How to Falsify ID

The IDists claim that since the arguments for ID can be falsified, then ID itself is falsifiable. But of course this doesn't follow.

Don't you get it?
They don't NEED to "win" the argument, they only have to have the argument take place.
This is not a scientific institution that is producing these proposals of falsifiable arguments, etc, etc.
This is a CHURCH GROUP.
This is a POLITICAL MOVEMENT.
START ACTING ACCORDINGLY.

Do the IDers have a definition for what lack-of-design is?

Because that is the crux of disproof.

If one thing in nature can be identified as lacking design, we can say that (a) there is either no intelligent designer; or (b) the intelligent designer is selective in being intelligent.

In the case of (b), how does believing in such a selective designer increase our body of USEFUL SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE? For that matter, how does (a) increase our knowledge?

"God did it" seems like more of a non-starter, or dead-end. It might make for a good sermon or religious soundbite. But, it hardly moves us forward as it pertains to humanity understanding and harnassing the mechanisms of nature.

Another favorite is 'we can detect the design, but that tells us nothing about the designer" --- then they bang on about SETI and Mt Rushmore.

(1) SETI.

Alrighty let's see --- a signal --- in the signal, a message! (Perhaps that'll tell us who the designer is) --- I can triangulate the source of the message and I know the speed of the signal so I can work out when it was sent. I already know a lot a bout the designer. What base does the designer use to construct the message? Is that number culturally significant to them... etc etc etc.

(2) Mt Rushmore

Okay --- close examination shows the work of tools. Analysis shows jackhammers, drills, hammers were used. There are still metal pins where swing-seats were installed --- telling us about the weight of the designer. Examining the weathering and erosion of the 'faces' against the rest of the rock, we can estimate a time period.

Now let me add 2 more.

(3) Oklo nuclear reactor.

Hmm --- lets see. Only recently has mankind been able do to this, using lots of science and math and other hard stuff. Brilliant men where involved for years. Designed --- says I.

(4) Giants Causeway

So much symmetry --- so many perfect angles. Coastal, so should have been weathered and eroded away. See how they make perfect steps into the sea?:

http://www.geographia.com/northern-ireland/ukigia03.gif
Definitely designed.

Alright I've hand-waved enough. And I am not showing my workings mathematically --- If the IDers don't have to, neither do I.

Id submit this for peer review, but the book I'm writing will be more profitable.

(4) Giants Causeway So much symmetry --- so many perfect angles. Coastal, so should have been weathered and eroded away. See how they make perfect steps into the sea?: http://www.geographia.com/northern-ireland/ukigi... Definitely designed.

Do the IDers have a definition for what lack-of-design is? Because that is the crux of disproof.

After reading Like Casey Luskin I have decided I want to be a "leading intelligent design theorist". Sure I have no formal biology education, nor do I have any training in biology, but I have published the same amount of peer reviewed intelligent design papers in scientific journals as Dembski, Behe and Luskin combined (zero).

Mt Rushmore and mouse traps are yesterday's news, let's deal with something not obviously designed by humans. Therefore allow me to introduce my scientific evidence of an intelligent designer: The snowflake!

Snow flakes did not evolve by random mutation, they appear out of nowhere! They are pretty to look at, they are symetrical in shape, therefore they are the handywork of the intelligent designer. And this is true because I say it is true.

So, how do you guys think I am doing in my new role as a "leading intelligent design theorist"?

The ID arguments are essentially no different from the misconceptions that Morris and Gish were spreading about thermodynamics. It seems to me better to let them keep their misconceptions because they serve as useful shibboleths. They may try to wipe the dogsh*t off themselves with their constant sophistry, but they don't know how to get the stink out.

As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID.

Giants Causeway. So much symmetry --- so many perfect angles. Coastal, so should have been weathered and eroded away. See how they make perfect steps into the sea? Definitely designed.

So, how do you guys think I am doing in my new role as a "leading intelligent design theorist"?

I'm going to be a skeptic about those chordates from the Ediacaran until the descriptive publications are made and the scientific community gets to look at their data. A buddy of mine (an Ediacaran researcher) got to see one of the first hyped "chordates" and to him it looked like Kimberella.

I'd hate to see acceptance of this interpetation as fact come from posts within the blogosphere rather than from scientific publications.

But the second paragraph in the article begins with this astonding admission:

"It's true that there's no way to falsify the bare assertion that a cosmic designer exists."

If one cannot falsify the assertion that a designer exists, why is it then important to try to falsify "irriducible complexity"? The authors freely admit in this statement that it won't change the case for a cosmic designer.

I also like the statement:

"They suggest that there is a correlation between the conditions needed for life and the conditions needed for diverse types of scientific discovery, and suggest that such a correlation, if true, points to intelligent design."

First, they couch the statement as, "if true". Well, we so far have a 100% correlation between life and the ability to make scientific discoveries. So, therefore, it is true so far, so it must point to intelligent design. Right? I didn't do very well in statistics, but at least I learned that it is not logically possible (or at least morally defensible) to draw statistical correlations from a single data point.

Second, the authors identify that one way to falsify their claim for intelligent design is to find multiple instances of intelligent life on other planets which are inhospitable to life. But that doesn't seem to follow. It seems to me that the discovery of native life on a planet where life could not exist would actually confirm that the life was "created" rather than the opposite. So, such a "test" does not seem to falsify their claim.

Finally, they make the amazing statement:

"The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to [XYZ]. The opposite of this would have the same effect [~XYZ]."

So, the claim appears to be that finding XYZ would decisively falsify their argument, yet finding ~XYZ would also falsify their argument. Now, I may have done poorly in statistics, but I did really well in logic. If one can show that "A" is true if XYZ is true or if XYZ is false, then XYZ is not predictive of A. Therefore, XYZ cannot falsify or confirm A.

Sigh...

But then, as Dan points out, it's a political movement. The last known time a politician was swayed by logic was several hundred years ago.

Tiax & Gorbe:
Very well-put. Those are my thoughts exactly. It's such a simple paradox: what is your point of reference for zero indication of design? I'd love to hear what IDers have to say in response.

After reading Like Casey Luskin I have decided I want to be a "leading intelligent design theorist". Sure I have no formal biology education, nor do I have any training in biology, but I have published the same amount of peer reviewed intelligent design papers in scientific journals as Dembski, Behe and Luskin combined (zero).

Does the DI need experiments? They should follow their tradition and seek inspiration from the Bible.

Here is one citation with ID implications:

The Designer's desire that women would bring children forth in pain (also following the apple debacle):

To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children (Genesis 3.16)

Bingo! We have a clear Biblical example of the Designer's intelligence at work.

Presumably, before the apple, women's pelvises were wide enough to bear children without pain, although perhaps with discomfort (the citation is ambiguous as to what level of pain would have been expected pre-design modification). After promising pain in childbirth, the Intelligent Designer likely tightened up the pelvic girdle so that squeezing children out caused plenty of pain.

(An aside: clearly then, anesthesiologists are subverting the Designer's will, and may be taken to be in league with the Anti-Designer)

Unfortunatley, as Eve was the first woman, no evidence of designed pelvic adjustments can possibly exist in the fossil record. Consequently, ID proponents have again been let down through the unfortunate lack of the Designer's foresight.

An alternative--and testable--explanation would be that the Designer set up a unique pain pathway for women which only kicks in during childbirth.

Two scientific tests which could provide evidence for Intelligent Design suggest themselves:

1. Competent anatomists should search for extra nerve bundles only possessed by women and which are linked exclusively to childbirth.

2. During birth, MRI images of volunteers' brains, pelvic areas, and spinal columns could be captured. Examine the images for evidence of unique pain signals and pain pathways which only are active during birth.

No charge for the consultation, DI.

Snow flakes did not evolve by random mutation, they appear out of nowhere! They are pretty to look at, they are symetrical in shape, therefore they are the handywork of the intelligent designer. And this is true because I say it is true.

I'll add that it remains to be shown that any intelligent being can produce the complexity that we observe (at least without copying life to do so). That's where they fail so badly.

They rely on the old false SETI analogy, of course, to claim that CSI is by default the result of a designer. I defy the dolts to find a single well-regarded SETI researcher who would recognize the CSI in any known genome to have been produced by an intelligent being (though it might be reproduced by intelligent beings in a different form). Real scientists don't mistake evolved CSI for design, both because we know of evidence that CSI evolved, and because organismic CSI is quite noticeably different from known specimens of "designed CSI".

To put it another way: If intelligent aliens were to beam large amounts of genetic information (enough for context and comparison) from evolved organisms toward us, we would both note that the signal was "designed", and that the information had likely evolved in some manner (possibly via computer, but we'd hope it was from organic evolution).

Likewise, who would be so stupid as to suppose that the Mt. Rushmore shapes are not evolved shapes, but transferred to stone "by design"? I guess we know who.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Should have written:

Likewise, who would be so stupid as to suppose that the Mt. Rushmore shapes are not evolved shapes, though transferred to stone "by design"? I guess we know who.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

This is a CHURCH GROUP.
This is a POLITICAL MOVEMENT.
START ACTING ACCORDINGLY.

I agree. But, I'm not sure what that means for bonafide scientists. Are they to hire PR firms and involve themselves in such a way that yet another institution becomes politicized through-and-through? It's bad enough that so much is already politicized. Maybe that's the nature of the beast since government touches virtually every aspect of our lives. But, I'm wondering if there is a better way than poisoning the efforts of science with political action.

Many thanks to you folks who offered some thoughts on my new intelligent design snow flake theory. And New Agers beat me to the snow flake theory? Who cares, Behe didn't invent his irreducible complexity theory nor did he give credit to the originator of the idea, so why should I? :-)

I am enjoying my new role of an "intelligent design theorist" already. I am going to send an email with a copy of my theory to the Disco and apply to be a Disco "Fellow".

By the way I am thinking of calling my new (planned) book

Intelligent Design: So Many Flakes, So Little Time

Catchy, huh? Yep this new intelligent design snow flake theory of mine is gonna make me rich!

After promising pain in childbirth, the Intelligent Designer likely tightened up the pelvic girdle so that squeezing children out caused plenty of pain. .. (An aside: clearly then, anesthesiologists are subverting the Designer's will, and may be taken to be in league with the Anti-Designer)

I'm sure you are aware that when anesthesia was first introduced to relieve the pain of childbirth, fundamentalist Christians ("guided by the Holy Spirit in all understanding of God's Word") did their utmost to make sure women could not receive such pain relief precisely because it was not the Will of Allah Yahweh Jesus' Dad.

you go girl!

er the above refered to Mr. C's snowflake business venture...

It seems to me that ID functions as a meta-principal or overarching ontology. Thus it as testable(or untestable) as any other overarching ontology such as materialism.

Of course, modern evolutionary biology doesn't seek to test materialism or pose materialism as the overarching explanation, even though it uses materialism as a method.

In a sense then, ID at the most general level is consistent with modern evolutionary biology and consistent with creationism. And that of course is the real problem.

At the more specific level, ID is really an argument that there must somewhere along the line be a specific, identifiable, extra or supernatural intervention. So ID is consistent with multiple positions:

1. Young Earth Creationism
2. Old Earth Creationism
3. Progressive Creationism
4. Teleological and saltationist theories of evolution

The most ID could accomplish therefore is some means of testiong saltationist or teleological theories. Of course, in some ways these concepts have been tested and rejected. And also, it is not even clear that they would of necessity be inconsistent with materialism.

Ahhhhhh, the snow flake. Don't let evilutionists and materialistic humanists fool you with the silly idea of fractals, GOD did it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just in case I am been sarcastic.

It seems to me that ID functions as a meta-principal or overarching ontology. Thus it as testable(or untestable) as any other overarching ontology such as materialism.

Of course, modern evolutionary biology doesn't seek to test materialism or pose materialism as the overarching explanation, even though it uses materialism as a method.

In a sense then, ID at the most general level is consistent with modern evolutionary biology and consistent with creationism. And that of course is the real problem.

At the more specific level, ID is really an argument that there must somewhere along the line be a specific, identifiable, extra or supernatural intervention. So ID is consistent with multiple positions: 1. Young Earth Creationism 2. Old Earth Creationism 3. Progressive Creationism 4. Teleological and saltationist theories of evolution

The most ID could accomplish therefore is some means of testiong saltationist or teleological theories. Of course, in some ways these concepts have been tested and rejected. And also, it is not even clear that they would of necessity be inconsistent with materialism.

Re "Posted by Mr Christopher on January 19, 2006 02:23 PM (e)

Many thanks to you folks who offered some thoughts on my new intelligent design snow flake theory."

So, now I have somebody to blame for the 4 to 6 inches of snow that the weather channel predicts for today and tonight? ;)

Henry

Gorbe,
What would stop a "bona-fide" scientist from acting politically?
Really, I think that we non-scientists (We outnumber you, remember) need you to keep on doing the work that you are best qualified to do;
adding to the base of human knowledge.
My point is that we should recognize that engaging in a debate with the IDiots is completely pointless - like trying to drive an ounce of logic into Larry's brain.
The pretense by the DI to be engaging in a scientific debate is a ruse. They are succeeding in framing the debate on thier terms. They need to be addressed in a political fashion, which means using political tools to castrate them and stop them from spreading their poison throughout our society by confusing our children about what is science.

Comment #73567 Posted by Tiax on January 19, 2006 12:42 PM (e) Gorbe wrote: Do the IDers have a definition for what lack-of-design is? Because that is the crux of disproof. Good point. It's like in the old watchmaker argument, where you stumbled upon a watch on the beach. If you're going to say, "There is something special about this watch that makes me notice it as being designed." then there must also be something special about the beach you found it on that makes that beach not designed. Therefore, the beach is not the product of design. Creationism would therefore be disproven. The alternative is to say that God can also make stuff that doesn't appear to be designed, and then you've got a rather pathetic argument: "Anything that is designed proves God made it, but anything that is not designed does not disprove that God made it."

The author felt that not only was there "meaning" in these watery designs, but supernatural influences that any human could "tap into".

Given the connection to Madonna, though, I'm not so sure that the water can be called intelligently designed.

Dan -

"My point is that we should recognize that engaging in a debate with the IDiots is completely pointless - like trying to drive an ounce of logic into Larry's brain"

What planet do you live on, Dan? It must be a relatively pleasant place.

Here on earth, intelligent design advocates have successfully allied themselves with an aggressive political movement and deep-pocketed contributors.

Their goal is to force tax-funded public schools to teach "intelligent design" as science. But "intelligent design" is an invented religious or pseudo-religious dogma. Its true goal is actually political - the idea is to claim, in tax-funded public schools that "science proves" a certain narrow dogma to be the "only true" religion, and then (the real goal) to argue that the religious dogma "commands" unpopular political changes.

If we allow them to succeed, the following consequences will occur...
1) American students will receive inadequate, and indeed distorted, science education. The consequences of this could be very negative.
2) The constitutional rights of American families will be violated, as their children are falsely taught, in the public schools that American tax dollars support, that some other guy's religion is "proven by science".
3) Ultimatey, the goal is to claim, falsely, in tax-funded schools, that currently unpopular political policies, such as extreme oppression of homosexuals, for example, are "commanded" by a "religion" that is "scientifically proven". Some may feel that here, in point 3), I am exaggerating, but I stand by it. Even if you question this point, points 1) and 2) above are indisputable.

Personally, I suspect that many "ID" supporters don't even believe in "ID" themselves, and claim to support it for poltical reasons only. Naturally, I can't read minds, and this is only a conjecture, albeit one I consider reasonable.

We understand that committed stooges of the ID movement like Lary Farfman won't back down, no matter what evidence is presented. The point of the debate is to reach the rest of the public, and prevent the "ID movement" from achieving its nefarious goals.

Dan -

"My point is that we should recognize that engaging in a debate with the IDiots is completely pointless - like trying to drive an ounce of logic into Larry's brain"

What planet do you live on, Dan? It must be a relatively pleasant place.

Here on earth, intelligent design advocates have successfully allied themselves with an aggressive political movement and deep-pocketed contributors.

Their goal is to force tax-funded public schools to teach "intelligent design" as science. But "intelligent design" is an invented religious or pseudo-religious dogma. Its true goal is actually political - the idea is to claim, in tax-funded public schools that "science proves" a certain narrow dogma to be the "only true" religion, and then (the real goal) to argue that the religious dogma "commands" unpopular political changes.

If we allow them to succeed, the following consequences will occur...
1) American students will receive inadequate, and indeed distorted, science education. The consequences of this could be very negative.
2) The constitutional rights of American families will be violated, as their children are falsely taught, in the public schools that American tax dollars support, that some other guy's religion is "proven by science".
3) Ultimatey, the goal is to claim, falsely, in tax-funded schools, that currently unpopular political policies, such as extreme oppression of homosexuals, for example, are "commanded" by a "religion" that is "scientifically proven". Some may feel that here, in point 3), I am exaggerating, but I stand by it. Even if you question this point, points 1) and 2) above are indisputable.

Personally, I suspect that many "ID" supporters don't even believe in "ID" themselves, and claim to support it for poltical reasons only. Naturally, I can't read minds, and this is only a conjecture, albeit one I consider reasonable.

We understand that committed stooges of the ID movement like Lary Farfman won't back down, no matter what evidence is presented. The point of the debate is to reach the rest of the public, and prevent the "ID movement" from achieving its nefarious goals.

harold opined... Personally, I suspect that many "ID" supporters don't even believe in "ID" themselves, and claim to support it for poltical reasons only. Naturally, I can't read minds, and this is only a conjecture, albeit one I consider reasonable.

I have long marveled at the zombie-like quality of the IDiots. Their complete unwillingness to let themselves be... affected... by the real world is truly daunting. Their seeming reaction to Dover is simply to ignore it and marshal on elsewhere. The threads of the Panda's Thumb are full of variations of this observation --- they're impervious to input, they don't use logic, they don't use reason, and so forth.

So what are we to DO about it, people? Seems to me that the conversation around here needs to include much more ideating and strategizing about how science can co-exist with anti-scientists. I say "co-exist" because "defeat" is probably not an option. There must be a posture, an attitude, a clever logical arrangement, that will confine anti-science to a relatively harmless place; sort of like trying to prevent your HIV from becoming full-blown AIDS.

All pro-science people need to think carefully about this issue. Perhaps scientists as a whole could commit to being more open with the public, but only by working thru science-friendly writers. Perhaps we need an easily accessible national database of science-savvy PR firms, Ad Agencies, and freelance writers. Perhaps we need to work with theistic evolutionists to dilute the "science-vs.-religion" canard. I don't know; I'm making all this up, but let's talk about it; that's how ideas evolve.

Defense of science will be a multifaceted effort, and there should be room for anyone who wants to help. Local "Citizens For Science" groups, traditional grassroots organizing, actual factual refutations, and anything else that may help should be encouraged. And all such efforts should share a commitment to cooperation with each other. This is going to be a permanent part of life, folks. Let's start figuring out how to deal with it.

It's true that there's no way to falsify the bare assertion that a cosmic designer exists.

Sorry, Larry, it's too late to try to get your money back for those gold coins you bought at inflated prices with your retirement savings allowance.

Those guys are long gone.

Oh, and about those "genuine relic" Confederate battle flags you sent away for: you're probably beginnning to suspect why they have those Chinese ideograms in the lower left corner of the reverse side.

The falsfiability requirement for ideas to be catagorized as "scientific" is somewhat more complicated than presented above. It does not necessitate that the idea be put to the test (that can falsify it) within a narrow time frame imposed arbitrarily by those opposed to the idea. The requirement is much more flexible than that.

Consider for example the prediction by General Relativity that light will bend under the influence of a nearby mass. This idea was put to the test in 1918 during a total solar eclipse and was confirmed. But what if the relative distances and sizes of the sun and moon were somewhat different than they are, such that a total solar eclipse were not possible. We may very well not have been able, to this day, to put this idea to the falsifiability test. Would that mean that opponents of the idea would be justified in labeling it "unscientific"? That hardly seems reasonable.

The falsifiability requirement is one of principle. To be scientific an idea must be falsifiable IN PRINCIPLE. If for some secondary consideration the test cannot be performed at this time, the idea nevertheless is scientific. Of course, it may also be an unconfirmed idea. So while it is "scientific" it cannot become an established law or theory until tested and confirmed.

This raises the question of whether ID is falsifiable in principle. If we could duplicate the conditions prevalent on the early earth, either in a lab or on some other planet, and put the ingredients together, assuming we have figured out with reasonable certainty what those conditions were, than we can put the ingredients together and see if IC evolves. If it does not, then ID is confirmed. A designer was necessary and it is not active now. If it does, then ID is falsified. No designer is required. (Unless one proposes that the designer is secretly repeating his work in the lab in order to deceive us.)

assuming we have figured out with reasonable certainty what those conditions were, than we can put the ingredients together and see if IC evolves. If it does not, then ID is confirmed. A designer was necessary and it is not active now. If it does, then ID is falsified

Consider for example the prediction by General Relativity that light will bend under the influence of a nearby mass. This idea was put to the test in 1918 during a total solar eclipse and was confirmed. But what if the relative distances and sizes of the sun and moon were somewhat different than they are, such that a total solar eclipse were not possible. We may very well not have been able, to this day, to put this idea to the falsifiability test. Would that mean that opponents of the idea would be justified in labeling it "unscientific"? That hardly seems reasonable.

Consider for example the prediction by General Relativity that light will bend under the influence of a nearby mass

STJ,

I was obviously referring to configurations that are claimed by ID proponents to be irredicibly complex. I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you. I guess I was wrong about that.

STJ,

I was obviously referring to configurations that are described by some, such as ID proponents, as "irredicibly complex". I thought I did not need to spell it out for you. I guess I was wrong about that.

Sorry for the double posting above.

Steve S,

If you would read carefully you would notice that I stated "We may very well not have been able, to this day, to put *this idea* to the falsifiability test". That referred to the specific idea that light will bend near a mass, not the whole of GR.

gravitational lensing

Ultimatey, the goal is to claim, falsely, in tax-funded schools, that currently unpopular political policies, such as extreme oppression of homosexuals, for example, are "commanded" by a "religion" that is "scientifically proven". Some may feel that here, in point 3), I am exaggerating, but I stand by it.

We understand that committed stooges of the ID movement like Lary Farfman won't back down

Hey Carol, why, again, did you say science should give a flying fig about your religious opinions?

I was obviously referring to configurations that are claimed by ID proponents to be irredicibly complex. I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you. I guess I was wrong about that.

Carol, admit you were wrong. You obviously did not mean that if one particular consequence of GR wasn't tested GR would be treated as unscientific. Come on, don't go Toast of Paley on us.

Steve s,

Apparently you still do not understand what I said. How dense can one get?

I said what I meant and meant what I said. No more, no less. If the bending of light near a mass could not be tested, then THAT IDEA would be treated as unscientific, if we apply the falsifiability requirement too stringently.

Steviepinhead,

Gravitational lensing was discovered many decades later. And what I said about the eclipse can be said just as well about that phenomenon.

How dense can one get?

So, Oh Carol, having obviously forgotten completely about the many near term tests for relativity (gosh, Carol, I seem to recall some um, uh, physics guys like Michelson and Morley using revolving mirrors and really high-tech things like, oh, surveying and contemporaneous telescopes, to measure the speed of light...), now wants us to believe that she meant all along to say, "Let's imagine that there were no tests or experiments whatsoever that could be run to falsify Einstein's theory.

Which isn't, of course, what she said.

At best, that just gets us back to issues that we've discussed here many times before, like "What's the difference between string theory and ID?" blah blah blah.

It must be nice to be so self-focused that you never hear have to pay attention to the signals sent by anyone else. Simplifies things considerably, at least until the first you ignore the sirens as you're crossing the intersection.

How do I know Larry's not an IDer? Because he's been here over a week and he hasn't preached at us, even once. No IDer could do that.

It's an awful lot of effort to exert just for an apparent piece of performance art.

Steviepinhead,

The speed of light had no direct bearing on GENERAL relativity and Michelson and Morely could not themselves go from the speed of light even to SPECIAL relativity.

Of course there are other pieces of evidentiary support for GR. The big one you forget is the path of Mercury. But that has NO bearing on my point which you too do not seem to understand. Either because you choose not to or because you are as dense as the other steve.

Steve s,

I find the second half of your post above very revealing. I quote, "But if an hypothesis was created by a nobody, had no evidence, contradicted the regnant theory, went untested for 90 years, and was advocated by a tiny fringe of religious zealots, then yeah, I'd probably say it was unscientific."

So this is where the dog is buried! ID is not scientific because you do not care for the people proposing it! It's all about personalities, to you, is it not? Some scientist you are!

So let us stop beating around the bush. To be construed as "scientific" an idea must come from a source acceptable to those who call themselves scientists. All others need not apply.

I was obviously referring to configurations that are claimed by ID proponents to be irredicibly complex. I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you. I guess I was wrong about that.

Consider for example the prediction by General Relativity that light will bend under the influence of a nearby mass. This idea was put to the test in 1918 during a total solar eclipse and was confirmed. But what if the relative distances and sizes of the sun and moon were somewhat different than they are, such that a total solar eclipse were not possible. We may very well not have been able, to this day, to put this idea to the falsifiability test.

I wish Carol would just admit she hates science, especially the definition and purview of it, and have done with it.

It's been painful to watch her twist in the wind these last months.

Oh please, Carol, I hope you're banging on about my post.

Irredicibly complex seems relative to me. Just becuase you can't work it out doesn't mean that God did it. Also, if one assumes that knowledge will increase forever ( a reasonable extrapolation) then IC becomes meaningless.

just a clarification, Rich, Carol doesn't actually support the "teaching" of ID, but thinks scientists wrong for thinking it "not science", and thinks we should teach philosophy in science class.

clear?

(If so, maybe you could explain it to me?)

I got news for you, Larry's 'been here' for close to a month.

Steviepinhead,

Not to continue beating a dead horse here, but here is a bit of basic physics you seem to not know:

(1) The rotating mirrors experiment had nothing to do even with special relativity. You are confusing this with the Michelson Inteferometer which showed that the speed of light is the same in different directions, thereby destroying the ether hypothesis.

(2) Einstein was not animated to SR by Michelson's experimental results, but by his own theoretical assumption that Maxwell's equations ought to be applicable to all inertial frames of reference. In other words, Einstein would have been driven to SR even had Michelson's experiment not been performed. This is very clear from Einstein's papers published a few years ago.

It would behoove you to know what you are talking about before assuming that condenscending tone of yours.

Sir_Toejam, I come for thr banality but stay for the book plugs..

Not to continue beating a dead horse here..

but it's what you're so good at Carol, why stop now?

any chance you will focus on criticisms of the substance of your posts, rather than the minutiae?

Carol, why, again, do you think science should accept your religious opinions as "evidence"?

Not to continue beating a dead horse...

assuming that condenscending tone of yours.

Carol, your stated point--which you have still not admitted that you got wrong--was that, absent the eclipse results, we "very well [may] not have been able, to this day, to put this idea [General Relativity] to the falsifiability test."

I was pointing out, rather more generally, that the experimental physicists of Einstein's day were perfectly capable of tinkering together innovative ways to test the ideas the theoretical physicists were coming up with. I didn't specify GR vs. SR. However, I'll happily apologize for failing to make my point as clearly as I might have. Heck, I'll even admit that you seem to know a little more about the experiments of that day than appeared from your earlier pronouncements.

See how easy that is to do?

Give it a try. You might not feel better, but the rest of us would regain a smidge of respect for you.

Give it a try. You might not feel better, but the rest of us would regain a smidge of respect for you.

The Pound-Rebka experiment is a pretty good test of general relativity, as is the accuracy of the current global positioning system.

but stay for the book plugs..

Just because I said 'book' doesn't mean it doesn't fit. Carol clearly thinks science comes out of people's arses...

I was really tempted to make a raunchy pun off the phrase 'book plugs', but thought better of it...

Sir_Toejam, Think of the BUTT of the Joke..

Carol wrote: This raises the question of whether ID is falsifiable in principle. If we could duplicate the conditions prevalent on the early earth, either in a lab or on some other planet, and put the ingredients together, assuming we have figured out with reasonable certainty what those conditions were, than we can put the ingredients together and see if IC evolves. If it does not, then ID is confirmed. A designer was necessary and it is not active now. If it does, then ID is falsified. No designer is required. (Unless one proposes that the designer is secretly repeating his work in the lab in order to deceive us.)

yes, yes, rich. no need to be obvious. I just thought it would be a great decoration for the bathroom wall.

You know, add some color.

Hey has anyone applied Dembski's freaky deaky mathematics to a snowflake?

"Steve Reuland over on Panda's Thumb is babbling about whether some ID strawman du jour can be falsified. Let's examine the real issue.

First of all, we'll use this definition of evolution given to the Kansas Board of Education in a letter from 38 (count 'em) Nobel laureates better known as the Weisel 38.

"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."

an unguided, unplanned process

As all of us who don't cling to strawman versions of ID know, the only bone we have to pick with that definition is the unguided, unplanned part. We are of the position that evolution, in part or in whole, was a guided or planned process.

So how does one go about falsifying unguided evolution? By demonstrating that the process was guided, of course.

ID is the means by which this theory of unguided evolution can be falsified. If ID cannot be falsified and is itself just religion disguised as science, where does that leave unguided evolution? Why it leaves unguided evolution as unfalsifiable pseudo-science.

Sorry Steve Reuland, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it to. Either ID is science or unguided evolution is pseudo-science. Takes yo pick and let me know when you have a final answer."

Says DaveScot.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/689

of course, you can always go to the internet's "reader's digest" for a nice overview of fractals in nature too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

I even have some excellent macro photographs of the arms of a particular species of holothurid (sea cucumber) that exhibits a modelable fractal pattern in the way its arms are formed.

er, should anybody care to see them, just let me know. They really are quite elegant.

Says DaveScot.

As all of us who don't cling to strawman versions of ID know, the only bone we have to pick with that definition is the unguided, unplanned part. We are of the position that evolution, in part or in whole, was a guided or planned process.

So how does one go about falsifying unguided evolution? By demonstrating that the process was guided, of course.

ID is the means by which this theory of unguided evolution can be falsified. If ID cannot be falsified and is itself just religion disguised as science, where does that leave unguided evolution? Why it leaves unguided evolution as unfalsifiable pseudo-science.

Sorry Steve Reuland, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it to. Either ID is science or unguided evolution is pseudo-science. Takes yo pick and let me know when you have a final answer.

— DaveScot

"we stopped caring about anything that lunatic says ages ago."

Er, quite right.

Consider the following:

If "unguided evolution" can't be falsified, then what exactly are the IC or Cambrian explosion arguments supposed to prove? Dave apparently hasn't thought that one out.

I find the second half of your post above very revealing. I quote, "But if an hypothesis was created by a nobody, had no evidence, contradicted the regnant theory, went untested for 90 years, and was advocated by a tiny fringe of religious zealots, then yeah, I'd probably say it was unscientific." So this is where the dog is buried! ID is not scientific because you do not care for the people proposing it! It's all about personalities, to you, is it not? Some scientist you are! So let us stop beating around the bush. To be construed as "scientific" an idea must come from a source acceptable to those who call themselves scientists. All others need not apply.

If an hypothesis was created by a nobody, had hard evidence, contradicted the regnant theory, and was thoroughly tested, and was advocated by a tiny fringe of religious zealots, then yeah, we'd have to admit it was scientific

— Odd Digit

From the post

I know, I know, it's not really possible. But ID advocates keep claiming it's possible, so it's important to revisit the issue every now and then. The IDists claim that since the arguments for ID can be falsified, then ID itself is falsifiable. But of course this doesn't follow. Having an argument proven wrong doesn't disprove a hypothesis. And this is especially true when the arguments themselves (which are simply arguments against evolution) do not logically support the hypothesis to begin with.

This is one reason why I dislike the "falsifiability" definition of whether or not theory is "scientific." I prefer to use the phraseology, is the theory consistent with the evidence. If it is not, one might seriously question why it is not, and adjust the theory accordingly to fit the evidence. Einstein did that with General Relativity, which was an adjustment of Newton's theory of gravity. Max Planck did that with quantum theory, which arose from his study of blackbody radiation, and which was made use of in the Stern Gerlach experiment (1920), the deBroglie and Schroedinger formulations and so forth. Einstein's GR was not generally accepted until there was evidence to support it. QM was based on evidence as it was being formulated.

What evidence is there to support ID? None, as far as I can tell.

Regarding Carol's little rant,

I quote, "But if an hypothesis was created by a nobody, had no evidence, contradicted the regnant theory, went untested for 90 years, and was advocated by a tiny fringe of religious zealots, then yeah, I'd probably say it was unscientific."

Um, yes. If proponents of the theory, whether or not they are religious zealots, after 90 years have been unable or unwilling to produce evidence for their proposition (I won't even call it a hypothesis, much less a theory) as far as I'm concerned, it isn't worth dealing with. If and when they present evidence for their proposition, I'll sit up and listen. But not until then. There are only so many hours in the day. They should be encouraged to put up or shut up.

The issue is the presence of evidence for the proposition, not its falsifiability. Einstein's GR when he initially proposed it was interesting and imaginative, but it could hardly have been considered a theory until evidence was obtained that supported his proposition. Einstein proposed a number of mechanisms to test his proposition, and they have mostly worked out flawlessly.

That is the problem with the string theorists--they haven't proposed a mechanism to test their proposals.

What evidence is there to support ID? None, as far as I can tell.

There are at least twenty dramatic examples of fine-tuning. They certainly support ID.

buddha,

What a joke. A link to an oddball paper that has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Will you also accept links to unpublished papers on other websites in Texas as scientific proof of ID?

My favorite conclusion of the Ikeda and Jefferys "paper" is that more fine tuning means less evidence for a supernatural creation of the universe.

So, buddha, since you are obviously a proponent of this "research", I suggest you and all the PTers look for fine-tuning wherever you can find it.

Oh, and call Stanford prof Leonard Susskind, who is going around saying that it is either ID or multiverses (Super String landscape.) He is apparently unaware that all the fine tuning that he is worried about, and hopes that String Theory can explain, even though it can't be tested, is actually, according to this unpublished paper, arguing against ID--so there's no problem to solve!!

Speaking as an atheist and based on my cursory reading of the subject (which is very far away from my area of expertise), it does seem as if fine tuning is the ID strong point. I think some posters on PT may be slightly underestimating this.

For anyone interested, check out the following news article (subscription only) in Nature a few weeks ago:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7072/pdf/439010a.pdf

From the above, a quote I'm sure David will enjoy:

For two decades now, theorists in the think-big field of cosmology have been stymied by a mathematical quirk in their equations. If the number controlling the growth of the Universe since the Big Bang is just slightly too high, the Universe expands so rapidly that protons and neutrons never come close enough to bond into atoms. If it is just ever-so-slightly too small, it never expands enough, and everything remains too hot for even a single nucleus to form. Similar problems afflict the observed masses of elementary particles and the strengths of fundamental forces.

In other words, if you believe the equations of the world's leading cosmologists, the probability that the Universe would turn out this way by chance are infinitesimal --- one in a very large number. "It's like you're throwing darts, and the bullseye is just one part in 10^120 of the dart board," says Leonard Susskind, a string theorist based at Stanford University in California. "It's just stupid."

and also

To explain the perfectly adjusted cosmological constant one would need at least 10^60 universes, says Polchinski. Then, in 2000, he and Raphael Bousso at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, calculated that there could be a lot more than a million solutions. "The calculation had such topological complexity that you could potentially get 10^500 universes," Polchinski says. With so many solutions, says Weinberg, it becomes easier to imagine that we happen to live in a Universe that seems tailored for our existence.

Easy to imagine, hard to prove. Because other universes would be causally separated from our own, it seems impossible to tell whether our cosmos is the only one, or one of many. Most scientists find this disturbing. Talk of a Universe fine-tuned for life has already attracted supporters of intelligent design, who claim that an intelligent force shaped evolution. If there's no way to tell whether the values of scientific constants are a coincidence, the movement's followers argue, then why not also consider them evidence of God's handiwork.

It seems to me that there are potential explanations for this and future research may turn up perfectly plausible (and natural) solutions. However, for the moment, I'd say that this is by far and away the IDists strongest argument.

There are at least twenty dramatic examples of fine-tuning. They certainly support ID.

However, for the moment, I'd say that this is by far and away the IDists strongest argument.

Ogee,

What is the missing knowledge about the fine tuning that makes it an argument from incredulity? Please elaborate. I contend there is no missing knowledge, no "gap", upon which the fine-tuning-as-evidence-for-ID rests. If you think there is one, tell us what it is.

Am I the only one who is so tired of the Rev Dr Lenny Flank asking Carol and David the same old questions?
You know the ones,Why should science give a fig about your religious opinions,David tell Carol why her part of the bible is now worthless.
For the sake of us all,David and Carol just go ahead and answer them,should only take a few minuets.

JONBOY,

Actually I have answered them, both honestly (my opinions are just my opinions and nobody should take them for anything else and they are not authoritative) and whimsically (I know the truth because I'm a Calvinist and we just know these things) but nothing stops Lenny from asking again, so why bother? He is easy to ignore.

How does it go again ?

Once a measurable item found in nature is described and verified, that is to say available to consciousness via language or Logos the word^TM, it becomes part of "methodological naturalism" and is no longer "super natural".

In the beginning there was the word^TM and the word was G_D.

Now way.... way.... back...Australolenny's carrion delivery guy didn't actually use words he just sort of pointed and jumped around (much to the amusement of Australolenny's tribe) . Australolenny came from a long line of slightly superior apes and having nothing to do in the evenings, since he had discovered fire and kept up with the latest fads in whacking unwanted guests (long pointy sticks) and could hurl a decently accurate rock, decided to invent a word.

He was sick of all this pointing and damn jumping around. This happened as a direct result of him burning his finger on a hot rock near the fire. "FRRRRCHSTSHAKE" he said, this was the first word invented by a pre-ancient man. Now he noticed that everyone recognized immediately what he was on about even those with their backs to him, much jumping and pointing as well as repeating the word endlessly confirmed to Australolenny that this sound had possibilities.

Quickly the whole world was described by these new fangled word thingys and it was good. The words were very useful and soon no one could remember a time when words did not exist, but they remembered the beginning of the word^TM. The word^TM became the most powerful thing known to Australolenny's tribe because everything WAS the word^TM. The whole tribe knew that the word^TM fed them, provided warmth, births, deaths and celebrations. Everyone had to learn the the word^TM otherwise they were not part of the word^TM. The word^TM protected them because everyone knew exactly what the word^TM was. When they were young the word^TM kept them in line and after they were initiated they were expected to discover what the word^TM actually meant by exploring the word^TM

Now a strange thing happened the word for 'green' was causing cognitive dissonance for some members of the tribe who could not tell the difference between red and green, This was deeply disturbing because the word^TM was not real anymore for some of the tribe.
Now AustraloHeddle, one of the less wise members of the tribe, and his rather stuffy sidekick AustraloCarol decide this would not do. Some kids were being ridiculed because they could not see the word^TM and the parents were being sidelined because the word^TM might not protect them when times got tough. So they decided to fix the problem by removing the word^TM for red and just had The One True Word ^TM for red and green ...green and everyone was happy.

This story is reflected in a Native North American tribal language and the word^TM in another. They actually believed the word^TM would protect them against the white mans guns.
Reality always trumps the word^TM.

Let L = "The universe exists and contains Life."

Let F = "The conditions in the universe are 'life-Friendly,' in the sense described above."

Let N = "The universe is governed solely by Naturalistic law."

Then, 0 = P(N | ~F & L) < P(N | L) represents evidence against naturalism (i.e. a miracle, but you have never demonstrated ~F). But then, P(N | L) < P(N | F & L), which represents evidence for naturalism. Do you disagree with this, Heddle?

A similar argument made by Elliott Sober was published in the Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Religion.

If there's no way to tell whether the values of scientific constants are a coincidence, the movement's followers argue, then why not also consider them evidence of God's handiwork.

First, this is just an argument from incredulity: "Wow, that's, like, totally awesome, therefore, like, Goddidit!"

Second, "considering" something to be "evidence of God's handiwork" is not the same as developing a testable hypothesis to ascertain whether it IS what some guy might "consider" it to be. Valid theology, perhaps, but not science.

Third, there's an unresolved cause-and-effect question here: is the Universe tailored to support life, or did life arise and evolve to tailor itself to the Universe in which it found itself? Is there any proof that life-but-not-as-we-know-it cannot have evolved in any of the possible alternate universes?

Finally, I could use the same sort of argument to "prove" that God specifically created me as I am: I mean, it's, like, so improbable that my parents would have met when they did, and, like, such a coincidence that they fell in love with each other, at the same time, and, gosh, isn't it wierd that they had sex when they did, and, like, that one sperm cell out of millions ended up making half of my genes...I mean, if they'd had sex just a few minutes earlier or later, a different sperm cell would have made the rendezvous, and I'd be, like, a different person, y'know? So it must be God arranged everything so I'd be exactly who I am, 'cause the probability of it happening is so low otherwise...

Mr. (Dr?) Heddle,

Just curious. Ignore if you wish. How did you jump from "the Universe is fine-tuned" to Calvinism? I mean I can understand saying "Wow!" or even suspecting that Goddiditall, but why Calvinism specifically? Speaking as an atheist, I can't see how you made that jump (and IIRC, you said you were an atheist or at least irreligious, when you were first informed about fine-tuning).

What is the missing knowledge about the fine tuning that makes it an argument from incredulity? Please elaborate. I contend there is no missing knowledge, no "gap", upon which the fine-tuning-as-evidence-for-ID rests. If you think there is one, tell us what it is.

What is the missing knowledge about the fine tuning that makes it an argument from incredulity?

Ogee, don't let yourself be confused - Heddle has, as usual, failed to mention that what he calls ID and what the DI calls ID are completely incompatible. Heddle assures that the Big Bang is the proof of God's existence, whilst the DI assures us that the Cambrian explosion is the proof of God. Both ignore the most basic facts about statistical analysis, though, so they are similar in their crankiness.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

SteveF typed earlier
"
It seems to me that there are potential explanations for this and future research may turn up perfectly plausible (and natural) solutions. However, for the moment, I'd say that this is by far and away the IDists strongest argument."

Since every metaphysics is a projection of our own intelligence and creativity there is a very simple explanation why the CC is the way it is. Our intelligence produced it, then some people anthropomorphized it onto the observed result.

It just is.

Nothing more... nothing less.

If we were not here to blather on about it it would still be the same.

It's history.

Who ever gets to pontificate on it can make it anything they want it to be.

And when we die it won't make a damn bit of difference what happened 13.5 Billion years ago.

The theologians and politicians can crow until the cows come home and as long as they get someone else to milk them they can sit with their feet up and plan the world they want for everyone else in the tried and true method since time immemorial...... tell us all what G_D is thinking.

Using fine tuning logic am I supposed to conclude that as the odds of Earth's history leading to my existence is miniscule therefore history was designed to result in me?

Laugh or cry?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/689

Glen Davidson, the ontology supported by modern science is *not* the weird phenomenalism Kant espoused. Consider any law statement in physics. Is there reference to a subject in the psychological sense? No. Hence, the Kantian dogma about never knowing things in themselves is radically and distasterously false. (And was when he wrote, too, for that matter.)

Savagemutt you typed re Heddle:
"
How did you jump from "the Universe is fine-tuned" to Calvinism? I mean I can understand saying "Wow!" or even suspecting that Goddiditall, but why Calvinism specifically?
"

Well it goes like this.
Keep the big guy at a nice distance ....say 12-15 Billion years and he now has no responsibility over what goes on in with the apes who can say whatever they like in "The one True Word Of GodTM"

Completely "open season" on whatever moves and what is not defended by infidels. Even then because they are 'infidels' just line 'em up against a wall and euphemism them.

Savagemutt you typed re Heddle:
"
How did you jump from "the Universe is fine-tuned" to Calvinism? [and every other 'ism]I mean I can understand saying "Wow!" or even suspecting that Goddiditall, but why Calvinism specifically?
"
Well it goes like this:

keep the big guy at a nice safe distance...say 12-15 Billion years ago.

Then that allows the apes 'open season' on everything that can be moved and that is not defended by infidels, including 'infidels' just line 'em up agaisnt a wall and euphemism them all in the name of "The one true word of G_D^TM"

Third, there's an unresolved cause-and-effect question here: is the Universe tailored to support life, or did life arise and evolve to tailor itself to the Universe in which it found itself?

This is one reason why I dislike the "falsifiability" definition of whether or not theory is "scientific." I prefer to use the phraseology, is the theory consistent with the evidence. If it is not, one might seriously question why it is not, and adjust the theory accordingly to fit the evidence.

— raj

Three wise men -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [holy music] BABY BRIAN COHEN: [crying] WISE MAN #1: Ahem. MANDY COHEN: Ohhh! [whump] Who are you? WISE MAN #1: We are three wise men. MANDY: What?! WISE MAN #1: We are three wise men. MANDY: Well, what are you doing creeping around a cow shed at two o'clock in the morning? That doesn't sound very wise to me. WISE MAN #3: We are astrologers. WISE MAN #1: We have come from the East. MANDY: Is this some kind of joke? WISE MAN #2: We wish to praise the infant. WISE MAN #1: We must pay homage to him. MANDY: Homage? You're all drunk. It's disgusting. Out! The lot, out! WISE MAN #1: No-- MANDY: Bursting in here with tales about oriental fortune tellers. Come on. Out! WISE MAN #2: No, no. We must see him. MANDY: Go and praise someone else's brat! Go on! WISE MAN #2: We-- WISE MAN #1: We were led by a star. MANDY: Or led by a bottle, more like. Go on. Out!

Hm, this is interesting. DaveScot disputes that ID cannot be falsified, but he doesn't offer one single example of how it could be. I wonder why? As I pointed out in my PT post (which few here seem to have read), John West and Casey Luskin offered an example of how ID could be falsified (by finding precursors to Cambrian fauna). But if this is the case, then ID is definitely false, since such precursors have been found. If Dave would like to explain why this doesn't falsify ID, and how West and Luskin got it wrong, perhaps he'll see what the problem is. But true to form, that issue is ignored entirely. Instead we get some dualistic argument that if ID can't be falsified, then neither can evolution. The problem with this reasoning is as follows: 1. It is true that the proposition that some "unguided, undirected" process produced living things cannot be falsified. If evolutionary theory were limited to this bare statement, then it would indeed be unfalsifiable. 2. But evolution via natural selection is not limited to saying that living organisms came about "unguided". It is a specific mechanistic process by which change occurs, and is therefore falsifiable. Likewise, various theories of "undirected" hurricane formation can be falsified just so long as they provide some specific explanation of how hurricanes form, rather than say that they were "unguided" and leave it at that. I will also note that ID polemics consist almost entirely of attempts to falsify evolution, so the claim that it's unfalsifiable is highly inconsistent with almost everything the ID movement has ever said. 3. As with #1, the mere notion that some "guided" process, or undefined "intelligence", produced living things is also not falsifiable. And as I explained on PT, you can't falsify it simply because your arguments against evolution fall apart. Even if we demonstrate that natural processes *could* have created everything from the ground up, this doesn't prove that a magical designer *did not* intervene during life's history. Going back to the hurricane example, just because we understand how hurricanes form naturally, this doesn't mean that God cannot magically make hurricanes (as the mayor of New Orleans apparently thinks He did). 4. ID could in principle be falsifiable if it consisted of a specific theory that made predictions. But this is precisely what leading ID advocates have staunchly avoided. The mere identity of the designer, its motives, its capabilities, etc. are said to be indecipherable. You can't falsify the notion that a designer intervened somewhere if there are no limitations placed on what this could mean. And that's all there is to it. ID can't be falsified because unlike evolution, there is no structure to the theory, and it tells us nothing about what we should or shouldn't expect to see out in nature. It is not simply the diametric opposite of evolutionary theory. It is a vague claim that some "intelligence" was involved in some fashion at some point in time. Without specifics, it's impossible to put this to the test. I'll also agree with whomever said that Popper's falsification criteria has problems, and is not generally accepted by philosophers of science. But this is beyond the scope of what I was getting at. My intent was to see if West and Luskin are will now agree that ID is false given the existence of a pre-Cambrian chordate, or if they're going to renege on their past statements.

will the final and inevitable trash-canning of UD finally result in the loss of interest in this topic?

any possibility we could ask WD40 to speed it up a bit?

I think he has successfully accomplished his apparent goal of trivializing his own blog.

end the farce, er i mean "street theatre", already.

So you need more than just consistency, you need a theory that is specific enough about "what happened" so that we can deliniate those observations that are consistent from those that would be inconsistent.

But true to form, that issue is ignored entirely.

My intent was to see if West and Luskin are will now agree that ID is false given the existence of a pre-Cambrian chordate, or if they're going to renege on their past statements.

you need a theory to make testable predictions about things that have not yet been observed.

Gorbe:...I'm wondering if there is a better way than poisoning the efforts of science with political action.

It is true that the proposition that some "unguided, undirected" process produced living things cannot be falsified.

I will also note that ID polemics consist almost entirely of attempts to falsify evolution, so the claim that it's unfalsifiable is highly inconsistent with almost everything the ID movement has ever said.

There are at least twenty dramatic examples of fine-tuning. They certainly support ID.

"Old arguments have an uncanny way of returning at a later time with increased strength. Thus after two centuries, Paley's reasoning still applies and is even stronger than before. The chief reason is the discovery of a new "watch" in nature. In fact, not just one watch has been found, but a whole showcase full, all beautifully constructed and running smoothly. This reference is not to literal watches, but instead, to hundreds of carefully balanced equations, constants, and properties of matter! It is further realized that if any of these quantities were changed in the slightest way, the result would be catastrophic. Scientists, in describing today's universal balance, often refer to "astonishing precision," "cosmic coincidences," or a "contrived appearance." This perspective has been summarized in the Anthropic Principle which states that the universe appears to be carefully designed for the well-being of mankind. DESIGN EXAMPLES (A) Proton Mass Three examples of design will be presented, representing scores of others. First, consider the mass of the proton. Such a property of an elementary particle might at first seem of trivial significance. However, closer inspection reveals that the proton's mass has been exactly chosen to provide both its own stability and that of the entire universe. In contrast, a free neutron (n), a slightly heavier particle, decays to a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino with a half-life of just twelve minutes. Free neutrons simply cannot persist in nature. However, if the mass of a proton were somehow increased by just 0.2%, then the proton would become the unstable particle. It would quickly decay to a neutron, positron, and neutrino: This second reaction does not occur, but it would if the proton were just slightly heavier. The implications are truly universal. Of chief significance, the hydrogen nucleus is just a single proton. Thus the hypothesized rapid decay of protons would destroy all hydrogen atoms. Furthermore, hydrogen is a major component of our bodies, as well as water molecules, the sun, and all other stars. Hydrogen is, after all, the dominant element of the universe. It is obvious that the proton's mass has been wisely planned to be slightly smaller than that of a neutron, to prevent the collapse of the universe. Also, protons are not subject to the influence of mutation or natural selection. Their physical properties were chosen from the beginning and have not changed. (B) Gravitational Force A second example of design involves the basic forces of nature. One of these is the law of universal gravitation. According to this law, all masses are found to attract each other with a force F which is inversely proportional to the square of a separation distance, r, between the masses. Discovered by Isaac Newton 300 years ago, this fundamental force holds the universe together. Gravity maintains the moon's orbit around the earth, the earth's orbit around the sun, and also the rotation of the entire Milky Way galaxy. Scientists have always wondered about the factor 2 in this equation. As Science News put it, this relation "has always seemed a little too neat. Is the exponent some fraction near two, which would be messy but might seem more empirical?"3 In an evolved universe, one would not expect such a simple relationship. Why is the factor so exact; why not 1.99 or 2.001? The gravity force has been repeatedly tested with sensitive torsion balances, showing that the factor is indeed precisely 2, at least to five decimal places, 2.00000. As with the proton's mass, any value other than 2 would lead to an eventual catastrophic decay of orbits and of the entire universe. The gravity force clearly displays elegant and essential design. (C) Strength of Electrical Charges Another basic force of nature measures the attraction or repulsion between electrical charges. The strength of the electric force can be seen in a lightning stroke, when electrons surge between charged objects. This Coulomb force also is found to vary as the inverse square of the distance between the charges. Since the electric force is much stronger than gravity, the factor 2 can be measured to a much greater precision than that of gravity. Thus far the electric force distance dependence has been measured as exactly 2, to 16 decimal places: 2.000000000000000! 4 In other words, the factor in the force equation once again remains exactly 2, to the best limits of scientific testing. These "natural" laws such as gravity and electricity might better be called God's laws. They surely reflect His purposeful planning." (Donald DeYoung, "Design in Nature; The Anthropic Principle", ICR Impact #149, Nov 1, 1985)

By the way, I see that Heddle has yet again hijacked a thread with his completely off-topic fine-tuning stuff. So I'm going to close this shortly. Bad Heddle. Bad!

Alright, I'm going to open this back up for one particular reason, but the next post on fine-tuning shows up, and I'm closing it again.

Why on earth is everyone so damn anxious to hand the nutters complete total authority to shut down any thread they choose to shut down, simply by posting to it? Why give them that power over us? Why hand them the ability to determine which threads get closed down and which don't?

Re "Using fine tuning logic am I supposed to conclude that as the odds of Earth's history leading to my existence is miniscule therefore history was designed to result in me?"

Absotively! And exactamundo!

Henry

Alright, I'm going to open this back up for one particular reason, but the next post on fine-tuning shows up, and I'm closing it again.

Hey Lenny, did you not read this bit?

I seem to remember the tone of a contributor seeming a little arrogant that commenters should know their place and discuss what they're told to discuss.

Shutting down threads in this manner can only mean that some folks here are afraid of certain ideas.

Shutting down threads in this manner can only mean that some folks here are afraid of certain ideas.

Yeech! Stepped in another PT troll dropping, if at second hand. My scrolling technique has to improve!

Carol has proven herself is afraid of any ideas that AREN'T "certain."

How empty of ideas and cowardly people who harp forever on the strength and certainty of their "faith" are! Carol, hidden in her little rat's nest of Old T. selections certainly proves the rule true.

Yeech! Stepped in another PT troll dropping, if at second hand. My scrolling technique has to improve!

Carol has proven herself is afraid of any ideas that AREN'T "certain."

How empty of ideas and cowardly people who harp forever on the strength and certainty of their "faith" are! Carol, hidden in her little rat's nest of Old T. selections certainly proves the rule true.

Let me explain something to people...

For every comment that gets added to this thread, I get one (1) email. With close to one hundred (100) comments, that means I've received close to one hundred (100) emails. I hate that. And there's nothing I can do to stop it other than closing the thread.

I am cool with it until the thread gets derailed on to something that has nothing to do with what I put the time and energy into writing about in the first place. The whole fine-tuning stuff is fascinating and worth talking about, but not on my time. David Heddle has been allowed to air his views in this forum aplenty, and this will continue to be the case as long as he follows our fairly liberal policy of not being an ass (a policy that gets enforced against people on our side too infrequently). And there are threads in which his views are topical, but this ain't one of them.

And for Lenny, please note that this is a two-way street. My calling-out Heddle for the blame was kind of unfair. When he brings his fine-tuning stuff up on a thread that has nothing to do with it, the proper response is, "You're wrong/right, but this isn't the place to argue it". But instead, seven or eight people have to pile on top of him, and next thing you know the thread is completely off-topic. Good grief, how hard is it to ignore him? Or to say, take it elsewhere?

Again, I wouldn't care so much if my email account didn't get jammed with messages that I really don't want to read because people want to argue crap that has nothing to do with what I made a post on. Have mercy on me.

Steve -

Not that this has to do with offtopic posting, but whenever i start a group topic somwhere where i expect email from it, i just set up an alias to grab the flow, and tune the incoming mail to arrive as a daily digest, rather than seperate emails.

then i can just scroll through the single email, rather than dozens of them.

this works great when you don't actually expect to be emailing directly to the posters themselves.

so, can you set the emails coming from PT to arrive as a compiled single per day digest type message?

can you set yourself up with a temporary mail alias, or even a temporary account, to handle the inflow?

makes life much more manageable, at least from my perspective.

good luck

oh, and sorry about yet one more email flooding your inbox :p

Steve Reuland,

With all due respect, have you thought about why folks cannot ignore Dave Heddle? You ask, "How hard is it to ignore him?" but should be asking "Why is it so hard to ignore him?"

Perhaps it is because folks here recognize, although they are loathe to admit it, either that his arguments may have real merit or at least that it is difficult to convince themselves that they have no merit, something they desperately need to do.

I would argue that on top of the specific content of each thread here, there are overarching themes to all threads on PT and that Heddle's ideas are within the purview of those themes. And when you post a topic here it ought to be within the spirit of free and open inquiry into all topics related to PT's overarching themes.

With all due respect, have you thought about why folks cannot ignore Dave Heddle? You ask, "How hard is it to ignore him?" but should be asking "Why is it so hard to ignore him?" Perhaps it is because folks here recognize, although they are loathe to admit it, either that his arguments may have real merit or at least that it is difficult to convince themselves that they have no merit, something they desperately need to do.

I would argue that on top of the specific content of each thread here, there are overarching themes to all threads on PT and that Heddle's ideas are within the purview of those themes.

Carol,
I have reacquired a copy of Landa's book that I can keep this time. Over at After the Bar Closes: How is the Bible consistent with science? I will answer any questions the other posters ask and will make as much commentary as I have time for. Why don't you come defend yourself, where we all care about you, and not bother Mr Reuland anymore.

Paul

Perhaps it is because folks here recognize, although they are loathe to admit it, either that his arguments may have real merit or at least that it is difficult to convince themselves that they have no merit, something they desperately need to do.

I would argue that on top of the specific content of each thread here, there are overarching themes to all threads on PT and that Heddle's ideas are within the purview of those themes. And when you post a topic here it ought to be within the spirit of free and open inquiry into all topics related to PT's overarching themes.

Again, I wouldn't care so much if my email account didn't get jammed with messages that I really don't want to read because people want to argue crap that has nothing to do with what I made a post on. Have mercy on me.

It makes me very uneasy, Lenny, to see that you agreee with me on something. Where have I gone wrong? Why is God punishing me?

Carol said:
Why is God punishing me?

Sorry Carol can't help you on that one I'm late for my S&M session.

Lenny, this blog is neither a democracy nor a poilce state. It's someone's personal property. Please treat it accordingly.

Lenny, this blog is neither a democracy nor a poilce state. It's someone's personal property. Please treat it accordingly.

That's exactly what After the Bar Closes is for.

Ouch. Lenny walked into that like Sideshow bob stepping on a rake.

Don't you get it? They don't NEED to "win" the argument, they only have to have the argument take place. This is not a scientific institution that is producing these proposals of falsifiable arguments, etc, etc. This is a CHURCH GROUP. This is a POLITICAL MOVEMENT. START ACTING ACCORDINGLY.

Everybody get familiar with After the Bar Closes, or stop by again if you know about it. It's wicked good, especially "Official Uncommon Pissant Discussion Thread" where we sit around and point and laugh as delicious new posts emerge on Dembski's site UncommonPissant.

That's exactly what After the Bar Closes is for.

Calm yourself, Lenny. I don't see significant evidence here to warrant this being the thread to create a battleground over repression.

Far be it from me to halt your crusade, tho. I've been on a few myself.

don't worry about "agreeing" with Carol. i see no actual agreement on the core issues.

besides which, i actually care about what you have to say.

If you want it to be a castle, help contribute to it. I am.

Calm yourself, Lenny. I don't see significant evidence here to warrant this being the thread to create a battleground over repression.

Paul,

I am impressed that you have "reacquired a copy of Landa's book that I can keep this time." Assuming you didn't steal the book and that it most likely cost you more than the $2 you complained about the other day, I hope it will provide you with thousands of hours of pleasurable and informative reading.

I have no problem commenting on "After the Bar Closes" but I don't routinely visit that site. Besides this is where two million hits have been lodged and I want the audience for my posts to be as large as possible. As Lenny indicated above, this is the castle, ATBC is the stable. So we shall see.

I want the audience for my posts to be as large as possible.

Well then, Good Rev. Lenny, we want the same thing. And the audience will use its own intelligence to decide which one of us makes sense.

Well then, Good Rev. Lenny, we want the same thing. And the audience will use its own intelligence to decide which one of us makes sense.

Well then, Good Rev. Lenny, we want the same thing. And the audience will use its own intelligence to decide which one of us makes sense.

Carol:

Heddle admitted all miracles are explainable (eventually) by science! go check it out:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=43d3fb197004cb6a;act=ST;f=14;t=128

scroll to the last couple of pages.

enjoy...

But I suppose I should thank the nobility for allowing the peasants to hang out in the stable, thus keeping the castle all clean and tidy.

OK for a change I'll reply to the head of this topic.
How to Falsify ID

It would seem to me, that would be impossible.

Practically every single supporter of ID has a unique view on ID.

That view is tied to their identity as defined by their persona which is a projection of their inner fears, desires, pride and vanity expressed by their world view.

From the scatological to the prurient, from the dogmatic to the completely wishy washy, from the mangled reality of postmodernist pseudo-science odd bods to the stuffed shirt political righteous all of whom have a tenuous grasp on what the difference between magic and reality actually IS when it comes to evaluating what is available to their senses.

One would need to have the wisdom and perseverance of Job to educate those with a closed mind and only a defense of standards will counter the threat they pose. Ultimately only generational change could achieve any significant shift away from magical thinking, and that message in today's i-pod generation will be just another uninteresting factoid that most people except the well educated could not care less about.
If all of the high quality Media productions available on the history of life on earth can not remove the collective anxiety of the Fundamentalist's desperate grasping for a rock solid excuse for their abandonment of the simple idea that they themselves and their conscience are responsible for their own predicament then who is responsible ?

Is their any point acting on the future of education ?
Do you want the IDist's to decide what reality is ?
No me neither.

God has no concentual reality tied to objects as in science.
So they can't possibley win unless we let them.
They are just a bunch of freeloaders.

I'd like to know if there's something wrong with this argument:

1. The Christian God is defined as omnipotent.
2. Therefore, it is impossible to falsify that he did any specific event X, since, being omnipotent, he COULD do it. You can never prove that God didn't do something.
3. If ID can be falsified, then there is an event Y that is inconsistent with it. It's not important what that is exactly.
4. This means that the Intelligent Designer cannot do event Y, since if he could, then it couldn't falsify ID.
5. This means that the Intelligent Designer is not omnipotent.
6. Ergo, Intelligent Designer cannot be Christian God.

I'm not that interested in the debate, I'd just like to know if the logic is sound or if there is an error.

Carol: Heddle admitted all miracles are explainable (eventually) by science! go check it out: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/i... scroll to the last couple of pages.

I am trying to decide if you are lying or you just can't read. I said, probably ten times, that miracles, by definition cannot be explained by science.

Carol - heddle doesn't WANT you to check out that thread, becuase he clearly disagrees with your definition of miracle there.

like i said, go check it out yourself.

besides which, my post was intended to get Carol to come to that thread, the irony of you coming here to "defend yourself" isn't lost on me tho.

Carol - heddle doesn't WANT you to check out that thread, becuase he clearly disagrees with your definition of miracle there.

David H.,

I checked out that site and it's much ado about nothing. STJ as usual distorts what he reads once he simplistically decides that a poster is foe instead of friend. Which is why I usually don't bother responding to his nonsense and lies.

What they are referring to is a comment I made some time ago, after representing that the Hebrew SHANA must mean "year", that I was willing to concede that those ultra-long lives were miracles. Since the Bible is obviously replete with miracles, I see no reason to hesitate in this regard nor can I understand why anyone would jump on this particular miracle. If it turns out that those long lives could have occured naturally, well, great, then we really have nothing to discuss.

Folks,

The key point here is this. We all know (or should know) that science is a search for patterns in the behavior of nature. Well established patterns are honored by the designation "law". Science makes no comment on the origin of those patterns, the existance of God, the possibility or probability of a creator's intervention in the progression of his handiwork. Let me repeat. SCIENCE MAKES NO COMMENT. Nor can it, nor will it ever be able to. Commenting on these issues is beyond the reach of science, due to self imposed restrictions on its methodology.

It follows therefore that miracles (interventions by another name) are not contradicted by science. But statements, assertions and facts that appear in the Bible are subject to contradiction by science. If the Bible asserted, as some think it actually does, that the earth is merely a few thousand years old, and science has established that it is much older, then we have a contradiction. Miracle or not, it would constitute a contradiction, and open minded Bible supporters would have to reconsider.

Many people are of the opinion that a literal reading of the Bible runs head-on into just such contradictions, and that the only way to avoid these contradictions is to eviscerate the words of the Bible from the plain meaning of its words and assume that the Bible does not quite mean what it says. It speaks allegorically, metaphorically, sarcastically, or whatever. My contention, based on Landa's book that I edited, and I think David you agree with me on this, is that even if the Bible is interpreted literally no such contradiction emerges so long as the original Bible (the Hebrew version) is translated correctly and accurately. In other words, the apparent contradictions are based on the very week reed of poor and sloppy translations. I think that Landa's book makes a resoundingly strong argument that this is indeed the case.

So you would lie to get Carol to go to that thread. Charming.

Only because I'd hate to see her to waste her time.

Gees, both of you don't have a clue, do you?

why in hells are you arguing this HERE!

you DO deserve to have your posts slung.

pathetic.

I replied to your drivel over there, and will no longer continue to bother posting responses here.

You can continue making yourselves look ridiculous posting reponses where there is no argument being presented.

Methinks you've all been wound up. 'David Heddle' has a NASCAR logo on his comments on the other site. When you are creating parodies of stereotypes, 'David' - try not to be too predictable.

Well then, Good Rev. Lenny, we want the same thing. And the audience will use its own intelligence to decide which one of us makes sense.

The key point here is this. We all know (or should know) that science is a search for patterns in the behavior of nature.

I am trying to decide if you are lying or you just can't read. I said, probably ten times, that miracles, by definition cannot be explained by science.

Carol, He may be referring to the old-ages of the patriarchs. The rabble is bemused that we have different opinions on this---I don't view the long life spans as examples of miracles and, I gather, you do. They seem to imagine that if you and I don't agree on this it constitutes a major victory in the bible-science consistency debate---that very issue that they assure us they don't care about, even though they allocated a forum topic for its discussion.

Re "Practically every single supporter of ID has a unique view on ID."

And that by itself shows that there's no coherent premise behind the concept.

Henry

Lenny. You're a tedious off-topic lying prosyletizer.

it's NOT a search for patterns, but rather an attempt to explain already observed ones.

the goal is not to find patterns. Patterns often emerge from data, but stating that one is "looking for patterns" implies a viewpoint filter before you even begin collecting data.

btw, if i could tell it to Darwin, i would, whereupon he might look at me rather strangely, cause he already knew that. In fact, show me in Origins where Darwin set out with a pre-conceived notion of what "pattern" would fit the data he was going to collect. Darwin did just as every real scientist does, he collected observations, and THEN attempted to explain what he saw. He didn't go LOOKING for a pattern.

I am a scientist, and one of the very first things I was taught as a grad student is to abandon all pre-conceived notions of patterns when designing an experiment, lest you filter your view and actually miss what the data itself says.

Just for kicks, please find me ONE definition of science, from any recognized scientific organization, that includes the words:

"science is a search for patterns"

can you see how that would lead to a rather teleological view of science, right away?

Further on "How to falsify Creationism/ID"

Apart from Lenny's simple questions (which by the way will NEVER be answered by Creationism/ID and they are 100% aware of that, but that FACT will still apply EVEN if they change the State/Church laws)

Here are a couple more

Define God/The Creator/The Designer/Oh Intelligent One/Whatever

(and get everyone to agree what it is, that will keep them busy for eternity and they are 100% aware of that, but that FACT will still apply EVEN if they change the State/Church laws)

Produce the evidence for God/The Creator/The Designer/Oh Intelligent One /Whatever

(and get everyone to agree what it is, that will keep them busy for eternity and they are 100% aware of that, but that FACT will still apply EVEN if they change the State/Church laws)

Design any experiment that shows evidence for God/The Creator/The Designer/Oh Intelligent One /Whatever

(and get everyone to agree what it is, that will keep them busy for eternity and they are 100% aware of that, but that FACT will still apply EVEN if they change the State/Church laws)

Carol , Heddle you claim to have a good education in science now exclusively prove either any of the above 3 questions or your failure as being able to claim God/The Creator/The Designer/Oh Intelligent One /Whatever is TRUE

Here is my prediction: Carol , Heddle and EVERYONE on earth will FAIL to answer those questions THUS PROVING the bleeding obvious.

Oh wait its already been done.

show me in Origins where Darwin set out with a pre-conceived notion of what "pattern" would fit the data he was going to collect.

Just for kicks, please find me ONE definition of science, from any recognized scientific organization, that includes the words: "science is a search for patterns"

can you see how that would lead to a rather teleological view of science, right away?

the goal is not to find patterns. Patterns often emerge from data, but stating that one is "looking for patterns" implies a viewpoint filter before you even begin collecting data.

Scientists make observations --- that's most of what they spend their time on --- so as to find patterns.

it's NOT a search for patterns, but rather an attempt to explain already observed ones

Popper et al
No need to worry to much about competing world views on interpreting evidence that's what peer review is for. Even people with several PhD's fall into various traps between day dreams and reality :). Human creativity will ensure that 'problem' never goes away, only honesty will ensure the best ideas are supported and the rest tossed. Just look up infinite energy machines or anti gravity machines and you will see EXACTLY the same ridiculous game being played out with pseudo-scientist crack-pots and sycophantic followers.

Indeed, k.e., we shouldn't worry too much. Especially since STJ says "[science is] an attempt to explain already observed [patterns]", and "Patterns often emerge from data", and I'm simply pointing out that the reason we gather data is in order to have what it takes to have patterns to explain -- we don't just passively let patterns fall into our laps.

So's my mother. (shrug)

Popper's ghost,

I could not have said it better myself. You are right on target. Even STJ knows that you and I are correct, he just suffers from this knee jerk reaction to nit pick and criticize whatever I post.

As far as scientific "laws" are concerned, they are not themselves patterns, and I did not mean to imply that they were. But they describe observed patterns that we expect to hold beyond the scope of the observations.

For example, Newton's inverse square law for gravity described the pattern of the paths observed for the planets and comets known at his time. By turning that description into a law, we are saying that we expect the pattern to continue to hold as new data emerges, such as for newly discovered planets Neptune and Pluto.

In any event there is no law or theory or hypothesis of science that states "miracles cannot or do not occur". The data reveals no such pattern, so science cannot comment upon the matter.

In any event there is no law or theory or hypothesis of science that states "miracles cannot or do not occur". The data reveals no such pattern, so science cannot comment upon the matter.

The data reveals no such pattern

The data reveals no such pattern

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Carol
Science is history explained with objective facts that have been found, to be useful science HAS to predict future events.That is: it is a 'true' history story.

The old testament is the subjective IMAGINED history of the Jewish people and is the same sort of 'true' as those "True Detective Stories" you find on the cheaper news stands.

It is useful for all sorts of things but one thing it will never do is tell you what will happen in a flu virus (the bible may explain why governments hoard vaccine), the rate of hydrogen use in a sun (The bible may explain why the sun was god at one time), or when the price of oil will go over $100 a barrel (but (mis)reading the bible may explain why it will go over $100).

Miracles? have you heard of psychedelic drugs and other natural causes for subjective literary hyperbole?

Miracles? have you heard of psychedelic drugs and other natural causes for subjective literary hyperbole?

— k.e.

indeed AC, they are natural causes ;)

this whole thread really brings home the point that it has become a waste of time to continue to argue what science is with people that don't actually DO science.

I think I'm gonna take a vacation from PT until the regulars get tired of feeding the trolls and at least some of them die of starvation.

I've managed to save up roughly $60170 in my bank account, but I'm not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?