looses all appeal instantly.

Hello,

First, my question to Tara was about what is in principle ruled out as anti-science in her view. So what ID has or has not accomplished is not relevant. But, you guys did make a lot of relevant comments.

Stephen-
"ID is based on a God hypothesis, which dooms it to predict nothing" I'm not sure if either part of this is necessarily true. Couldn't the irreducibly complex life be from intelligent agents from another planet? In science's early days, believing there was a God allowed for the hypothesis that the universe is ordered, consistent and knowable. That seems important.

I like your comparison with string theory. Thanks. Although I think the two have different starting points. String theory starts with reconciling scientific theories and ID starts with a philosophical framework- intelligent causation is potentially discoverable in nature.

Bayesian Bouffant-
I agree that criticism of evolution is not enough. Could you explain to me why ID would have to answer who? It seems like, at least in everyday life, you can decipher intelligent causation for an event or situation without knowing who the agent is.

MaxOblivion-
Why do we have to know the how? Couldn't aliens leave us a sign in the sky to tell us they are there, but do it with technology we don't understand and so cannot give an adequate description of how they did it?

James Tayler-
ID doesn't by nature have its goal as undermining science. Some IDers may have that as their goal, but that doesn't mean it is essential to it.

Ocellated- I'm working on your blog, but between the posts here and the links you provide, its slow going.

Bill- Thank you for your assertions.

Russell- Your comment really helps me understand where you are coming from. I think we have a philosophical disagreement about the nature of science. You seem to be saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) that science the social process/activity of sharing ideas with others. I would say that science is a particluar way to find truth about a particular kind/kinds of things. I think a guy on an island observing the beaks of finches is doing science before he talks about it with anyone.
Again, the scientist may have a basis in his philosophy to study something in a new light even though another theory has an explanation for.

Good golly, this is a busy forum! Sorry if I don't get back to everyone talking to me right away.

Thanks,
bd

Hi bd, I'd first want to see how they planned to investigate ID "as a research topic." I've not seen any way to test it.

— Tara Smith

BD -

I'm sure scientists would be perfectly willing to consider a positive theory of design, if such a thing existed.

ID "theory", as it currently stands, is nothing but a collection of re-labeled creationist propaganda and a laundry list of things that evolution allegedly cannot explain (the bacterial flagellum, etc.). Yet ID offers no alternative explanations (other than, "that's how it was designed", which actually is useless as an explanation) and has no preditive usefulness. It merely looks backward and says, "That thing there looks like it was designed - therefore it must be designed."

In order for a theory of design to gain scientific credibilty, it would need to offer predictions and answers to questions like:

1. What structures were designed and when? ( Don't cite Dembksi- his methods are a failure.)

2. How can we distinguish the designed features of an organism from its evolved features, i.e., where does "design" end and "evolution" begin?

3. How can we tell if the Designer is intervening in nature before our eyes?

4. When in the past has the Designer intervened? Was it on just one occasion, or several?

5. Can we predict if the Designer will intervene again in the future? If so, how can we detect it when it happens? If not, why not?

6. What kinds of problems was the Designer trying to overcome? What were the objectives of the intervention(s)? How effective was the intervention in addressing the issue?

These are but a few questions that come to mind - I'm sure many other, more rigorous questions could be posed.

Now if you can offer any design theory that addresses these questions, you might be on to something.

Maarten-

You made a dintinction between what is discovered and how to explain what is discovered. Why can't discovering intelligent causation be scientific and the who, what, when, why of the causer be philosophy?
I agree that the nature of the intelligent causer isn't the subject for science. But I don't see why being able to see something as designed (which is the work of intelligent agents in our experience) can't be science.
This assertion has been made a few times now. Could someone explain it more to me so I can understand why?
Thanks,
Brandon
p.s. I'm going to be away from the computer for a while soon.

Um, people, has nothing changed since yesterday? I don't wish to be uncharitable, but can't we just refer people like bd to Judge Jones' Kitzmiller v Dover report, and be done with it?

School boards and state legislators may tread more cautiously, but tread on evolution they will --- the culture war demands it!

— William Dembski

This will be the last comment for a while, so I'm going to make it a snotty one.

gregonomic- Do you usually go to the court for your philosophy of science?

bd

ID doesn't by nature have its goal as undermining science. Some IDers may have that as their goal, but that doesn't mean it is essential to it.

— bd

You seem to be saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) that science the social process/activity of sharing ideas with others.

Science, as taught in school, is a social process.

Bayesian Bouffant- I agree that criticism of evolution is not enough. Could you explain to me why ID would have to answer who? It seems like, at least in everyday life, you can decipher intelligent causation for an event or situation without knowing who the agent is.

bd -

"Moving from theory to reality, the IDer could look at DNA that does not, as we know, have a functional purpose (I've heard the term "junk DNA" used for this)."

This is mildly debatable, but it's true that most eukaryote DNA isn't coding DNA, and doesn't

"The IDer could speculate that maybe this information isn't for the functioning of the organism, but for the intelligent agent trying to understand this organism. In other words, maybe it's some kind of user manual. Now the IDer has a hypothesis that they can investigate. The experiment would be some kind of code breaking. While the IDer could be embarrassingly wrong, his hypothesis at least seems to be scientific."

Please be more specific. Which accepted code-breaking algorythms and techniques are you going to use? Do you propose novel techniques? If so, have you explained them in the appropriate literature? Are they accepted? Which species do you plan to study? How will you decide which DNA segments are to be studied? How will you demonstrate conclusively that they are a "code"? Many people falsely claim to see "codes" in all sorts of places. How will you deal with this potential critique?

Are you going to insist on refusing to identify the "designer" the code is intended for? Do you see why that makes things more difficult?

Also - why would the "designer" need "instructions"? Who designed the "coded instructions"? Who designed the person who designed the designer who designed the coded instructions.

I don't expect meaningful answers. Feel free to surprise me.

Just like evolutionists use a theoretical framework to predict what might be and how to investigate, IDers could use an ID framework. Part of the theoretical framework could be that intelligent causation is responsible for new information in biological systems. Moving from theory to reality, the IDer could look at DNA that does not, as we know, have a functional purpose (I've heard the term "junk DNA" used for this). The IDer could speculate that maybe this information isn't for the functioning of the organism, but for the intelligent agent trying to understand this organism. In other words, maybe it's some kind of user manual. Now the IDer has a hypothesis that they can investigate. The experiment would be some kind of code breaking. While the IDer could be embarrassingly wrong, his hypothesis at least seems to be scientific.

— bd

I now correspond with ID proponents on every continent (save Antarctica).

You mention an example of 'junk DNA', hypothesising that it could be some sort of 'manual'. Unfortunately, junk DNA does have a purpose which can be explained very well by naturalistic means: namely to make sure that when errors are made in copying DNA, the odds of them occurring in critical sections are reduced.

— Maarten

Why can't discovering intelligent causation be scientific and the who, what, when, why of the causer be philosophy?

I agree that the nature of the intelligent causer isn't the subject for science.

But I don't see why being able to see something as designed (which is the work of intelligent agents in our experience) can't be science.

bd-

If one could show how the entire DNA of a human is 'encoded' in the semmingly simpler, yet much much older DNA of a simpler organism, that would be pretty convincing for me -- as it would imply that the 'information' was always there and natural selection is nothing more than a 'projection operator' that filters out the 'unfit' DNA configurations, rather than the driver of accumulation of small changes due to random mutations.

This has probably already been ruled out for all the known life forms whose genomes we have looked at, but maybe there is a frozen mass of amoebas with the complete human genome wrapped up inside them inside a billion year old rock strata somewhere we haven't found.

Good luck with that.

I don't expect we'll be seeing any ID 'results' anytime soon, or ever, for that matter.

BD I don't think anyone was trying to be cute with you when the Judge Jones ruling was suggested reading for you. It very clearly outlines why ID is nothing more than recycled creationism and it is not science. One of the best critiques and examinations of ID I have ever read.

On a side note, have you read the DIs Wedge Strategy?

Instead of teaching the "controversy" insist on teaching the Jones decision. Especially the parts where he notes that the IDiots have been dishonest.

I love it when a stealth creationist surfaces in the forum. It's always the same, though.

"Hi, I'm new to this forum. What's all this discussion abour Mr. Darwin about? Really, I want to know. Rhally, I do."

Then the polite among us, yours truly excluded, engage in what starts as an informative discussion. However, it soon becomes apparent that the stealth creationist, BD, isn't listening. Nope, just coming back with the same old tripe, sold day-old by the Discovery Institute, eventually dragging the philosophy of science into the discussion as if he has the foggiest notion what that's about.

You're welcome for the "assertions", BD. I should have referenced Judge Jones who ruled in court that "intelligent design" is creationism. Assertive enough for you, BD, old pal? And, no, I don't rely on the courts to tell me what's science, I rely on the court to keep Christian fundamentalist creationism out of the public school system.

It's too bad that you're not really interested in science, BD, because it really is fascinating. Something new every single day.

But, if you're content to chew on your old creationist tripe, that's your business. Hope I provided some salt for you.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if BD turned out to be Bill Dembski?

Yeah i do agree with bill above, all bd's points have been addressed clearly, yet he refuses to take any of responses on board and goes on to the next claim/assertion. Its a typical creationist tactic.

Well, I can imagine Willy D as Dorothski standing to her faithful if slightly balding and myopic lapdog Tohe wagging his flagellum. Dorothski trembles at the sight of the Wicked Witch of U. of Minn, Morris, hurling down blogs of flames.

"I'll get you, my pretty, and your little dog, Michael, er, Tohe, too."

"Tohe, too?"

Frantically, Dorothski clicks her heels together to invoke the magical spells of the intelligently designed slippers, now looking a bit scuffed.

"There's no place like Baylor! There's no place like Baylor! Wait a sec, that didn't work the last time. Think, Dorothski, think!"

Dorothski thought until her thunker was thore, but, alas, Dorothski was out of new thoughts. Then, suddenly, she had it!

"There's no place like a small, podunk Bible college in Kentucky! Take me to my old Kentucky home!"

As if by magic, Dorothski was whisked away in the nick of time never to be heard from again.

(We wish.)

At the moment, String Theory doesn't achieve these goals. For that matter, many consider that String Theory currently makes no testable predictions, and, it is quite possible that String Theory is a dead end. Yet there are many who see promise in the approach. It does not yet predict anything new, but the things that it seems to describe are potentially in agreement with GR and QM.

— Stephen Uitti

Wow, some of you are a lot friendlier than others! Thanks to everyone who was thoughtful and charitable in their responses. I won't be around until tomorrow.

Russell- My initial question was about the nature of science itself, not science education. That is why I took your response to be about science. I'm not sure how I've gone from asking questions about the nature of science to degrading science education in this country.

Bayesian Bouffant --- Let's see, an example... Okay, I just made this up: You're walking along the beach and you find a watch. Just kidding. How about SETI? They think they will be able to distinguish between a message and random noise. In regards to your example, we may not be able to identify all effects of intelligent causation, but maybe some.

Harold --- You don't expect a meaningful answer?! Why not, you barely know me? Just for that, I'm not going to give you one. Actually, I'll just clarify my original post. I didn't say that the code was designed for the designer. Simply put, it was designed for the scientist trying to understand the organism.

Corkscrew- I'm not sure why that makes the argument moot. Wouldn't it be interesting if some code was found that helped us to better understand an organism, but was not required for its functioning? If that hypothesis was born from a particular theory, it would have to make you take it at least more seriously. My dad asked me if I knew anything about the case today too.

Norman Doering- I'm going to need to give your point some more thought. I see the potential problems, but am not sure intelligence needs a mechanistic explanation to be viable. Thanks. Also, I'm sorry to disappoint. I am not Bill Dembski.

yellow fatty bean- I'll give you a call when I find it.

Mr Christopher- Sorry, I don't usually look to the court or politicians for matters of philosophy, I think for obvious reason. That's why I made a joke out of it. But if you say it is a good examination, I will give it a read. Apologies to whoever I was snotty too. And, no, I haven't read the wedge document. I have heard a bit here and there about it, but I don't know much of the content.

Bill- Condescending assertions now? Can't wait to see what's next.

MaxOblivian- C'mon, haven't you ever had a discussion? One side asks a question, other side gives answers, first side asks clarifying questions or raises objections, and it continues. You don't want to be a rude Guss like Bill was do you?

Thanks,
bd

While I agree with Tara that it's not over, I really hope this might be a turning point for ID. Look at the YEC movement. Sure, they're still around, preaching to the converting, building museums, printing glossy magazines. But when it comes to getting creationism into public schools, they've been dead in the water for 25 years; they've never recovered from the Arkansas case. Similarly, I think there's a good chance 2005 may come to be seen as the high-water mark for ID.

ID doesn't by nature have its goal as undermining science. Some IDers may have that as their goal, but that doesn't mean it is essential to it.

Yeah Jim, I hope you're right, but I like the cynics that are predicting the shift to "Sudden Emergence Theory". Different name, same game.

... am not sure intelligence needs a mechanistic explanation to be viable.

I am curious what you would say to someone who wanted to pursue ID as a research topic, but agreed that the theory is too young and unestablished to be put into the schools.

My understanding of the scientific method is: hypothesis, test, conclusion, repeat. I'm not sure how this necessarily exlcudes ID. Could you explain?

I like your comparison with string theory. Thanks. Although I think the two have different starting points. String theory starts with reconciling scientific theories and ID starts with a philosophical framework- intelligent causation is potentially discoverable in nature.

— bd

Um, people, has nothing changed since yesterday?

Naive Intelligent Designer prponents somehow seem to think if they can prove some 'purpose' for junk DNA they can thereby find evidence for the designer.

The reasoning seems to go like this:

1) The Designer is a perfect 'transcendant' Designer.
2) Therefore he wouldn't be so sloppy as to put DNA into an animal if there was no purpose to it.
3) Therefore if we can find a 'use' for 'Junk DNA' wa can find evidence for a designer.
4) Therefore if we can find a use or purpose for 'Junk DNA' we can prove Intelligent Design Theory (sic).

The latter statement was actually put to me as a method by which ID was testable, by Hannah Maxon of the Cornell IDEA group.

I'll leave you to pick the logic out, making only the following observations:
a) The first premise makes it pretty clear who the ID is; no possibility of it being a less than perfect alien, or a lesser deity.
b) Darwin came up with his theory with knowledge of the existence of DNA, Junk or otherwise.
c) The existence of 'Junk DNA' probably came as a surprise to many evolutionary biologists, who tend to assume parsimony in nature - and I don't ever remember it being a prediction of evolutionary theory.

Furthermore any evidence that Junk DNA is just that would blow the whole line of thinking of the water along with it's perfect ID.
For example: how about removing large chunks of 'Junk DNA' from an animal, say a mouse, and seeing if it is indistiguishable in every respect; including the ability to reproduce viable progeny; from 'normal' mice ? That would be strong evidence that some DNA was surplus to requirements wouldn't it?

Well it's been done, see this article in Nature: Megabase deletions of Gene Deserts Result in Viable Mice

Your theoretical line of investigation would settle exactly nothing bd, certainly nothing in favour of an Intelligent Designer; and that last piece of research (as long as it can be repeated and followed through like all science of course) has just made the whole line of enquiry redundant even on ID terms.

I don't think any scientist has any absolute objection to grown-ups persuing their own lines of research - funnily enough for all their bluster the Discovry Institute don't do any research anyway - ask to look around their labs sometime. It's just that there is no 'Intelligent Design Theory' (ask the DI if you don't believe me) to generate any testable hypotheses upon which any lines of enquiry can be followed.

That and what we already knew, and which has now been confirmed by a Judge that "Intelligent Design" is merely religion masquerading as science.

In his words:

"In making this determination, we have addressed the
seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and
moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,
antecedents." - Judge Jones Kitzmillar vs Dover Dec 20th 2005

..and what a pleasure it is to be able to quote him.

bd,

From condescending assertions I usually descend into parody, then unrestrained satire, followed by a scathing rant of pure arrogance and finally into unadorned rapacious mocking wit.

However, since it's the Christmas Season and I've made it this far on the Good side of the ledger (barely), I'm going to let the little bd fish off the hook to play with the Pandas Thumbers who have the patience to answer his Mommy Why questions.

Darn, I skipped right over unrestrained satire and dipped into pool of arrogance. So, tempting, though.

Yeah Jim, I hope you're right, but I like the cynics that are predicting the shift to "Sudden Emergence Theory". Different name, same game.

The view from The Guardian: support for ID weakens.

bd,

None of your points have any legs. These are ALL very old ID/creationist discussion points that have been thoroughly discredited.

For example, check out what SETI scientists say about SETI: ID vs SETI

Rather than just believing what the ID folks say, how about checking these claims out first.

Corkscrew- I'm not sure why that makes the argument moot. Wouldn't it be interesting if some code was found that helped us to better understand an organism, but was not required for its functioning? If that hypothesis was born from a particular theory, it would have to make you take it at least more seriously. My dad asked me if I knew anything about the case today too.

— bd

...an entity of undefined behavior and undefined power is scientifically nihilistic.

I can't sit by and let all this talk of "junk DNA" slide by without commenting, since I have some knowledge of this area. We know of numerous examples where pieces of "junk DNA", usually endogenous retroviruses, have been co-opted by their host to provide some sort of function, either in regulating expression of pre-existing genes (eg. see PMID: 14534330, PMID: 11054415) or in coding for proteins of apparently novel function (eg. see PMID: 12956954, PMID: 10693809, PMID: 15644441 [the latter two suggest a role for endogenous retroviruses in the evolution of the mammalian placenta]).

These discoveries have been perfectly adequately explained within an evolutionary framework - no "designer" required.

I did enjoy your "Species X: the User Manual" comment though, Corkscrew.

bd: you may think you're philosophising; I think you're trophilosophisilling.

PT regulars have made numerous excellent points in this comments section, but I wanted to express my appreciation to Lenny and AJF for the elegance of posts 63949 and 63952. Thank you both for some very good points. That's the kind of stuff that make PT so rewarding for us wannabe educated laymen. "Well said, Chaps! Hear, hear!!"

My initial question was about the nature of science itself, not science education. That is why I took your response to be about science. I'm not sure how I've gone from asking questions about the nature of science to degrading science education in this country.

I am curious what you would say to someone who wanted to pursue ID as a research topic, but agreed that the theory is too young and unestablished to be put into the schools.

I don't want to derail this topic, but since Tara brought it up, I'd like to remind everyone that I did give several examples of testable I.D. concepts in another thread, and with Tara's explicit permission, will cheerfully cite them again.

— The Ghost of Paley #63868

Yeah Jim, I hope you're right, but I like the cynics that are predicting the shift to "Sudden Emergence Theory". Different name, same game.

— Jim Foley

No, that wouldn't fly. It's too close to the "abrupt appearance theory" euphemism that was in brief vogue with young earth creationists during the 1980's.

bd,

Just for the sake of argument, could you please just clarify, once and for all, what you understand the nature of science to be?
Please be specific.

Man I wish there were some more ID dudes on this...feels like everyone's picking on bd.

Tara Smith, a UI assistant professor who helped circulate the statement on the Iowa City campus, said she believes the ruling will help in the effort of what many in the scientific community consider "good science." "I think the ruling will make it a little bit easier for us, but I don't think we can rest in our laurels," she said. "It goes beyond just intelligent design to the issue of teaching good science in general, which is what most of us are primarily concerned with."

Moses I'm curious about your last comment.

"Why do you say ID is 100% pure creationism."

now its my assumption, although I could be incorrect, that you find there to be no difference between ID and Creationism. But if you do find any differences could you try to explain in summation.(especially the role of a God, and the time frame for the origin of the earth)

1.)what you think ID is? Then
2.)What you think Creationism is? and Finally
3.)What are the major differences? (if any)

1.)what you think ID is?

2.)What you think Creationism is?

3.)What are the major differences?

LOL, Norman!

Please let me make a hopefully constructive comment. String theory (as all good scientific theories do) begins with evidence.

The fight will now move to linguistics, in which "wrathful Dispersion Theory" will be put forward as the new "non-religious" version of Babelism.

Bring lunch.

Rustopher.

Hey Heddle, do you think that your religious opinions should count as scientific evidence?

Oh, and why did the Dover judge think that not only is ID full of crap, but IDers are dishonest evasive liars?

Wow! How do you guys keep up this pace? I'll do my best to respond to everyone.

Norman- Surely there is something between material mechanism and magic. The majority of philosophers throughout history and many now (including some naturalists) think the mind (intelligence) is immaterial. This is why I don't agree to investigate effects of intelligent causation we have to first mechanistically define intelligence.
Also, this is something I still don't understand from a lot of the post. Many of you are saying that we have to know the designer's name, birthday, and favorite food, but I still don't understand why. We know certain kinds of things come from intelligence. It's not clear to me why we can't identify these kinds of things without knowing the who. I'm really not trying to be bullheaded here, I wish I understood.
Last, your example of Deep Blue is interesting because the reason it looks like an intelligence from the outside is because it was programmed to do so by an intelligence. And thanks for the endosymbiotic theory bit, I'll keep that in mind.

RevDoc- What do you think about a distinction within science of operation (the kind your suggesting) and origin. Origin would be big bang types of things. If you agree there is a difference, how do you think they relate?
Many of you have made the point that up to now, ID has failed to make testable hypotheses. Point taken.
I think a lot of people, including the judge in the Dover case (from what's been said) would disagree that using these kinds of models to predict would be scientific.
Also, you may have a point with the "materialist, naturalist, etc." fight being, in part, to disguise the failings of ID as science. But it's a fact that ID is dismissed outright by many for these very reasons (it doesn't presuppose naturalism, materialism). To deny this is to not be fair.
I agree the ID hypothesis should not be unfairly privileged.

AJF- Some people base their philosophical framework on evidence too. Everyone works from some sort of philosophical framework to hypothesize, whether implicitly or explicitly. I took both starting points to be based on evidence, although different kinds.
I don't see why evolution would be thrown out completely. We didn't completely throw out Newton when Einstein had something bigger.
I already agreed that arguments against evolution are not the same as arguments for ID.

Dean- What an uncharitable characterization. Some may even call it a straw-man. Why couldn't it be, if there is some sort of intelligent causation in biological systems, then this "extra" DNA may have a purpose. Maybe it is for a kind of user's manual. I'll try to look into that.

Bill- Don't worry, Santa is very busy this time of year and probably doesn't have time to read blogs.

Jim- Funny, I thought asking you guys questions would be a good way of finding out the other side of the debate. Didn't mean to bother.

Corkscrew- First, I honestly appreciate your distinction between model and theory. I've been using theory loosely and that has caused some confusion. I'll try to keep that distinction in mind.
Maybe not "Species X: the User Manual," but that is more in the direction I was thinking. Of course, this was just a hypothetical hypothesis to show that in principle ID could produce some testable claims, but I was thinking along the lines of information that would help us understand the organism, but has no function. Or something that intelligent agents could "read" about the organism to better understand it.
Again, I don't see why we can't, in theory, recognize design without knowing things about the designer. I would really like someone to explain this to me.

Norman- Not to be redundant or to repeat myself, but why can't we discover that some things are without understanding who, what, where, when, why? And why can't one of those things be design?
I agree that crime investigation assumes limits to the intelligence in some sense. They assume that the intelligence is human. But they don't assume motives, time frames, etc.. Haven't you ever seen Law and Order. The show would be boring if they assumed all that before they got to the crime. Instead they reason to when, who, how, and why from the effects they discover.

Gregonomic- thank you?

Russell- I completely disagree with you. I think the finch beak studier was doing science even if he wasn't working from others' research or sharing his findings with anybody. Science is a way of studying a kind of thing. The process is benefited by collaboration, but not defined by it.
I agree we shouldn't impose "assumed unusable ideologically driven" models (See corkscrew) onto schools and others. But I don't think using models as of yet not scientifically developed as a model to do research to see if anything interesting is discovered should be disallowed either. I enjoy the happy middle.

Ubernatural- I would also like to see the thread.

Thatsabigtwinkie- Don't worry about me feeling picked on. If I came on to this forum not expecting this, I would be an idiot. In fact, overall, everyone has been really helpful and fairly fair.
I think science is a way of studying a certain kind of thing. The way would be the scientific method for experimental (operational?) science and maybe something related but modified for forensic or origin type sciences. The things science studies are material or natural things. As I explained earlier, this can be done on different levels (today's experiments compared to experiments three hundred years ago) and with different amounts of collaboration (none or a lot). But I would say the science is defined by its object and the object determines its method.

Tara- I live in Iowa too. Pella.

Norman- Why would anyone put the outhouse inside the tent? Aren't they usually like twenty feet away?

Thanks,
bd

bd,

I asked you to read about these topics because science is complex. It takes many years of study to truly understand many of topics in science. Some science is *very* counter-intuitive (e.g. Quantum Mechanics), so what seems to be a good argument/explanation for something might in fact be the exact opposite of the real answer.

The typical ID/creationist reads a 1 paragraph "refutation" of evolution and immediately "realizes" that every one of the 100,000s of Scientists are wrong about a theory that's been around for 150 years. It doesn't even seem odd to these people that what's obvious to uneducated layman hasn't already been considered and discarded decades or even centuries ago by people who do this stuff for a living.

I'm not a scientist (although I have completed years of study in various science subjects), and yet I can find why the ID/creationist "refutation" is wrong in *seconds*. When you find an "obvious" reason for why science is wrong, it'd be really nice if you actually researched science's perspective on the issue before claiming it as a refutation.

I'd say that many if not all of your questions can be answered by looking for your position on the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims. You may or may not notice that these are identical to the claims made by ID. Coincidence? I think not.

BTW bd, I'm not really mad or upset with you at all. It's just a built up frustration with the willful ignorance of many of the people I interact with on this issue.

jim-

Howdy. No offense taken here. Thanks for the reference. Could you be more clear on exactly what statement of mine you are responding to?

Thanks,
bd

Russell- I completely disagree with you.

... I don't think using models as of yet not scientifically developed as a model to do research to see if anything interesting is discovered should be disallowed either.

Russell-

Gotcha. My first statement you quoted was about your position that science is not science until it is collaborative. That's a philosophical discussion, not scientific one.

Yeah, that second quote could have been written a little better huh? I was trying to say something like, "I don't think ID should be taught as equal, but I also think that if a scientist wants to do research on ID, he should be able to."
Hope that helps.
Brandon