It's called <i>development</i>, Mr Dembski

# I would say that the systems aren't "preadapted", but that a more organic way of viewing it is that life has an inherent quality of active adaptability. This inherent quality, in my view, stems from a substance or essence of living things which is non-material. In homeopathic medicine, for example, this governing intelligence is called "vital force". All of the tools of science are made up of matter, and are therefore at best able to measure the material effects of this non-material living substance. The problem comes in when it is assumed that EVERYTHING has its originating cause IN MATTER. Then, things (like design, rapid adaptability) which bear the clear earmarks of a living intelligence, must be ignored, repudiated, or reduced to matter. Comment by tinabrewer --- May 17, 2006 @ 9:36 am

One of the big "whys" I at which I always thought evolution failed miserably in trying to address was "was why is their biodiversity in the same habitat?" One would think that if fitness was the goal of natural selection everything that came from the first cell would have evolved to the same thing. Or considering bacteria exists everywhere, why bother evolving? Comment by tribune7 --- May 17, 2006 @ 10:49 am

A somewhat analogous situation arises in cases of children born with extra digits or as conjoined twins--quite novel occurrences as far as evolution is concerned. Yet those extra digits are often (not always) functional--that is, they have have joints and muscles, and because they are "wired" to the brain they have sensation and can move. Meanwhile conjoined twins have the most marvelously complicated circulatory systems with major vessel connections and blood circulation patterns that usually (not always) work perfectly well, at least in the short term--in fact these circulatory systems cause major problems when separating conjoined twins.

In both cases I think it's fair to say that the systems did not evolve... but they WORK, and in some cases work quite well. How is this possible? Does this mean that some mysterious designer tinkered with the nervous and circulatory systems while the fetuses were developing in the womb to make sure all the necessary nerve and blood vessel connections were made? Or did some mysterious designer write it into their genes eons ago, just in case something with his/her/its design go awry?

Or maybe, just maybe, some systems are self-organizing to a certain extent, and can tolerate quite a bit of variation?

It's quite a large "big tent" ID has, that can accomodate homeopathy, YEC, OEC, time-traveling human biologists, super-intelligent extraterrestrials, astrology, microevolution, some macroevolution, common descent, special creation of humans, front-loading, and so much more.

Of course, the biggest tent I ever saw was also full of clowns.

Yes, and I can read, too. Since organisms didn't encounter letters until 5000 years ago, or so, I think we have ample evidence from this ability that evolution is not responsible for producing us.

Hey, I, like most literate souls, can read upside down words. So we not only have the capacity to read symbols that never existed in the past, we can also read them inverted. What more proof is necessary to show that we're not the products of evolution?

Well, either that, or we the sorts of information processors (not my favorite term for the CNS, but here it seems functionally appropriate) that can actually deal with perceptions from the environment in shifted frames of reference and the like. You know, sort of as evolution might predict in a highly complex environment.

But that doesn't fit Dembski's rigid assumptions needed to back up his prejudices against evolution.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

This is too stupid to even make fun of. He is playing them for suckers.
Education would fix most religious problems but you have to remember the con-men on that side have a lot to work with.

Stupid
Stupid
Stupid
Stupid

Fundies are Stupid.

P.S. regarding polydactyly: I came across an interesting paper that deals with the genetic basis of one form of polydactyly; strangely enough (although not so strangely in an evolutionary context) the same gene is associated with fin development in fish. Shared evolutionary history, coincidence, or just sloppy work on the part of the "designer"?

(Here's a link to the abstract for "A long-range Shh enhancer regulates expression in the developing limb and fin and is associated with preaxial polydactyly": http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/14/1725)

So, eggs appear designed for manipulation and somatic celll nuclear transfer, uh? Quite impressive.

It's the first time I see Dembski, or any other "mainstream" ID advocate for that matter, endorse an openly Raelian perspective. I wonder if he did it on purpose, or the implications of his "colleague"'s arguments just escaped him.

Like our primate ancestors never had occasion to hang upside down from a tree limb, and still be able to figure out what they were looking at!

And that's only one of probably hundreds of reasonable explanations...

I'm sorry, there's certainly a more polite and civil way to put it, but Dembski is such a complete top-to-bottom tool!

Sincerely!

Sorry, but your quote wasn't Dembski's, but was extracted from another blog. WD even says he doesn't buy the argument, but wanted to see what people thought.

Yeah, yeah...Dembski quotes the whole thing, and now we're supposed to let him off the hook when we show how bloody stupid the whole argument is.

If Dembski is so clever, why didn't he see through the poverty of the SCNT nonsense?

...I think is merely sincerely ignorant.

— PZ Myers

There could (almost certainly is) malice in his intent, but I think it is true that Dembski really, truly, and sincerely is that ignorant. I certainly don't think he is hiding a secret genius for biology.

Yeah, but if he knows he's ignorant and doesn't care, then it certainly is malicious. Frank J really has a point, calling him "ignorant" alone makes it seem more like a forgivable oversight, a mere foible, rather than the pernicious dishonesty Dembski obviously trucks in.

Can someone tell me why my fellow "evolutionists" have such a need to note whenever they "think" that anti-evolutionists are "sincerely ignorant"?

Plus, whenever we rush to judge it as "honest belief" we only help their PR.

What Dembski actually said was, "I'm not sure I buy the entire argument here...". (My emphasis.)

This certainly suggests he buys into some substantial portion of the argument, while conveniently leaving himself an out when his "sincere ignorance" of basic biology is inevitably exposed.

For a truly interesting new development, suggesting that protohominids and protochimps may have intermittently interbred over a lengthy period before speciation was complete, see Carl Zimmer's "The Loom":
http://loom.corante.com/archives/2006/05/17/grandma_manimal.php.

Of course, the biggest tent I ever saw was also full of clowns.

and the clowns are trained, professionals at what they do.

The IDists are definitely professionals at what they do. Propaganda, I mean.

Yeah, but if he knows he's ignorant and doesn't care, then it certainly is malicious.

Frank J really has a point, calling him "ignorant" alone makes it seem more like a forgivable oversight, a mere foible, rather than the pernicious dishonesty Dembski obviously trucks in.

— minimalist

Glen Davidson commented: The trouble with IDists is that they are neither, but are only apologists twisting the scientific method to accommodate religious preconceptions.

now if they would only practice "aporeproduction", eventually we would be rid of this idiocy.

If biological systems have the appearance of design, some people are going to conclude that maybe these were designed. Should they be raked over the coals because they feel this way?

nope. but when they claim their "feelings" are science, then bring on the branding irons.

think about what would happen if the reverse were true, and we simply encouraged all opinion as science.

there's little other than projection in it. nothing for philosophers, and it's even a rejection of faith.

what would you do with it?

Can someone tell me why my fellow "evolutionists" have such a need to note whenever they "think" that anti-evolutionists are "sincerely ignorant"?

— Frank J

You'd just put it through his explanatory filter Frank J. I suspect that the order of explanation would be 1) wrong by design, 2) wrong by natural order, 3) wrong by chance!

Cheers

Sorry Frank J for using your name in vain. I meant Andrew McClure!

I feel that explicitly pointing out that some of their mistakes are honest gives us more credibility when we claim that they're being deliberately deceitful - it doesn't sound like we're crying wolf in quite the same way.

— Corkscrew

I suspect that the order of explanation would be 1) wrong by design, 2) wrong by natural order, 3) wrong by chance!

— KiwiInOz

Stevepinhead says:

"For a truly interesting new development, suggesting that protohominids and protochimps may have intermittently interbred over a lengthy period before speciation was complete, see Carl Zimmer's "The Loom":
http://loom.corante.com/archives/2006/05/17/gran...."

But don't miss Zimmer's link to John Hawks misgivings at http://johnhawks.net/weblog/2006/05/17#dawn_chumans_patterson_2006. I don't know the subject, but he seem to raise some serious doubts about the validity of the paper and the proposed hypothes. (And he managed to make me understand the importance of ancestral poulation sizes when looking at genetic spread. Great!)

Frank says:
"And that's why my main "mission" here and at Talk Origins is to point out that anti-evolution activism is first and foremost a misrepresentation strategy."

You have converted me, or perhaps clarified my own unarticulated notions. Anyway, as you also say, it is hard to call these things. The default for the individual error is that it is an "honest mistake". (And some will be.) Like a spontaneous ID visitor here.

It is only when we look at an unebbing flow of errors we can claim with certainty that it is misrepresentation. Like Unending Dense posts. Or pointing out to the spontaneous ID visitor that ID sources he cites are misrepresenting.

If biological systems have the appearance of design, some people are going to conclude that maybe these were designed. Should they be raked over the coals because they feel this way?

Nice report in the CSM this morning, even if there are dissenting views---it is in the nature of science. What if all research into the complex simply ended because "it's designed?"

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0518/p02s01-usgn.html

I think that is a funny thing to say. There is still plenty of supply of this pseudoscience, it just won't be forced upon students who have no demand for it. If anything the court orders will have an effect on demand by teaching students an understanding for science and to think critically.

maine yankee
paraphrasing CSM(I'm assuming, ....call it an educated guess)
What if all research into the complex simply ended because "it's designed?"
Ah yes the Behe shuffle,

Why did Behe end his investigation when his rushed opinions regarding G..er "the designer did it" with the (self)flagellerator and all the other things he claimed were IC (Irresponsibly Concluded or In-Conscionable science)? ...ah that's because he (giggle)thought he might be able to read the mind of G...er "The Designer"
(At least Job wrested all night in his dreams before letting out a little simple wisdom (reading peoples minds,particulary ones own..it's what really sets us apart from the animals) which would have been true with or without Him up There). One tip any mind reader will tell you is that they have the uncanny knack of telling you the one thing you most want to hear and everyone, except the most Machiavelian, unconsiouly lets on what they want to hear.

The CSM states the bleeding obvious to everybody except the Fundy backwash.
While we don't hear much about IC (Indubitable Crapulence) anymore, since Dover, we see Demski-ites disporting themselves in public spaces with such magical terms as EF (Effluent Filibuster) and the others ..can't be bothered looking them up right now.... but didn't he have a whole host of popular Cop Show name rip offs; NCIS (Neo Conservative Idiocy Surrogate ) NYPD Blue (Not Yet Plucked Dembski But....soon) and other easily remembered subjective nonsense for ineducable silly people.

Yeah... Dembski throws out another fishing line baited with sweet little nothings to see what will happen .....just to keep the pot boiling until he can come up with something more convincing to coat his turds, he hasn't quite mastered the art yet, unlike these miscreants 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right'by Al Franken

His theo(non)logical writing suffers from his own special version of circular reasoning precisely paralleling his 'sciuntifical theosophy' ...but hey, I would encourage him dSS, he doesn't have to deal with 'facts' and he can murder words for all he's worth.

If biological systems have the appearance of design, some people are going to conclude that maybe these were designed. Should they be raked over the coals because they feel this way?

Rikes's Granddaughter responded: Depends. In a purely informal discussion, they shouldn't be raked. In a scientific discussion, unless they can quantify their terms, they're going to get reamed.

Re "Or, in entirely other words: Let us say William Dembski makes a statement which is flat out wrong. Is the statement wrong by chance? Wrong due to natural law? Or wrong by design? How can we tell which is which?"

The first one or two times they say something that's wrong, just say its wrong and give a refutation.

If they repeat it yet again, they're lying - either about the subject or about their knowledge of the subject.

Henry

I disagree, if those conclusions are used as the basis for political actions then they should be vigorously countered. At these lower levels, arguments for design are not presented to the public in a rational manner but are rather, inflammatory.

Arguments presented by the DI appear rational but the trickle down effect seems to be accompanied by some sort of modification of the design argument. This could be analogous to whispering a secret to a series of people around a room to see how it is modified.

Re "Or, in entirely other words: Let us say William Dembski makes a statement which is flat out wrong. Is the statement wrong by chance? Wrong due to natural law? Or wrong by design? How can we tell which is which?" The first one or two times they say something that's wrong, just say its wrong and give a refutation. If they repeat it yet again, they're lying - either about the subject or about their knowledge of the subject. Henry

I can't get no satisfaction: a scientifically-sensible response to my question, just some rather sophomoric ridicule:

If evolution or natural selection is essentially matter-based [matter + chance + time = increasing life sophisication] and there is no mind or conscious-DESIGN involved [consciousness for humans as the brain/mind-transform construction of reality --like a TV picture --for life-affirming and -supportive choices] why do scientists use their minds to DESIGN defenses to evolution and attack ID which postulates a *super* natural design-er/mind, but which is often dumb-down and labeled as human-craft "religion," to be compartmentalized and minimized often under the phoney guise of the separation of Church[iantity] and state?

There is no religious dimension to reality, although atheism and other ideologies are deemed secular religions by courts. Is there a mind and evil counter-mind that seeks to dumb-down, distract and to destroy? It would seem human history [imbedded in His story from a non-blind or faith-full, higher perspective] indicates defects in human nature, evidenced in the arrogance or pride of prior responses to my question. Sight sees the visible, real in sight sees the deep in visible including the dark and lite spiritual vs the Spirit-ual Son light [as opposed to "material" Sun light.]

Perhaps it is all about the real matrix: a super natural war of [eternal] life-affirming faith [super natural divine logic] vs dumb-down scientism as *material* [and related]only of super unnatural evil, live backwards. It a matter/material-only polarized bias, polarization being the essence of addiction. With all the problems in the world, are we not living in a new dark age: the Lite Age of profound super-ficiality, including material only [and related] science? Is not a secularized and material scientism higher education not high enough nor deep enough to comprehend our human plight? Universities [unity in diversity] now are more about being PC than SC: Spirit-ually CorrectED. Where are the answers from academia or are they more about a phoney, counter-fit intellectualism incapable of perceiving a super natural counter intelligence, hence the need to be "born" super naturally the transform-ation of your mind? Get the real [of reality] picture?

And now for something completely different...tell us James Fornell about this new logic and how sheep's bladders can be used to stop earthquakes

Perhaps it is all about the real matrix: a super natural war of [eternal] life-affirming faith [super natural divine logic] vs dumb-down scientism as *material* [and related]only of super unnatural evil, live backwards.

— James Fornell

tell us James Fornell about this new logic and how sheep's bladders can be used to stop earthquakes

I can't get no satisfaction: a scientifically-sensible response to my question, just some rather sophomoric ridicule:

I can't get no satisfaction: a scientifically-sensible response to my question, just some rather sophomoric ridicule:

If evolution or natural selection is essentially matter-based [matter + chance + time = increasing life sophisication]

and there is no mind or conscious-DESIGN involved [consciousness for humans as the brain/mind-transform construction of reality ---like a TV picture ---for life-affirming and -supportive choices]

why do scientists use their minds to DESIGN defenses

DESIGN defenses to evolution and attack ID which postulates a *super* natural design-er/mind,

but which is often dumb-down and labeled as human-craft "religion," to be compartmentalized and minimized often under the phoney guise of the separation of Church[iantity] and state?

There is no religious dimension to reality, although atheism and other ideologies are deemed secular religions by courts.

Is there a mind and evil counter-mind that seeks to dumb-down, distract and to destroy?

It would seem human history [imbedded in His story from a non-blind or faith-full, higher perspective]

indicates defects in human nature, evidenced in the arrogance or pride of prior responses to my question.

Sight sees the visible, real in sight sees the deep in visible including the dark and lite spiritual vs the Spirit-ual Son light [as opposed to "material" Sun light.]

Perhaps it is all about the real matrix:

a super natural war of [eternal] life-affirming faith [super natural divine logic] vs dumb-down scientism as *material*

[and related]only of super unnatural evil, live backwards.

It a matter/material-only polarized bias, polarization being the essence of addiction.

With all the problems in the world, are we not living in a new dark age: the Lite Age of profound super-ficiality, including material only [and related] science?

Is not a secularized and material scientism

higher education not high enough nor deep enough to comprehend our human plight?

Universities [unity in diversity] now are more about being PC than SC: Spirit-ually CorrectED. Where are the answers from academia or are they more about a phoney, counter-fit intellectualism incapable of perceiving a super natural counter intelligence, hence the need to be "born" super naturally the transform-ation of your mind? Get the real [of reality] picture?

James,

On the off chance that you return to see if your post prompted a response, allow me to gently inform you that, contrary to what I am generously willing to ascribe as your good intentions, you come off as a nutter. Key signs include repeated and atopical parenthetical remarks (almost as if it was difficult for the writer to concentrate on one line of thought ), and seizing upon wordplay and homonyns as if they contain some deeper (and oh-so secret) meaning.

As far as the original post... wow. That's some kinda stupid dere, yah. Perhaps "those folks" have the impression that an organism's genetic code is directly responsible for that organism's complete range of behavior. Guys... Sam Walton does not specify how many rolls of TP are stocked at your local Wal-Mart. The DNA delegates.

///Torville///

If biological systems have the appearance of design, some people are going to conclude that maybe these were designed. Should they be raked over the coals because they feel this way?

No, but when someone makes a scientific claim that someone better have the data to back it up. You see the science crowd is though and you cannot come around bluffing. Once the sharks detect blood in the water you are in for a rough time.

Glenn I'm beginning to think you are even more of a masochist that I am:>
But heck it's better to be on the safe side. The creo's could be sending in their crack team of ninja psy-ops personnel...you know the ones that can run head first through into walls.

from MP TLOB

Suicide Squad Leader: We are the Judean People's Front crack suicide squad! Suicide squad, attack! [they all stab themselves]

PK and others: You got it wrong. The Easter Bunny *evolves* into Santa Claus and it's Blitzen's bladder than stops hurricanes. Get your facts right; you supposed to to [material-constrained, but "expert"] scientists.

The problem is you espouse polarized, flat-reality scientism, like the flat earth. Real simple: super natural [live......life] "above," super unnatural, counter-intelligent, anti-faith [evil] "below" or unconscious or under-lying [as in father of lies.]

It's due to your one-dimensional, material bias. Science is about fact, principle and truth no matter [pun intended] where it takes you. You cannot perceive the spirit of your own minds. You have blind go-foward faith in material [only] science! As for your non-material [or immaterial?] soul....or is it just a "religious" concept? Religion is phoney, of the darkness and lite. Best wishes, post-grave.

Some have needs not to know, to wake up.

K.E., you left out the punchline.

Lying on the ground, the suicide squad's dying words are a chorus of, "WE SHOWED 'EM!!"

What? James Fornell, going already?
Another collector of foreskins charges a windmill.
Say hello to the worms for me 'post grave'.

Bill
LOL ....I couldn't find the whole quote.
I must watch it again.

Boring Prophet: There shall in that time be rumors of things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia-work base, that has an attachment. At that time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight O'clock.

PK and others: You got it wrong. [Much incoherency].

— James the troll

Do you think so? I can't remember a single argument by the DI that appeared designed. %:->

If evolution or natural selection is essentially matter-based [matter + chance + time = increasing life sophisication] and there is no mind or conscious-DESIGN involved...

— James Fornell

Best wishes, post-grave.

The interesting question is whether any species except homo sap, ants, and termites engage in biological design (e.g. stock-breeding).

James Fornell's blithering reminds me of those bottles of Dr. Brauner's Pure Castille Soap, with the small-print religious rants all over them. Anyhone else remember "God Soap?"

Of course, the God Soap rants were more coherent, and more uplifting, than Fornell's wierdness, which has the tone more of Philip K. Dick at his most deranged ("VALIS"); the only thing missing is the words "The Empire never crumbled" at the end of every third paragraph...

James Fornell writes the most amazing blather. The penultimate sentence of his first post ("Where are the answers from academia or are they more about a phoney, counter-fit intellectualism incapable of perceiving a super natural counter intelligence, hence the need to be "born" super naturally the transform-ation of your mind?") alone is enough to give any English teacher conniptions.

And what is meant by a "profound superficiality"?

aside from actual artificial insemination, I would have to say yes, they do. ants selectively breed fungi, fish selectively farm certain algae, etc. I'm sure there's lot's of examples. why is that an interesting question?