The Pro-ID Paper That Wasn't.

When I saw it I just thought it was another case of claiming that every biology paper is in fact an ID paper.

But oh yeah, rational design methods will be better if we have exhaustive knowledge of protein structure and function, as well as a huge computing ability.

What these people forget is that such rational design methods won't be finding the same solutions, certainly not in many cases, because rational design won't be hamstrung by past evolutionary histories. Extremely good rational design methods will simply further confirm what we already know, that evolution has worked with limitations that a god-like designer would not, and that the proteins and morphologies that we have reveal exactly those sorts of limitations (and not the kinds of poor design found in Pintos).

I suppose they have to claim triumphs wherever, even when they are pointing out the pro-evolutionary fact that everything from the time it took to evolve to the results of evolution are consistent with undirected evolution, not with rational design.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

On what basis could it possibly be a pro-ID paper?

Abstract: The extraordinary properties of natural proteins demonstrate that life-like protein engineering is both achievable and valuable. Rapid progress and impressive results have been made towards this goal using rational design and random techniques or a combination of both. However, we still do not have a general theory on how to specify a structure that is suited to a target function nor can we specify a sequence that folds to a target structure. There is also overreliance on the Darwinian blind search to obtain practical results. In the long run, random methods cannot replace insight in constructing life-like proteins. For the near future, however, in enzyme development, we need to rely on a combination of both.

Now I've really heard it all. For the first time I come to understand there are "evolutionary methods" as if to say evolution is methodical and not purely random-based. So if evolution is methodical, who devised the method? The experimenter? Would such a method select the "fittest" for "survival"? With logic such as this is it any wonder you guys are having to spend huge amounts of energy the past few years arguing and insulting us ignoramuses, on the controversy that supposedly doesn't exist, you know, the one that dominates discussion on PT?

Now I've really heard it all. For the first time I come to understand there are "evolutionary methods" as if to say evolution is methodical and not purely random-based.

So if evolution is methodical, who devised the method? The experimenter?

Would such a method select the "fittest" for "survival"?

With logic such as this is it any wonder you guys are having to spend huge amounts of energy the past few years arguing and insulting us ignoramuses, on the controversy that supposedly doesn't exist, you know, the one that dominates discussion on PT?

I'm surprised you needed to ask this question. Probably, you're looking at the paper from the point of view of someone who actually knows what "rational design", "random techniques", and "Darwinian blind search" all mean in the context of protein engineering. But you aren't the DI's target audience.

— Jason F

Now I've really heard it all. For the first time I come to understand there are "evolutionary methods" as if to say evolution is methodical and not purely random-based. So if evolution is methodical, who devised the method? The experimenter? Would such a method select the "fittest" for "survival"? With logic such as this is it any wonder you guys are having to spend huge amounts of energy the past few years arguing and insulting us ignoramuses, on the controversy that supposedly doesn't exist, you know, the one that dominates discussion on PT?

It's important for them to know that there is no basis on which to call this a "pro-ID" paper, other than perhaps the intent of the authors.

Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.

The "creationist" link points to the "8th European Creationist Conference" and features talks by Leisola and even the DI's own token YEC (pseudo-YEC?) Paul Nelson. The titles of the talks suggest that it not only promotes creationism, but from the papers about the Flood and the Fall, specifically YEC, or at least a non-progressive OEC (e.g. day-age). But wait. It also promotes ID, which makes it one more thing that undermines the DI's futile attempts to distance itself from classic creationism. Not that their target audience cares of course; the whole "ID is not creationism" thing is just to get critics to take the bait.

When IDers whine that they are shut out from publishing by those oppressive "Darwinists," I remind them that all they have to do is drop the design language, just as they do for public school lesson plans. The problem, of which chief IDers are completely aware, is that with or without design language, there's nothing in their work that challenges evolution; if anything it even adds further support. They can fool high school students, but not scientists, and they know it.

When the few papers by IDers (or classic creationists) get published, they gush about how ID is legitimized by peer review. But when one notes how pathetically few papers have been published by IDers (or classic creationists), and that none provide a shred of support for ID (or the mutually contradictory creationist accounts), they again whine about being shut out. They know that it's one more thing that ID tries to have both ways. But as long as their cheerleaders don't care, why should they?

I guess the fact that someone designed a process that mimics nature proves that nature was designed.... NOT!!

Pumpkinhead: the effort you are having to make to keep your creationist beliefs intact is beginning to show.

I was pretty sure that after Dover, the ID crowd would get the message that they had to publish evidence for ID in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. I also figured that, since there isn't any such evidence, they would find a way to fake it to their audience.

What they will do is publish papers that are pretty mundane and uninteresting while avoiding ID terminology to get by reviewers, but their papers will have enough code words in them that they can brag to their followers that they are now publishing articles that prove ID. Their followers will swallow it hook, line, and sinker, and armed with this belief, will step up their political attacks on legislatures and school boards.

If we point out that none of their papers argue for ID or that they have started no research programs nor improved the scientific understanding of our universe, they will argue that we have moved the goalposts.

None of their followers know what a significant paper does in the world of research. It has to be confirmed, cited in many other research papers, and it has to get a trend going that leads to significant advances in our understanding. I can see other ID/Creationist leaders jumping on the bandwagon to cite and "confirm" the papers of their co-conspirators, but the only "change" in science they can hope to generate will be caused by a massive political campaign that declares that ID is now a "proven" science.

I think we are seeing the beginning of this process. It's another case of fundamentalists gaming the system to gain the appearance of legitimacy.

Isn't it common for creationists to parasitize the work of real scientists? They also like to twist the meaning of scientific work so that it seems to say the opposite of what the original author intended. (Carl Zimmer needs to add a new chapter to Parasite Rex.)

Pumpkinhead wrote:

"One day evolutionist will claim their ersatz process of natural selection is random one day and methodical the next."

You only have to look at the equations to see that natural selection is a completely deterministic process. Anyone who claims any different is not telling the truth. Of course there are still elements of chance and drift that are important for the entire process of evolution, but that is not the point. Can you give any examples of anyone who told you natural selection was "random"? If so, why did you believe them?

People, I'm pretty sure Pumpkinhead is pulling our chain. After all, he called us all bisexuals. Only another evolutionist would know that we're all bisexuals.

"nor can we specify a sequence that folds to a target structure"

Odd statement. Pulling out a book on Protein Design (called Protein Design), page 5/section 1.1.3, talks about specified sequences that fold into a desired alpha helix (in an aqueous environ). Beta sheets starting on page 27...design of entire protein complexes on page 113. (Methods in Molecular Biology - 340 - Protein Design: Methods and Applications)

In a paper, Biotechnology Advances (vol 23 page 271-281), mesophiles such as us are used as the example of what not to do. In example we have undesirable beta branched residues (I, T, V) incorporated in helices causing conformational strain, increasing the ease of destabilization.

Protein design shows that we are poorly designed, heck we have to take most of our "what we desire to have" from thermophilic bacteria. Amoral processes best explain our poorly placed residues.

Weird authors.

Matti Leisola is a well-known YEC-creationist in Finland. He has translated various anti-evolution books in Finnish including Dembski's "The design inference" and co-authored with German creationist Siegfried Scherer book "Evolution:The critical analysis". He even maintains a website that promotes intelligent design: http://www.intelligentdesign.fi/
In 2004 he arranged a lecture series at the Helsinki University of Technology called "Tackling Ultimate Complexity" in which lecturers included Paul Nelson and Richard Sternberg. That year the Finnish skeptic association gave him and to his laboratory the annual "bullshit award" for promoting pseudoscience.

It boils down to the fact evolutionists think they can deceive God by deceiving themselves. One day evolutionist will claim their ersatz process of natural selection is random one day and methodical the next. It's like the bisexuality most of them practice, they do know what it's going to be from day day.

— Pumpkinhead

Matti Leisola is a creationist

Now I've really heard it all. For the first time I come to understand there are "evolutionary methods" as if to say evolution is methodical and not purely random-based. So if evolution is methodical, who devised the method? The experimenter? Would such a method select the "fittest" for "survival"? With logic such as this is it any wonder you guys are having to spend huge amounts of energy the past few years arguing and insulting us ignoramuses, on the controversy that supposedly doesn't exist, you know, the one that dominates discussion on PT?

— Tom Groover

Re "talked with reporters in one of the galleries, and later claimed he had made a presentation at the premises."

Well heck, if he was present there, and talked to some people, isn't that making a "presentation" there? LOL

Public school is supposedly protected from pseudoscience hurting the development and minds of children. But private school is freer. They still has to pass the inspections and requirements of the school authority, which now has stopped the recent attempt of presenting creationism in one school. Now I know what originated that trial balloon.

Wait, that's a parody right? Brilliant! Nice work Pumpkinhead, I love it!

Like his Viking ancestors who made their living raping, killing, pillaging,...

Hi pumpkinhead, back again? How about answering some of my questions? Or did you just make all that stuff up?

Finns are not Scandinavians and did not, AFAIK, go a-viking...

Finns were not vikings (although, perhaps some of us were: it may be possible that some people from Finland have joined the Swedish Vikings, when they travelled to Russia). It is also possible that some of Swedish vikings married Finns... and that's why some of us could have viking ancestors...

Like his Viking ancestors who made their living raping, killing, pillaging, and burning peaceful Christian communities, this Scandinavian evolutionist can not tolerate any dissent from the evolutionary theology of the modern secular state.

Torbjeorn Larrson --- Well done!

And a third of the way around the globe, it is highly likely that I have Viking ancestors on my father's side...

So, let't summarize shall we? So far pumpkinhead has, (anonomously): made claims without evidence; failed to answer questions posed to him; and failed to acknowledge when answers were given to his questions. Then, when all else fails, he has stooped to racism and descriptions of sexual preference as arguments.

OK, let's play shall we? Everyone knows that pumpkinheads are bulbous, orange skined and totally hollow inside. Oh yea, and they scare small children on holloween and undoubtedly have deviant sexual preferences.

Until this guy answere questions put to him I suggest we all ignore him

Dembski:
"Just because the word "evolution" is used doesn't mean that homage is being paid to Darwin. "Directed evolution" properly falls under ID."

It's nice to know that eugenics is an ID thing now. ;)

Of course, what Steve Reuland seems unaware of is the simple fact that "directed evolution" and "intelligent design" are synonymous terms. The whole premise of intelligent design is that evolution is directed, and the whole premise of the Darwinian model is that evolution is undirected.

It's nice to know that eugenics is an ID thing now. ;)

— Fross

C Bass said:

Of course, what Steve Reuland seems unaware of is the simple fact that "directed evolution" and "intelligent design" are synonymous terms. The whole premise of intelligent design is that evolution is directed, and the whole premise of the Darwinian model is that evolution is undirected.

I actually find this post fascinating. At most, the poster has read the first paragraph, for any further would reveal that the paper is not about evolutionary theory as much as it is about protein engineering.

Even more curious, Rueland defines directed evolution in a very simple manner: the use of natural selection to target favorable traits. The poster, if he read past the first paragraph, had to actually have read the following sentence:

"you apply random mutagenesis to whole or part of your protein, you screen for the properties you're looking for, and you repeat the process as necessary."

This sentence alone is clearly the opposite of ID once you realize that "properties the scientists select for" is the analogue of a selection pressure. But even more is illuminated:

"In other words, you use the Darwinian mechanism, the very mechanism that ID advocates have spent the last decade fruitlessly arguing is incapable of doing the very things we see it doing in the lab."

I doubt this poster is troll, since he hasn't accused anyone of alternate sexual preferences. So the unfortunate conclusion is that this poor human being went specifically to a site refuting an ID argument and then not only ignoring the article but making a comment that has the intelligibility of a 9 year old.

The "eugenics" comment further illustrates this. The obvious, clever implication of this statement is that, because ID supposedly is "directed evolution," the mechanism of Intelligent Design would be the teleological selection of people or animals depending on teleologically determined "wanted traits." In essence, it would be saying that, as opposed to natural selection, artificial selection is occuring, i.e. eugenics.

Of course, what Steve Reuland seems unaware of is the simple fact that "directed evolution" and "intelligent design" are synonymous terms.

— C Bass

The whole premise of intelligent design is that evolution is directed, and the whole premise of the Darwinian model is that evolution is undirected.

Of course, what Steve Reuland seems unaware of is the simple fact that "directed evolution" and "intelligent design" are synonymous terms. The whole premise of intelligent design is that evolution is directed, and the whole premise of the Darwinian model is that evolution is undirected.

— C Bass

Clever, but eugenics predates intelligent design by several decades, and is based on the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" concept. Odd that Darwinians felt compelled to give natural selection a "helping hand", as it were.

— In the very next post, C Bass

In reading Reuland's critique, try to keep track of "rational design," "directed evolution," and "Darwinian methods." Reuland conflates the last two. In so doing, Reuland completely misses the boat. So let me spell it out: DIRECTED EVOLUTION IS NON-DARWINIAN. DARWINIAN EVOLUTION IS NON-DIRECTED. I've been saying this now for close to a decade (see ch. 4 of my book No Free Lunch). Just because the word "evolution" is used doesn't mean that homage is being paid to Darwin. "Directed evolution" properly falls under ID.

— William Demsbski

I am going to do a follow up comment on my "Viking" comment, since I didn't want to lengthen my original one. The reason is that since I'm not an historian or biologist I found the wikipedia notes I dug up in preparation fascinating.

First, scandinavians may be responsible for the foundation of Russia:

"From the historiographical point of view, Kievan Rus' is considered a predecessor state of three modern East Slavic nations: Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. [...] The Rus' people (i. e. mobile groups of warriors and traders of Scandinavian origin) probably dominated what is now northwestern Russia since the eighth century. In the early ninth they became loosely organized under the Rus' Khaganate, which may be regarded as a predecessor state to the Kievan Rus'. According to the Primary Chronicle, the earliest chronicle of Kievan Rus', a Varangian (Viking) named Rurik first established himself in Novgorod, located in modern Russia (he was selected as common ruler by several Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribes) in about 860 before moving south and extending his authority to Kiev."

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus )

Muuuch more impressive than mere viking tomfoolery IMHO. Anyone can scare the shit out of others, but inadvertently founding empires is not for all to do. And the east traveling nordmän were mainly swedes AFAIK. ;-)

Second, a recent evolutionary result is that the Sami group goes in all probability back to the Berbers of North Africa despite previous hypotheses on Asian origins:

"The research indicates that 95.6% of Saami mtDNA originated in the Iberia refugia while only 4.4% is of Siberian-Asiatic origin (Tambets 2004). A genetic link has been established between the Sami and the Berbers of North Africa going back 9000 years (Achilli 2005). Sami Y chromosomes indicate that 29.8% originated in the Iberia refugia and 58.2% originated in Eastern Europe (Tambets 2004)

The autosomal classic markers shows that the Sami have no close relatives in any population including their closest linguistic relatives but are in general more closely related to Europeans than people of other continents. The closest of the distant relatives are Finnish people, but this is probably due to more recent immigration of Finnish people into the Sami areas, and the assimilation of the Sami population into the mainstream population in today's Finland (Meinila 2001).

The Sami are no more closely related to the Siberian and Mongol populations than other European populations (Niskanen 2002), in contrast to the historically held view that the Sami are of Siberian-Asian origin. The genetic distances between the Sami and the rest of the world are due to founder effects and genetic drift resulting from their small and isolated population."

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people )

Now, if I were a creationist I wouldn't know this, because founder effects and genetic drift doesn't exist in their fantasy world. I on the other hand appreciate my possible forefathers (or rather foremothers, see the mtDNA :-) history.

Does he contradict himself?

— Anton Mates

So "directed evolution" is the same as "intelligent design" but eugenics is not intelligent design because you are "breeding" phenotypes and not "breeding" proteins? Where do phenotypic variants come from? In both cases you are selecting certain nucleotide sequences, produced by "random" mutations. There is absolutely no difference.

You can't have it both ways. Either "directed evolution" (in the sense of selecting between variants) is ID and therefore eugenics is by definition ID, or the two terms are not synonomous. Of course they are not the same. You can't claim credit for all the advancements of science and at the same time blame science for all the evils in the world. If you did that, you would either be a hypocrite, or Amish.

I actually find this post fascinating. At most, the poster has read the first paragraph, for any further would reveal that the paper is not about evolutionary theory as much as it is about protein engineering.

— Ross

Even more curious, Rueland defines directed evolution in a very simple manner: the use of natural selection to target favorable traits. The poster, if he read past the first paragraph, had to actually have read the following sentence: "you apply random mutagenesis to whole or part of your protein, you screen for the properties you're looking for, and you repeat the process as necessary." This sentence alone is clearly the opposite of ID once you realize that "properties the scientists select for" is the analogue of a selection pressure. But even more is illuminated:

Where do phenotypic variants come from? In both cases you are selecting certain nucleotide sequences, produced by "random" mutations. There is absolutely no difference.

— David Stanton

In this case, it's about "breeding" proteins. "Breeding" is in quotes since proteins don't replicate, but must be manufactured.

— C Bass

In the case of the article, you are selecting proteins independent of phenotypes.

These are things you would know if you had actually bothered to read the paper.

— Steve Reuland

Rapid progress and impressive results have been made towards this goal using rational design and random techniques or a combination of both. There is also overreliance on the Darwinian blind search to obtain practical results. In the long run, random methods cannot replace insight in constructing life-like proteins. For the near future, however, in enzyme development, we need to rely on a combination of both.

No, the premise of ID is that evolution either doesn't happen, or that it requires some sort of intervention by an agent outside of nature...

That's just plain wrong. I'm not sure if it's relevant to the point you were trying to make, if there is one, but directed evolution experiments involve replicating organisms or DNA sequences from which protein are derived. Although it is possible to manufacture proteins directly, it would be impractical.

— Steve Reuland

I can only go by the abstract, as I am not in a position to fork over thirty-two bucks American for the full article, and must defer to your representation of it.

— C Bass

So they confine the Darwinian aspect to the search, and apparently not the selection, which has been my point all along.

Darwinian evolution is the inspiration behind this. In the extreme form, this means avoiding protein design principles altogether and relying instead on huge sequence libraries and carefully designed selection methods.

— Leisola and Turunen

I never claimed that proteins had to be manufactured "directly", only that they had to be manufactured, as they don't self-replicate. You implicitly agree: "...from which protein are derived..."

— C Bass

Again, once Man does the selecting, based on Man's criteria of what is "favorable", you are no longer in the Darwinian realm.

ID doesn't deny that the mechanism of random variation + natural selection occurs in nature.

Thanks Steve. It seems that C Bass doesn't understand that "selecting proteins" IS selecting phenotypes. How does he think they do this, by selecting a particular nucleotide or amino acid sequence? If they knew what sequence they wanted in the first place they wouldn't have to use random mutations, they could just use site-directed mutagenesis. What they really do is test the "phenotype" or function of the protein. And even if they did select directly on the protein sequence, that is still selecting on "phenotype". It certainly is not selecting on genotype. It is really hard to agrue with people who do not read the papers and don't know the meaning of the words.

You are also correct that "artificial" selection is still "Darwinian". It doesn't matter whether the selection agent is human or not. Selection still has predictable consequences and limitations. Darwin knew all about artificial selection. He also knew it wasn't the only alternative to "natural" selection.

Keep the faith bro. And oh yea, "go mutations."

Give me an email address and I'll send you a pdf. You really need to read the article before commenting on it.

— Steve Reuland

Done!

The thread may indeed be stale by the time you finish reading the paper, but I still get emails every time someone leaves a comment. I'll be glad to keep discussing it with you, but I can't promise timely responses.

It seems that C Bass doesn't understand that "selecting proteins" IS selecting phenotypes.

— David Stanton

The phenotype of an individual organism is either its total physical appearance and constitution or a specific manifestation of a trait, such as size, eye color, or behavior that varies between individuals.

C Bass: Please describe a cause-to-effect link between evolution and eugenics. Who practiced eugenics, and what was their connection, if any, to Darwin or evolution?

C Bass:

Sorry if I was too harsh regarding terminology. The term "phenotype" can de somewhat ambiguous. By the way, wikipedia is probably not the best source for definitions of technical terms.

On another note, your willingness to read the paper puts you in another league from most of the antievolution types who post here. You have indeed demonstrated a desire for open discourse and the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Thanks also to Steve for helping out.

I still have to disagree with your characterization of eugenics however. Selection against individuals often amounts to nothing more than selection against variant forms of single proteins. For example, sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, SCID and many other diseases are caused by simple genetic changes that alter only one protein. It is true that not allowing certain individuals to breed may not always be for such simple reasons, but then again it often can be. Most of the time, genotype determines phenotype through intermediate stage of proteins. And eugenics may be based on single or multiple traits with heritable components. In any event, the basics of selection are the same, even if the genetic basis of some traits are not well understood.

Just a brief note to say thanks for the paper. I have read through it once and have skimmed it a number of times. Of course, I am biased, and therefore see design where a committed Darwinian might not see it. I want to spend some time absorbing the paper, making sure my biases aren't misleading me, but off hand, it appears that the paper is a survey of different methods ranging from random approaches (this is the part that's inspired by the Darwinian model) through rational design, and the current state of these various methods and approaches.

As a side note, it's interesting to see that this paper cites an article written by Michael Behe (co-authored by DW Snoke). If that doesn't make this a pro-ID paper, nothing can! :)

I was using the former definition ("total physical appearance and constitution") while you guys were using the latter ("a specific manifestation of a trait"). I should have simply used the term "organism", specifically, human.

— C Bass

Eugenics is the selection/de-selection of people, not individual proteins.

I was using the former definition ("total physical appearance and constitution") while you guys were using the latter ("a specific manifestation of a trait"). I should have simply used the term "organism", specifically, human.

— Anton Mates

No, that wouldn't be appropriate. An organism is not a phenotype; it has one. And production of a given sort of protein is included under either definition of phenotype. It's just that the total phenotype involves other aspects too.

Of course it would be appropriate; I never claimed that an organism was a phenotype --- that's just an inference on your part. I simply said I should have substituted the term "organism" for "phenotype" in the discussion,

— C Bass

and the context would allow it, given that the organisms in question (people) would be selected/de-delected based on the phenotype they possess.

When M Sanger was advocating the sterilization of the "feeble-minded", I really don't think she was concerned with individual proteins, although I suppose you could make the argument that such was what she was "really" doing, advocating the de-selection of certain proteins from the human population.

So they confine the Darwinian aspect to the search, and apparently not the selection, which has been my point all along.

— Steve Reuland

Nope. Here's what the authors wrote:

Darwinian evolution is the inspiration behind this. In the extreme form, this means avoiding protein design principles altogether and relying instead on huge sequence libraries and carefully designed selection methods.

— Leisola and Turunen wrote:

Those "carefully designed selection methods" are included under Darwinian evolution.

Even if the authors had not said it directly, it makes no sense to exclude selection from Darwinian evolution since selection is the very essence of what Darwinian evolution is! It is not a random search.

— Steve Reuland

Again, once Man does the selecting, based on Man's criteria of what is "favorable", you are no longer in the Darwinian realm.

— Steve Reuland

That's simply untrue. The mechanism is the same. It doesn't matter who or what does the selecting. The experimenter does not determine the resulting sequence, he just determines the selective pressure.

As I pointed out, you are effectively saying that it's impossible to study natural phenomenon in the lab, because once you involve "Man", it's no longer natural. That's just silly.

— Steve Reuland

ID doesn't deny that mutation and selection occur, it just says that they're are not capable of designing organisms (at least not beyond some undefined threshold). Directed evolution experiments show that this is wrong. Anything that can be done via directed evolution can be done by nature much more easily.

— Steve Reuland

When structural and genetic variation among ß-lactamases from different sources was analyzed, it was concluded that out of 10^199 possible structures, 10^122 are active (Axe 2004). Thus, only 1 out of 10^77 structures is functional.

a fully random search is hardly a way to create novel proteins for biotechnological use. This does not, however, prevent us from utilizing a random search in focused areas.

The function must also be biologically or evolutionarily feasible. In practice, this means that there exists a mutational pathway to get from here to there through ever-improving variants.

[D]irected-evolution protein engineering is the selection/de-selection of microorganisms, not individual proteins. The trait that the engineer is selecting for is the tendency to produce a protein with certain properties; the trait that the eugenicist is selecting for is intelligence or diligence or physical beauty or whatever it is the eugenicist thinks is positive and heritable.

— Anton Mates

It is often said that random genetic methods to improve enzyme properties "rely on simple but powerful Darwinian principles of mutation and selection" (Johannes and Zhao 2006). We agree.

[T]he transition from one fold to another is very problematic. Even inside a fold family, most transitions are very challenging.

1. Lack of a theory for structure design (i.e., specifying a structure that is suited to a target function) 2. Lack of a general approach for sequence design (i.e., specifying a sequence that folds to a target structure) 3. Overreliance on the Darwinian methodology

In spite of the progress, we still do not have a general theory on how a sequence produces a specific structure and how a structure determines a function. Therefore, a blind Darwinian search within a known protein scaffold is often used to modify proteins. Unfortunately, blind searches have hard resource limits whereas insight has not. Therefore, in the long run, blind searches are of limited value in compensating our present ignorance.

When M Sanger was advocating the sterilization of the "feeble-minded", I really don't think she was concerned with individual proteins, although I suppose you could make the argument that such was what she was "really" doing, advocating the de-selection of certain proteins from the human population.

— Anton Mates

Not at all. She was advocating the elimination of the trait of feeble-mindedness from the population---which, as a matter of fact, is largely dependent on the structure and presence/absence of various proteins in the brain---by sterilizing the carriers of that trait. Selection pressures, whether natural or artificial, select from a population of organisms, for particular traits.

I am simply trying to maintain the demarcation between natural selection (which is Darwinian) and artificial, designed selection (which is not).

. . . the Darwinian model is defined as being undirected, and having no goal(s). Once you direct the mechanism toward a goal, it no longer fits within the definition of Darwinian.

There is a difference between studying natural phenomena in a lab, and applying the fruits of such study to produce a desired, preconceived result,

. . . the individual proteins are indeed the target of the selection process. This is, after all, the point of the endeavor, the production of proteins, not so much the production of bacteria. The bacteria are simply a necessary artifact. Eugenics, on the other hand, is indeed focused on the organisms themselves --- the organisms and their phenotypes are not merely a necessary artifact of the process, but are indeed the target of the endeavor.

Yes, the mechanism is the same, but that ultimately doesn't matter, because the Darwinian model is defined as being undirected, and having no goal(s). Once you direct the mechanism toward a goal, it no longer fits within the definition of Darwinian.

It seems to me that you are trying to draw sharp demarcation lines where they do not in fact exist. For example, an important method of studying natural phenomena in the lab is to apply the fruits of your previous knowledge and see what happens.

— Richard Simons

I disagree that altering populations of bacteria so they have large amounts of a specific protein and altering human populations so they have large amounts of intelligence are conceptually very different.

When M Sanger was advocating the sterilization of the "feeble-minded", I really don't think she was concerned with individual proteins, although I suppose you could make the argument that such was what she was "really" doing, advocating the de-selection of certain proteins from the human population.

— Anton Mates

Not at all. She was advocating the elimination of the trait of feeble-mindedness from the population---which, as a matter of fact, is largely dependent on the structure and presence/absence of various proteins in the brain---by sterilizing the carriers of that trait.

C Bass: Since my question, you have made six posts here, but have so far refused to answer my question about the (alleged) connection between the theory of evolution and the practice of eugenics. IS there really a connection? Or are you just tossing off an easy lie because you're too lazy to deal with the issues in depth, and need a quick diversion?

Isn't this just the same, tired line of argumentation that we went through months (a year!?) ago with the Genetic Algorithm business and a version of the Traveling Salesman, in which it was conclusively shown that the target of such a process is not contained within the algorithm?

C. Bass:
The point is this. A fully, no-kidding, all-the-way Darwinian process can occur in a domain chosen by an agent outside of that process. You appear to me to be equivocating on the fact that the Darwinian process that led to the diversity of life on Earth was not so constrained, and had to take place in the wide-open domain we call the universe. Using Darwinian principles in a smaller domain, such as the engineering of a single protein, lacks the grandeur of three-plus billion years of organic evolution perhaps, but it does not fail to be Darwinian just because of the outside constraints imposed on it.

They cannot be, as they are designed, and the Darwinian model forbids design, claiming that any appearance of design is illusory. The design in those "carefully designed selection methods" are real, not illusory.

— C Bass

Yes, the mechanism is the same, but that ultimately doesn't matter, because the Darwinian model is defined as being undirected, and having no goal(s). Once you direct the mechanism toward a goal, it no longer fits within the definition of Darwinian. It's really as simple as that.

There is a difference between studying natural phenomena in a lab, and applying the fruits of such study to produce a desired, preconceived result, whether it be the fabrication of a novel protein or the improvement of an existing one. Engineering is the application of knowledge, not the accumulation thereof.

I respectfully disagree. The article states that the average protein is composed of approximately 300 amino acids, and since there are 20 amino acids to choose from, there are, again on average, 20^300 possible sequences, which is a large number. The authors refer to this as the sequence-space (page 2). The article goes on to say that there are islands of functionality in this sequence space, where viable protein structures exist, separated by rather large gaps.

In their discussion of localized randomization, they list four criteria that must be met for directed evolution to be successful, the second of which applies here: The function must also be biologically or evolutionarily feasible. In practice, this means that there exists a mutational pathway to get from here to there through ever-improving variants. The authors observe that this second criterion confines the search to a functional/structural island (page 3).

A truly Darwinian mechanism is blissfully unaware of these islands of functionality, and subsequently is unconcerned with where randomization leads.

Given that there is a large chasm between these islands, it stands to reason that the majority of random mutations would be deleterious, and that is what we observe.

Directed evolution, on the other hand, seeks to avoid those chasms of nonviability, and indeed uses the islands of functionality as both a starting point and a boundry of exploration. Therefore, although the process may be inspired by the Darwinian model, it is simply unwarranted to claim that it is Darwinian in its own right.

Since there is intervention from outside agency directing both the randomizations (confining them to specific segments of the sequence space)...

...and the selections, guiding them to a prespecified target...

...it is indeed warranted to claim that this is a process of design, one that just so happens to have some admittedly Darwinian components.

"I disagree that altering populations of bacteria so they have large amounts of a specific protein and altering human populations so they have large amounts of intelligence are conceptually very different." Which rather suggests that you don't see much difference between bacteria and human beings, "conceptually".

They cannot be, as they are designed, and the Darwinian model forbids design, claiming that any appearance of design is illusory. The design in those "carefully designed selection methods" are real, not illusory.

Yes, the mechanism is the same, but that ultimately doesn't matter, because the Darwinian model is defined as being undirected, and having no goal(s). Once you direct the mechanism toward a goal, it no longer fits within the definition of Darwinian. It's really as simple as that.

A truly Darwinian mechanism is blissfully unaware of these islands of functionality, and subsequently is unconcerned with where randomization leads. Given that there is a large chasm between these islands, it stands to reason that the majority of random mutations would be deleterious, and that is what we observe. Directed evolution, on the other hand, seeks to avoid those chasms of nonviability, and indeed uses the islands of functionality as both a starting point and a boundry of exploration.

However it is at least equally as valid to state that, since the reason the engineer is selecting organisms is for the proteins they produce, the individual proteins are indeed the target of the selection process. This is, after all, the point of the endeavor, the production of proteins, not so much the production of bacteria. The bacteria are simply a necessary artifact. Eugenics, on the other hand, is indeed focused on the organisms themselves --- the organisms and their phenotypes are not merely a necessary artifact of the process, but are indeed the target of the endeavor.

— C Bass

It seems to me that you are trying to draw sharp demarcation lines where they do not in fact exist. For example, an important method of studying natural phenomena in the lab is to apply the fruits of your previous knowledge and see what happens.

— C Bass

Yes, to see what happens, the implication being that you don't know what happens yet. Once the phenomenon is observed, verified and cataloged, it ceases to be study and begins to move into the realm of application.

I disagree that altering populations of bacteria so they have large amounts of a specific protein and altering human populations so they have large amounts of intelligence are conceptually very different.

Upon reflection, the following question occurs to me: What made her so certain that "feeble-mindedness" was an inheritable trait? And even with our present knowledge you allude to, are we certain that all forms of "feeble-mindedness" are inheritable? Hell, exactly how is "feeble-mindedness" defined, both then and now?

— C Bass

You appear to me to be equivocating on the fact that the Darwinian process that led to the diversity of life on Earth was not so constrained, and had to take place in the wide-open domain we call the universe. Using Darwinian principles in a smaller domain, such as the engineering of a single protein, lacks the grandeur of three-plus billion years of organic evolution perhaps, but it does not fail to be Darwinian just because of the outside constraints imposed on it.

— CJO

C Bass,

Your argument is very poor, and amounts to a semantic quibble. Moreover, you're repeating yourself, and failing to add new information.

The only guidance is setting the domain within which the Darwinian process will proceed. Inside that domain, the process is unguided, and Darwinian.

Even selective breeding is just a special case of natural selection, not qualitatively different from any other example of co-evolution. Else, isn't bee evolution "guided" by the flowering-plant lineage? By your argument, everywhere there is even the hint of "purpose," Darwinian mechanisms are somehow over-ridden by... well, by what? That seems like a good question for you.

If you are convinced that any random variation/selection process used for a purpose by an agent is not, and cannot be by definition, a Darwinian process, what adjective should we use to describe such a process?

C Bass said: The Darwinian model is an unguided process by defintion.

They cannot be, as they are designed, and the Darwinian model forbids design, claiming that any appearance of design is illusory. The design in those "carefully designed selection methods" are real, not illusory.

— Steve Reuland

This is just semantics. I contend that Darwinian evolution creates "real" designs. I know that some authors like to call it the "appearance" of design, but in my opinion this is needlessly misleading. The point of calling it an "appearance" of design is to contrast what happens in Darwinian evolution vs. conscious, forward-thinking design.

If you insist on claiming that Darwinian evolution creates only the "appearance" of design, then so too does directed evolution.

I would say it really does matter that the mechanism is the same. If the mechanism is the same, then anything that one can do can also be accomplished by the other, at least in principle.

I would take exception to the claim that Darwinian evolution cannot be goal-directed.

It is directed to the goal of increasing fitness.

We don't mean that there aren't any short-term goals being accomplished.

Making a protein better match certain fitness criteria is a goal, whether it's done by an experimenter or by the environment.

There is a difference between studying natural phenomena in a lab, and applying the fruits of such study to produce a desired, preconceived result, whether it be the fabrication of a novel protein or the improvement of an existing one. Engineering is the application of knowledge, not the accumulation thereof.

Directed evolution experiments are, as often as not, intended to elucidate the features of a protein's structure and function.

The article states that the average protein is composed of approximately 300 amino acids, and since there are 20 amino acids to choose from, there are, again on average, 20^300 possible sequences, which is a large number. The authors refer to this as the sequence-space (page 2). The article goes on to say that there are islands of functionality in this sequence space, where viable protein structures exist, separated by rather large gaps

They cite only one paper (written by an IDist!) in order to back up this claim.

(Let me point out again that this is an IDist term of art, and protein engineers do not perceive any "islands of functionality".)

The Darwinian model is an unguided process by defintion.

— Science Avenger

Yes, but ...

The only guidance is setting the domain within which the Darwinian process will proceed. Inside that domain, the process is unguided, and Darwinian.

isn't bee evolution "guided" by the flowering-plant lineage?

Let me see if I understand this. If you breed spotted dogs because you want spotted dogs, you're being Darwinian; but if you breed spotted dogs because you want spotted dog skins, you're not being Darwinian?

— Anton Mates

Such a definition of "Darwinian" not only conflicts with the paper in question, but fails to reflect evolutionary theory in any era from Darwin to today. Evolutionary biology is perfectly comfortable with selection pressures being produced by design. Human design, for instance, has influenced the evolution of myriad other species for millions of years. Bedbugs exist because humans chose to make caves into their living quarters. A new species of mosquito evolved in the London subways because humans designed and built a transportation system. And so forth.

By "guided", I mean by intelligence. But I suspect you knew that already. I mean, sure, a river is "guided" by its banks, but what of it? Does that therefore make a river identical to an aquaduct or a pipeline?

I didn't realize that a new species of mosquito was the objective of that London subway system

It's interesting how quickly the Darwinian camp can equivocate on the illusion of design --- it's an illusion when convenient, but "needlessly misleading" to call it so otherwise.

— C Bass

Nonsense. In your own words, there is a difference between "Darwinian evolution [and] conscious, forward-thinking design." Directed evolution is the latter, given that it involves a conscious entity seeking a specific outcome.

By your logic, any process that involves a random element is "Darwinian"...

What you guys refuse to consider is that this random element is still controlled and directed, and the whole process guided to a preconceived objective. This is in clear contrast to the truly Darwinian mechanism of natural selection, which has no preconceived objective, and no guidance or focusing of the random element.

But in nature, there are no "fitness criteria", no "criteria" of any kind.

No, whether the paper is "wrong" is not the issue. What the paper is saying (whether it's "right" or "wrong") is the issue. If you want to argue over whether this paper is correct in its assertions, well, this is your blog, go ahead and start another thread on that topic.

Then you are hereby conceding that this is, in fact, an ID paper, given that it uses ID "terms of art" and bases a discussion on an assertion that is allegedly an IDist concept, the "islands of functionality" in the amino acid sequence space.

C Bass dodged thusly: There are no "but"s about it. Your contrived examples are tiresome, as is your conflation of "Darwninian process" and "evolution".

Rilly.
"Objection, your honor. The prosecution's line of reasoning is devastating to my argument."

Steve Reuland said: It is nonsensical to try to draw a distinction between human and non-human causes of altering reproductive success, because 1) there is no mechanistic difference, and 2) one cannot in most cases (or perhaps any) fully disentangle human beings from the larger environment. A point that has been made by several others already.

Science is about what is, morality is about what is intended.

I have not equivocated on this at all.

— Steve Reuland

No one consciously designs the result or picks the desired outcome ahead of time in a directed evolution experiment. There is no preconceived objective in a directed evolution experiment. The experimenter does not know ahead of time what he's going to get... The only actual difference between a directed evolution experiment and evolution in the wild is that the former contains an experimenter setting up the experimental conditions.

The gene of interest is diversified through mutations, and the created library of mutated genes is tested against a specific selection pressure... The best variants are iteratively subjected to a new round of mutations. The selection is directed toward a desired activity... (Leisola and Turunen p2)

When you manage to get the difference between experiments and engineering straight in your mind, this discussion will have more meaning. Until then, we're talking past each other.

I have not equivocated on this at all.

Your camp certainly has...

The designs are real, there is no point in calling them "illusory". Others think that by calling them illusory, they're drawing a useful distinction between evolution and conscious, forward-thinking design, but I maintain that this is not a useful means of drawing that distinction. All it does is confuse people such as yourself.

But the paper isn't talking about experiments, it's talking about engineering. Sure, there is some level of experimentation in the engineering process, but that experimentation is limited in scope --- and the engineer does indeed have a preconceived idea of where the enterprise should wind up. If he didn't, he would be a rather expensive "asset" to have in one's organization.

Richard Dawkins swears on his mother's grave that design in nature is an "illusion", then you come along, another Darwinian, and say, "oh no, the design is actually real --- don't pay attention to that 'illusion' stuff..." So whom is the skeptic suppposed to believe?

— C Bass

But the paper isn't talking about experiments, it's talking about engineering.

So, the authors seem to contradict your assertion that "[N]o one consciously ... picks the desired outcome ahead of time ..."

When you manage to get the difference between experiments and engineering straight in your mind, this discussion will have more meaning. Until then, we're talking past each other.

How interesting. Let me take a sentence or two and have a go:

"A truly Darwinian mechanism is blissfully unaware of these islands of functionality, and subsequently is unconcerned with where randomization leads. Given that there is a large chasm between these islands, it stands to reason that the majority of random mutations would be deleterious, and that is what we observe."

So, how exactly is a mechanism supposed to be aware?
Then, you do realise that the issue here is that for a specific purpose, you are correct. However, for other purposes, i.e. functions with different islands of optimality, the mutation may increase fitness. The environment provides the screen throught which individuals with different fitness pass, and in an environment with a new antibiotic, the one with the mutation would survive, even although the mutation might badly affect some function of it which means it would not survive without the presence of the antibiotic.

C BAss also seems unaware of the fact that the holocaust occured almost a century after the start of eugenics.

With a name like "sea bass" I wonder if we're being trolled. But they seem to be putting in too much effort for a troll, whose best work is when they only make one post.

Let's review for the reading-comprehension-challenged.

— CJO

You quoted SR's post with just I have not equivocated on this at all.

Your camp certainly has...

It's interesting how quickly the Darwinian camp can equivocate on the illusion of design -- it's an illusion when convenient, but "needlessly misleading" to call it so otherwise.

Here you are talking past the point made most recently by Science Avenger and others (the presentation of which you affect to find tiresome) regarding the irrelevance of intention.

What happens when ... Or when ...

Sure, there is some level of experimentation in the engineering process, but that experimentation is limited in scope -- and the engineer does indeed have a preconceived idea of where the enterprise should wind up.

Dembski et al can't possibly let on that actual Darwinian processes function at any level.

Aha. We come to the heart of the matter. "Intelligence."

Fluid Dynamics works exactly the same in a river as in an aqueduct, as in a pipeline. At a given level of analysis, then -- the level where we characterize the behavior of the fluid contained within the structure -- yes. A river is identical to an aqueduct or a pipeline.

Does that therefore make a river identical to an aquaduct or a pipeline? Well, maybe in your view, it does ...

C Bass blithered thusly:

See? I was referring to the Darwinian camp all along, not individuals...

In other words, you're accusing an unspecified "camp" of doing things you can't prove any specific person actually did.

The point you pretend not to get is that Dawkins hammers "illusion" into the readers' head...

The point you're avoiding is that Dawkins is irrelevant: the theory of evolution stands, and ID is vapor-ware, regardless of what anyone says about Dawkins. If all you can do is get all Beavis & Butthead on us and say "He said 'design,' huhhuhhuh!" then you might as well give it up -- you're not fooling anyone.

And you still haven't answered my question about the (alleged) connection between evllution and eugenics; which only further proves you're a dodgy lying coward.

C Bass wondered as to what the I in ID referred. While it refers to 'intelligent', it is through conflation of terminology how ID attempts to make its case. Remember that ID is the set theoretic complement of chance and regularity. Nothing about intelligent/intelligence so far. In fact, as I and others have argued, ID is about Ignorance not Intelligence. Which is self evident once you dig a little below the surface.

C Bass dodged thusly: Yes, I find the conflation of "evolution" and "Darwinian evolution" to be quite tiresome. I go to the trouble of invoking Darwin's name every time I talk about the process he described.

"Evolution" is a vague term that can simply mean "change over time", regardless of mechanism.

In his "presentation", Science Avenger kept asking "Still evolution? If not, why not?" Well, I never claimed that "evolution" wasn't taking place, so his line of questioning was meaningless, and yes, tiresome. The process under discussion is "directed evolution", after all, so why would anyone be so tedious as to ask whether "evolution" were taking place?

In other words, you're accusing an unspecified "camp" of doing things you can't prove any specific person actually did.

— Raging Bee

The point you're avoiding is that Dawkins is irrelevant: the theory of evolution stands, and ID is vapor-ware, regardless of what anyone says about Dawkins. If all you can do is get all Beavis & Butthead on us and say "He said 'design,' huhhuhhuh!" then you might as well give it up --- you're not fooling anyone.

What is tiresome is pretending that what Darwin described is relevant in the wake of all the progress that has been made since.

— Science Avenger

1. The wolves will cross over, chase the deer, and the deer might very well evolve more speed to escape them. Evolution, right? 2. OK, now change the scenario: instead of a rockslide, the pass was made by humans building a road. The wolves still cross, and the deer still evolve speed. Still evolution? Of course. 3. What if the people made the pass on purpose, not for a road, but to see if the deer would evolve speed? Still evolution? If not, why not? 4. Now if the humans made the pass and then reached in somehow to the deer's genetic structure and forced mutations resulting in more speed, THAT would be guided and consequently not evolution.

Unless you are discussing science history, talk of "Darwinian evolution" makes about as much sense as invoking "Wright Brothers aerodynamics" in a discussion of flight.

— Science Avenger

Before I proceed, however, I note that Dembski makes an important concession to his critics. He refuses to make the second assumption noted above. When the EF implies that certain systems are intelligently designed, Dembski does not think it follows that there is some intelligent designer or other. He says that, "even though in practice inferring design is the first step in identifying an intelligent agent, taken by itself design does not require that such an agent be posited. The notion of design that emerges from the design inference must not be confused with intelligent agency" (TDI, 227, my emphasis).

They cannot be, as they are designed, and the Darwinian model forbids design, claiming that any appearance of design is illusory. The design in those "carefully designed selection methods" are real, not illusory.

C Bass said: ...you guys use Darwin's name when convenient, but get upset when I use it for the sake of consistency, and even go so far as to pretend that his name is irrelevant.

I asked: What if the people made the pass on purpose, not for a road, but to see if the deer would evolve speed? Still evolution? If not, why not? To which C Bass responded: [It] is still "evolution", or Darwinian evolution. Why would it be otherwise? And what point are you trying to make?

Once you start "target[ing] favorable traits", where "favorable" is defined by the scientists doing the engineering, you are talking about ID, and are not talking about Darwinian evolution. When you insist that "properties the scientists select for" is analogous to natural selection, you are admitting that the selection is not natural, and therefore not Darwinian.

Darwinians do refer to "neo-Darwinian evolution".

That should be "anachronistic" above, not "anarchistic"

In case of Darwinism, the "intelligent designer" is natural selection.

C Bass blithered:

Dawkins says "Design == Illusion" and then Reuland says "Design != Illusion".

And this changes the validity of the actual science behind evolution...how? The most I see here is two people using the same word in slightly different ways. As an example of "equivocation," this is as irrelevant as it gets. Can't you cdesign proponentsists find better straws to grasp at than that?

(And speaking of equivocation, does ID "theory" have anything specific to say about the age of the Earth? Or are you still trying to equivocate between smart politicians and stupid donors?)

Dawkins may be irrelevant in your world, but he is a leading spokesman for promoting neo-Darwinian evolution, and explaining the theory to the masses. Claiming him to be "irrelevant" is disingenuous, to put it mildly...

First, Dawkins was nowhere to be found during the Dover trial, and contributed nothing to Judge Jones' opinion.

And second, Dawkins' promotion has nothing at all to do with the actual science. Of course, I wouldn't expect an ID advocate to understand this distinction, since ID is all promotion and no science.

And no, I'm not going to do your research for you. You alleged a connection between evolution and eugenics, you back it up.

I expected you to say "ID". The people "did the engineering" to get a "favorable trait, where 'favorable' is defined by the [people] doing the engineering", ie, faster deer. So why doesn't that qualify as ID per your own statement?

— Science Avenger

What if the people made the pass on purpose, not for a road, but to see if the deer would evolve speed? Still evolution? If not, why not?

And this changes the validity of the actual science behind evolution...how? The most I see here is two people using the same word in slightly different ways.

— Raging Bee

(And speaking of equivocation, does ID "theory" have anything specific to say about the age of the Earth? Or are you still trying to equivocate between smart politicians and stupid donors?)

Dawkins and other scientists that speak of "neo-Darwinian evolution" are not using it in the anarchistic, equivocating way that you and other IDers do. For one who likes to toss the term "equivocating" at the drop of a hat, you sure enjoy it yourself.

— Science Avenger

When will you guys get it that you can't win scientific battles with word games?

C Bass exposed himself thusly: The problem is that you guys insist on conflating "experiment" with "engineering", and accusing me of "word games".

First, Dawkins was nowhere to be found during the Dover trial, and contributed nothing to Judge Jones' opinion.

— Raging Bee

And second, Dawkins' promotion has nothing at all to do with the actual science.

And no, I'm not going to do your research for you. You alleged a connection between evolution and eugenics, you back it up.

"This dazzling production shows how ideas always have consequences, often unintended, and how Darwinism has impacted American culture," Lapin wrote. "It discusses how the philosophy of evolution can dehumanize people and how Adolf Hitler, on his own admission, was influenced by Darwinian thought."

Editorial Reviews "This is one of the finest examples of intellectual history I have seen in a long while. It is insightful, thoughtful, informative, and highly readable. Rather than simply connecting the dots, so to speak, the author provides a sophisticated and nuanced examination of numerous German thinkers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who were influenced to one degree or another by Darwinist naturalism and their ideas, subtly drawing both distinctions and similarities and in the process telling a rich and colorful story."--Ian Dowbiggin, University of Prince Edward Island and author of A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America "Richard Weikart's outstanding book shows in sober and convincing detail how Darwinist thinkers in Germany had developed an amoral attitude to human society by the time of the First World War, in which the supposed good of the race was applied as the sole criterion of public policy and 'racial hygiene'. Without over-simplifying the lines that connected this body of thought to Hitler, he demonstrates with chilling clarity how policies such as infanticide, assisted suicide, marriage prohibitions and much else were being proposed for those considered racially or eugenically inferior by a variety of Darwinist writers and scientists, providing Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued once they came to power."--Richard Evans, University of Cambridge, and author of The Coming of the Third Reich

A priceless summation of a post that was nothing but. I can't improve on that in rebuttal, it is self-rebutting. Precious irony indeed.

So another bunch of people build another pass using another population of deer/wolves. This time, the deer are simply hunted to extinction.

You are obviously confused, unable to distinguish between ID and YEC.

So what he writes in his books is not science, nor based on science?

...and if you're idiotic enough to believe that hitler was motivated by Darwin, as opposed to just power, then you are too far gone to have any further conversation with.

suggest you do a search on this very site to see the many threads that have debunked that fabrication time and time again.

What evidence do you have that I am using the "Darwninian" in an equivocating way?

— C Bass

You are obviously confused, unable to distinguish between ID and YEC.

...changing a word's meaning in the middle of discourse.

Neither of these authors changed their usage of the word in the middle of discourse. Different authors used the word in slightly different ways. If you don't understand the difference, then you're not in a position to lecture us about "equivocation."

Now on to your bogus evolution-eugenics link...

The first quote, from the rabbi, comes from the WorldNutDaily, which is well known for its consistently ignorant, dishonest and insane assertions. Furthermore, the quote doesn't even describe a link between evolution and eugenics; it's just one guy saying there is a link.

"Without over-simplifying the lines that connected this body of thought to Hitler, he demonstrates with chilling clarity how policies such as infanticide, assisted suicide, marriage prohibitions and much else were being proposed for those considered racially or eugenically inferior by a variety of Darwinist writers and scientists, providing Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued once they came to power."---Richard Evans, University of Cambridge, and author of The Coming of the Third Reich

Anyone who knows any history could tell you that ALL of the policies mentioned in the above paragraph predate Darwin by CENTURIES. And so does the racism that motivates them.

Your evolution-eugenics link is pure crap. It's also an act of "false witness," which REAL Christians aren't supposed to do.

So now lets take the final logical step that abuses the concept of analogy. Since natural processes are used by scientists to mimick nature and improve human design, it is clear that human design is an extension of nature, not the other way around.
ID proponents have gotten it all wrong. Design amongst humans is not evidence of design in nature because we observe how humans have found similar 'solutions' to common problems as has nature, but rather the natural design in nature helps humans formulate human designs.
That humans have to mimick nature tells us a lot about the power of 'design' in nature. Of course, one should not misunderstand the concept of design with the concept of Purpose or Primary Cause.

Neither of these authors changed their usage of the word in the middle of discourse. Different authors used the word in slightly different ways. If you don't understand the difference, then you're not in a position to lecture us about "equivocation.

Neither of these authors changed their usage of the word in the middle of discourse. Different authors used the word in slightly different ways. If you don't understand the difference, then you're not in a position to lecture us about "equivocation."

— Raging Bee

The first quote, from the rabbi, comes from the WorldNutDaily, which is well known for its consistently ignorant, dishonest and insane assertions.

Anyone who knows any history could tell you that ALL of the policies mentioned in the above paragraph predate Darwin by CENTURIES.

...considered racially or eugenically inferior by a variety of Darwinist writers and scientists, providing Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued...

you forgot to add variability (as one factor) to your over-simplified thought process. it's one reason that predators don't typically hunt their prey to extinction.

— Sir_Toejam

choking on one minor (deliberate) inaccuracy

How am I doing so far?

— PvM

Why didn't you guys get upset over the "over-simplification" of Science Avenger's ridiculously contrived scenario? Simpy because he's one of you guys?

At least I read Dawkins and Sean Carroll, even if they are "irrelevant". At least I try to not be a complete ignoramous.

All scientific pursuits have made claims that were subsequently "shown to be erroneous". In fact, we keep hearing about how science is "self-correcting", which implies that it must generate errors along the line. So your observation re: error is utterly bogus.

— C Bass

And to claim that ID relies on the Bible is simply absurd, and reveals abject ignorance on your part.

At least I read Dawkins and Sean Carroll, even if they are "irrelevant". At least I try to not be a complete ignoramous. I don't say I succeed, necessarily, only that I try. Unlike you guys.

MINOR???

— Sir_Toejam

And to claim that ID relies on the Bible is simply absurd, and reveals abject ignorance on your part.

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,"

how much you wanna bet I can quiz you on even basic tenents about evolutionary biology explained in Dawkins' books, and you will get every question wrong?

Yes, minor, in the overall flow of the discussion. Typical that you would use this deliberate inaccuracy as a pathetic excuse to ignore 90% of what I said, giving you your weak justification to ignore my greater line of argument.

— C Bass

...it was the writings of Darwinists that provided the "scientific justification".

Wrong again, you lying ignoramus: the Nazis provided the justification, both pseudo-scientific and otherwise, for things they were hell-bent on doing, and would have done, anyway. Blaming scientists for the political actions of people who clearly knew nothing about science, is pure horseshit. And the fact that you and your fellow creationists are so eager to believe and trumpet the reasoning of the Nazis, proves how morally and mentally bankrupt you really are.

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,"

All scientific pursuits have made claims that were subsequently "shown to be erroneous". In fact, we keep hearing about how science is "self-correcting", which implies that it must generate errors along the line. So your observation re: error is utterly bogus.

— C Bass

Come on C Bass, do you realize how ironic your comments must sound to those observing your own words and (in)actions?

If the supernatural stops existing then indeed, ID which relies on a non-natural explanation seems to stop existing. Just because ID considers intelligence to be non-natural does of course not make its argument any less objectionable.

Why does ID reject theistic evolutionists' explanations while seeming to be far more open to for instance young earth creationists? Why do IDers insist on interventionism rather than on front loading? Because of their reading of the bible I'd propose. What other reasons do you propose?

Wrong again, you lying ignoramus...

Equivocation, misdirection, ad hominem, etc. Of course, you will proceed to accuse me of the same.

— C Bass

Equivocation, misdirection, ad hominem, etc.

So why should I believe you, someone who hides behind a screen name and spews venom? Why should I believe anything coming from someone who calls himself "Raging Bee", as opposed to university professors and historians?

— C Bass

Why should I believe anything coming from someone who calls himself "Raging Bee", as opposed to university professors and historians?

So explain how the fact that ID can be described as a restatement of a Gospel means that it relies on that (or any other) gospel. If X restates Y, and if Y stopped existing, would that mean that I could no longer state X independent of Y? If so, why?

From a theological and scientific perspective there is little difference [between ID and YEC], I'd argue. Both rely on cherry picking, ignorance to make their 'scientific' case. Both sides have made claims which have been shown to be erroneous. Both rely on the Bible to enforce their level of ignorance and reject good science.

First, it is highly unlikely I have Viking ancestors even being a Swede by many generations.

Worse, Vikings were a social, and not ethnic, group.

Third, not all of Europe was christian at the time. For example, the Kievan Rus' principality was probably founded just by scandinavian traders, and it wasn't christianized until about 200 years after the travels had started to pass the region.

Oriental Christianity, with the Byzantine civilization that was inseparable from it, produced in time a considerable transformation in Russia. The first effect of Christianity was to reform society, and draw closer family ties. It condemned polygamy, and forbade equal divisions between the children of a slave and those of the lawful wife. Society resisted this new principle for some time. Saint Vladimir, even after his conversion, divided his possessions equally among the children the Church regarded as natural and those she considered legitimate. In the long run Christianity prevailed, and by the abolition of polygamy the Russian family ceased to be Asiatic, and became European. Christianity prescribed new virtues, and gave the ancient barbaric virtues of hospitality and benevolence a more elevated character.

Fourth, I'm not a biologist. That I support science instead of anti-science does not't make me an expert in evolutionary biology. So please refrain from mislabeling me and my expertise.

Darwinated universities

Why should I believe anything coming from someone who calls himself "Raging Bee", as opposed to university professors and historians?

Because the professors and historians back up my claims solidly. That's where I've been getting the information -- as well as from Holocaust survivors themselves.

Don't believe me? Read the huge amount of books, articles and papers they've been publishing on the subject since 1933. The Nazis didn't kill Jews, Commies, gays, Gypsies, blacks, Slavs, the mentally retarded and the malformed because of anything "Darwinists" wrote; they did it because they were flaming racists, and sold their racism as the solution to their country's problems. Blaming "Darwinists" for any of this is both stupid and evil.

Does your ignorance of ID know no bounds? Michael Behe says that he has "no reason" to not believe that the earth and the universe are the billions of years old that geologists and cosmologists respectively say they are.

Does Behe say this to the creationists who pay his wages? Behe himself may say this, but ID "theory" explicitly refuses to take a position the subject, for fear of alienating their YEC supporters. For the same reason, they also explicitly refuse to engage in ANY speculation about the nature and purposes of their "Designer."

Christianity prescribed new virtues, and gave the ancient barbaric virtues of hospitality and benevolence a more elevated character.

At least this author admits that Christians weren't the only source of virtue on Earth.

Christianity prescribed new virtues, and gave the ancient barbaric virtues of hospitality and benevolence a more elevated character. At least this author admits that Christians weren't the only source of virtue on Earth.

oops, seems like our singing plastic bass has done disappeared on us.

no doubt he is madly re-reading his entire collection of Dawkins in order to answer the simple questions posed to him.

:P

Saying any good things about the Lovers of Jesus at all is not the way to advance your career in those places!

methinks you and universities have never spent much time together.

Like other people seeking to expand their employment options, I have spent much money and time being force fed the rancid monkey meat of Darwinian propaganda and vomiting it up on exam days. What a crock that it!

C Bass wrote: So, the authors seem to contradict your assertion that "[N]o one consciously ... picks the desired outcome ahead of time ..." When you manage to get the difference between experiments and engineering straight in your mind, this discussion will have more meaning. Until then, we're talking past each other.

Hmm too bad that our friend has decided to leave as the discussion about the scientific irrelevance of ID had just started. Now we will never know what C Bass thinks of these observations

In The Blind Watchmaker, why does Dawkins discuss clay in a riverbed?

what does Dawkins mean exactly, when he uses the expression, "Blind Watchmaker"? -what original argument is he referring to, and who made it? -why does he say the watchmaker is "blind"?

why don't you tell me what other selection hypotheses are discussed by Dawkins in his books? -name at least one.

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,"

— William A. Dembski

Darwin's words are not holy writ. Neither are Dawkins'.

— Science Avenger

All scientific pursuits have made claims that were subsequently "shown to be erroneous". In fact, we keep hearing about how science is "self-correcting", which implies that it must generate errors along the line. So your observation re: error is utterly bogus.

— PvM

So many logical errors here. First of all not all 'pursuits' that have been shown to be erroneous have been scientific in nature.

Just because ID asserts that 'X cannot be explained by Y' does not make ID scientifically relevant.

Let me explain why ID is scientifically vacuous. It's really simple: ID's approach to infer design as the set theoretic complement of regularity and chance does not provide it with any foundation to make positive claims as to how a particular system can be explained.

how do you know that raging bee isn't a professor?

flipping it around, why DON'T you believe the 99.999% of biological scientists who productively utilize evolutionary theory on a daily basis, as opposed to the extreme minority of overly vocal (and near wholly NOT biologically oriented) professors and lawyers and engineers claiming support for ID?

Read the huge amount of books, articles and papers they've been publishing on the subject since 1933.

seems like our singing plastic bass has done disappeared on us. Hmm too bad that our friend has decided to leave as the discussion about the scientific irrelevance of ID had just started. Now we will never know what C Bass thinks of these observations.

William A. Dembski wrote: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,"

Science Avenger wrote: Darwin's words are not holy writ. Neither are Dawkins'.

Yet it seems that Dembksi's words are --- interesting. (Here is where the Darwinians fall all over themselves to explain how the example of Dembski is "different".)

I don't suppose that if ID had turned out to be a restatement of, say, Zoroastrian cosmogony, that Dembski's camp would be quite so fired up about it, would they?

— CJO

Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

— Richard Dawkins

and the ID position simply makes more sense to me

No, here is where I point out, while sitting camly, that you're not dealing with the issue, you're trying to weasel your way out of it.

— CJO

intuition guides ID support. nothing more.

C Bass --- Behe and Meyer are wrong in the sense that ID is not testable, hence not part of natural science.

I have spent much money and time being force fed the rancid monkey meat of Darwinian propaganda and vomiting it up on exam days. What a crock that it! How would you like it if your had to spend upwards of forty grand a year for four years sitting in Christian catechisms written in the most abstruse, boring style imaginable and since you have to take exams, you really do have to pay attention in order to get some "magic" sheet of paper that allows you to enter a myriad of professions.

Jesus H Christ people, Pumpkinhead is Colbert already. C Bass is O'Reilly.

Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

but it isn't okay for theists ---

their motivation is conflated with the hypothesis itself, in order to discredit the hypothesis.

The Darwinian model led to the claim that 98% of the human genome was junk. ID predicted that "junk DNA" would prove to have function, and such has been shown to be the case.

— C Bass

intuition guides ID support. nothing more.

So it's okay for Dawkins to be motivated by his beliefs, but it isn't okay for theists --- their motivation is conflated with the hypothesis itself, in order to discredit the hypothesis. (Again, the Darwinians will proceed to fall all over themselves trying to explain how Dawkins is "different".)

— C Bass

PvM --- shakey foundations is too gentle.

Unfounded assumptions?

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory"

— William A. Dembski

Is that actually Dembski's "definition" of intelligent design? Dr. Forrest's "Logos quote" was taken from an article in Touchstone, a Christian magazine, at the end of an article in a section titled "Design, Metaphysics, & Beyond." Clearly Dembski is looking at design in a much broader context for a Christian audience, "beyond" its formulation as a science.

The reason why ID's thesis is 'conflated' with their motivations is because they claim, erroneously, that they have a scientific theory which can accurately detect design. Through equivocation and conflation, they then confuse design with Design and then Designer.

The reason why ID's thesis is 'conflated' with their motivations is because they claim, erroneously, that they have a scientific theory which can accurately detect design. Through equivocation and conflation, they then confuse design with Design and then Designer.

Combine this with a predisposition that enforces seeing design and one has a recipe for disaster, theologically speaking as well as scientifically speaking.

PvM --- shakey foundations is too gentle. Unfounded assumptions?

Okay guys, what, exactly, are these "foundations/assumptions" of which you speak? Give me a list of these "shakey/unfounded " foundations/assumptions.

— C Bass

"Combine this with a predisposition that enforces the refusal to acknowledge design and one has a recipe for disaster, scientifically speaking. That disaster is known as Darwinian evolution..."

Nope. On the contrary, that's what you guys do, "confuse design with Design and then Designer", in order to make the vacuous claims you do (ID is religion, or is based on religion, ad nauseam)

— C Bass

Now I've really heard it all. For the first time I come to understand there are "evolutionary methods" as if to say evolution is methodical and not purely random-based.

So if evolution is methodical, who devised the method? The experimenter? Would such a method select the "fittest" for "survival"? With logic such as this is it any wonder you guys are having to spend huge amounts of energy the past few years arguing and insulting us ignoramuses, on the controversy that supposedly doesn't exist, you know, the one that dominates discussion on PT?

Selective breeding was suggested at least as far back as Plato, who believed human reproduction should be controlled by government. He recorded these ideals in The Republic: "The best men must have intercourse with the best women as frequently as possible, and the opposite is true of the very inferior." Plato proposed that the process be concealed from the public via a form of lottery. Other ancient examples include Sparta's purported practice of infanticide. However, they would leave all babies outside for a length of time, and the survivors were considered stronger, while many "weaker" babies perished.

Combine this with a predisposition that enforces seeing design and one has a recipe for disaster...

On the contrary, Darwin accepted design...

Okay guys, what, exactly, are these "foundations/assumptions" of which you speak? Give me a list of these "shakey/unfounded " foundations/assumptions.

— C Bass

Simple: That the design inference forms a solid, reliable foundation to detect design in nature.

Darwin accepted design...

I am not sure why C Bass quote mines rather than makes an attempt at comprehending the arguments. Or perhaps he has?
Darwin indeed accepted design and found natural selection to be a likely agency. He did however not rely on the flawed approach by ID to infer design based on ignorance, on the contrary... When ID proponents are asked about mechanisms they quickly are to reject such a request as 'pathetic'

I am not sure why C Bass quote mines...

Darwin indeed accepted design and found natural selection to be a likely agency.

He did however not rely on the flawed approach by ID to infer design based on ignorance...

I am not sure why C Bass quote mines... To show how you contradict yourself.

Darwin indeed accepted design and found natural selection to be a likely agency. IDists indeed accept design and find intelligence to be the likely agency.

He did however not rely on the flawed approach by ID to infer design based on ignorance... IDists don't use the "flawed approach" you attribute to them, and Darwin did indeed infer design (as you have admitted) based on ignorance

How does it feel to be wrong so many times.

Please explain to me how you ignore the design inference approach which is nothing more than the set theoretic complement of chance and regularity, also known as 'we don't know'.

...no more empty accusations...

Is this the best ID has to offer?

IDists don't use the "flawed approach" you attribute to them, and Darwin did indeed infer design (as you have admitted) based on ignorance --- he didn't even understand the inheritance mechanism.

...nothing more than the set theoretic complement of chance and regularity, also known as 'we don't know'...

After you explain what methods SETI uses to detect intelligence from space. Oh, right, SETI, advocated by the late Carl Sagan, isn't science, either.

...no more empty accusations... The irony is precious. Is this the best ID has to offer? Of course it is --- your mind is already made up.

...nothing more than the set theoretic complement of chance and regularity, also known as 'we don't know'... Random variation + natural selection built Man from Mud. What's the exact, step-by-step process? "We Don't Know".

"But we still believe that it happened that way." It's okay for "true scientists" to say "we don't know", but somehow it's wrong for IDists (assuming the validity of your assertion to begin with).

Darwin was ignorant of many things, but that's different than using the argument from ignorance: this is the flawed approach of ID. Namely, "I don't see how a natural process can come up with this design. Therefore, an unnatural process must have done it."

Nitpick granted: PvM did contradict himself by overloading the term "design". I think he meant "Combine this with a predisposition that enforces seeing teleology and one has a recipe for disaster." PvM, correct my putting words in your mouth.

Darwin was ignorant of many things, but that's different than using the argument from ignorance: this is the flawed approach of ID. Namely, "I don't see how a natural process can come up with this design. Therefore, an unnatural process must have done it." But that isn't the ID position --- it's just the straw man that ID critics erect.

ID's position is more along the lines of "whenever we've see this particular feature, it has always been a product of design, ergo, when we see it in nature, it is likely also a product of design". Simply an adaptation of the principle of uniformity. Such features include data storage, data replication, data translation, rotary motors, encoding, etc. But you've already heard all this "crap" before, and have already dismissed it.

ID's position is more along the lines of "whenever we've see this particular feature, it has always been a product of design, ergo, when we see it in nature, it is likely also a product of design".

The Darwinian model led to the claim that 98% of the human genome was junk.

Darwin didn't even know that DNA or the human genome even existed, so no, the "Darwinian model" said no such thing. You're also making too much of the word "junk," despite SEVERAL posts on several threads attempting to correct you on this.

Because I have looked at both sides, and the ID position simply makes more sense to me...

In other words, you know that the overwhelming majority of knowledgeable scientists agree on a particular theory, and have the evidence to back it up, and you've chosen to ignore that concensus, for reasons that have nothing at all to do with the actual science.

...and the Darwinians tend to be rather hostile when their theory is questioned.

Yeah, right, the creationists have blamed evolution, and science in general, for eugenics, the Holocaust, Stalinism, Nazism, and now the Virginia Tech killings, but "Darwinists" are being "hostile." Bass, you're a hypocritical crybaby.

I have yet to call anybody "troll" or "idiot" (except myself in self-deprecation, of course) or "dolt", for example. Or "liar".

Yet such has been levelled against me. Not that I didn't expect it, of course.

Gosh, it's so unfair that people who act stupid get called stupid, especially after their ministers assured them that a few bits of the Bible was all they needed to know. Poor child, you have our pity. Why don't you try beating up a few professors? That's how creationists are coping in Turkey.

So it's okay for Dawkins to be motivated by his beliefs, but it isn't okay for theists --- their motivation is conflated with the hypothesis itself, in order to discredit the hypothesis.

No, the motivation of SOME theists is inferred from the dishonesty of their "arguments." And sometimes, their motivations are directly stated; ever heard of the "Wedge Document?" Nor does Dawkins' belief justify your dishonesty.

Nope. I explained that the Dembski quote doesn't show any "reliance" on the Bible on ID's part...

For the umpteenth time, please explain the origin and significance of the phrase "cdesign proponentsists."

please explain the origin and significance of the phrase "cdesign proponentsists."

Gosh, it's so unfair that people who act stupid get called stupid...

— Raging Bee

Please tell me why your statement of the ID position is more logical than my "human design inference.

— GuyeFaux

SETI does not use appeal to ignorance but rather infers design...

Historically, design has been inferred to explain lightning, volcanoes and you name it...

...the overwhelming majority of knowledgeable scientists agree...

This looks like flagrant cognitive dissonance --- when you see the word "design" on your screen (or on paper), it somehow winds up being interpreted as "GOD" in you mind --- the two words are used synonymously.

Gee, I wonder why so many of us do that. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that nearly all of the people who call themselves "design proponents" used to call themselves "creationists," and are using the whole "intelligent design" schtick as an excuse to get their creation-stories taught as "science." Then, too, there's the fact that most of the politicians who are pushing to have "intelligent design" taught in science classes, have explicitly justified their actions on religious grounds. Not only that, but we have lots of "intelligent design" arguments that sound eerily similar to "creationist" arguments, with nothing changed but the titles (hint: that's where the phrase "cdesign proponentsists" comes from, which you refuse to admit when it's waved in your face).

SETI infers design, which is what ID does, no matter how much you emptily assert otherwise.

The differences between SETI and ID have been more than adequately described in other PT posts. (For starters, the SETI folks do NOT infer supernatural agency.) Try googling SETI and looking at all the "pandasthumb.org" posts that come up.

Pumpkinhead said I have spent much money and time being force fed the rancid monkey meat of Darwinian propaganda and vomiting it up on exam days. What a crock that it! How would you like it if your had to spend upwards of forty grand a year for four years sitting in Christian catechisms written in the most abstruse, boring style imaginable and since you have to take exams, you really do have to pay attention in order to get some "magic" sheet of paper that allows you to enter a myriad of professions. If this is truly a reflection of your experiences at university I am amazed that you managed to find a place so awful. I think it is much more likely that you are just being inventive. I cannot recall any of your posts that has shown the slightest evidence of a university education, most of them consisting of insults and no substance. In fact, based on the amount of invective I see in your posts, the impression I get is that you have a deep fear of educational institutions and educated people. Are you the odd one out in a family of educated people?

ID's position is more along the lines of "whenever we've see this particular feature, it has always been a product of design, ergo, when we see it in nature, it is likely also a product of design". Simply an adaptation of the principle of uniformity. Such features include data storage, data replication, data translation, rotary motors, encoding, etc.

ID's position is more along the lines of "whenever we've see this particular feature, it has always been a product of design, ergo, when we see it in nature, it is likely also a product of design".

— C Bass

"Whenever we've seen this particular feature, it has always been a product of human design, ergo, when we see it in nature, it is likely also a product of human design.

For starters, how about the fact that some of the objects in question predate humans? Unless you have a "logical" explanation as to how humans could have designed their own blood clotting cascade, for example.

— C Bass

Gee, I wonder why so many of us do that. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that...

— Raging Bee

For starters, the SETI folks do NOT infer supernatural agency.

Since the same logical inference is used in your statement of the ID position, and since that logical inference is unsound, your statement of the ID position is logically unsound.

— GuyeFaux

SETI infers design, which is what ID does, no matter how much you emptily assert otherwise.

ID doesn't make any inferences with regard to the designer, only with regard to design.

Don't you guys get tired of trotting out this worn-out old horse? Depending on who you talk to, "the overwhelming majority of knowledgeable scientists agree" that man is causing global warming.

Don't you guys get tired of trotting out this worn-out old horse? Depending on who you talk to, "the overwhelming majority of knowledgeable scientists agree" that man is causing global warming.

'set theoretic complement of regularity and chance'

Since the same logical inference is used in your statement of the ID position, and since that logical inference is unsound, your statement of the ID position is logically unsound.

— C Bass

No. ID doesn't make any inferences with regard to the designer, only with regard to design. By introducing human design, you crossed that line from valid scientific inference based on the data over into speculation on the nature of the designer. Ergo, the rest of your argument is invalid.

Whenever we've seen this particular feature, it has always been a product of human-like design, ergo, when we see it in nature, it is likely also a product of human-like design.

...you would know that this "important concession" means ID can't even eliminate natural selection as "the designer."

— CJO

C Bass --- The middle age warm period was largely restricted to Europe. Not global. As for the current warming:

Carbon dioxide is a so-called greenhouse gas. The physics behind this statement has been well understood for over a century.

By burning fossil carbon, humans have put and are continuing to put a huge slug of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide content grows yearly, by direct measurements for over 50 years now. By radiocarbon techniques this excess is fossil carbon. Economic data shows humans are consuming fossil fuels.

Therefore the climate has warmed and will continue to warm. This warmth is entirely due to anthropogenic causes.

Do try to learn something about your subject before posting, will you?

Did man cause the global warming of the middle ages?

C Bass --- The middle age warm period was largely restricted to Europe. Not global.

— David B. Benson

The review, by a Harvard University team, examined the findings of studies of temperature proxies such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts that allowed scientists to estimate temperatures. The findings prove that the world had a medieval warm period between the ninth and 14th centuries, with world temperatures significantly higher than today's.

Do try to learn something about your subject before posting, will you?

I see that no one addresses global warming on mars.

C Bass --- A paper on climatology published in 2003 is considered old.

Follow the link to RealClimate provided for you just above your post. Go find the thread which discusses the medieval warm period.

Current information about climate and climatology is found there.

Not here.

And since I have been following RealClimate for over a year now, have read 3.5 books on climatology and about a dozen papers on aspects of the subject, I have already gone first...

C Bass --- Warming on Mars is also to be found in a thread on RealClimate.

It is completely irrelevant to a discussion of anthropogenic global climate change here on earth...

Jeez.

For starters, the SETI folks do NOT infer supernatural agency.

C Bass wrote: Neither does ID, no matter how much ID critics assert otherwise.

Is man the cause of global warming on mars? Did man cause the global warming of the middle ages?

The fact that you reply the way you did ("they are of course right") tells me all I need to know... Sure, the earth is getting warmer, but the claim that man is causing it is questionable, at the very least.

Man, this seems like my birthday.. What a present. Not only do I get to expose the vacuity of ID but in the same thread I get to expose the fallacies of global warming deniers.

What a treat indeed. I wonder if C Bass will stick around long enough to be educated about these issues. Nevertheless, I hope it will serve as an opportunity to expose two vacuous concepts in one go ID and global warming deniers.

Praise be to the Lord.

Neither does ID, no matter how much ID critics assert otherwise. (That cognitive dissonance thingy again.)

We "assert otherwise" because ID proponents themselves do so. Your refusal to acknowledge this obvious and well-documented fact (read the Wedge Document again) proves that you are incapable of arguing as an honest adult, and there is no more use in arguing with you than in arguing with a flat-Earther. Buh-bye.

Man, this seems like my birthday.. What a present.

First of all we have the observation that the temperature has been increasing Second of all we have the observation that humans have caused an increase in the CO2 emissions Thirdly we have evidence that these human contributions are essential to accurately model the temperature records

Man, this seems like my birthday.. What a present. Not only do I get to expose the vacuity of ID but in the same thread I get to expose the fallacies of global warming deniers.

We "assert otherwise" because ID proponents themselves do so. Your refusal to acknowledge this obvious and well-documented fact (read the Wedge Document again) proves that you are incapable of arguing as an honest adult, and there is no more use in arguing with you than in arguing with a flat-Earther. Buh-bye.

In fact, as Dembski had to admit, a design detection does mean little for the concept of agency with cannot even exclude natural selection as the agent.

— PvM

Read the huge amount of books, articles and papers they've been publishing on the subject since 1933.

— C Bass

Give me a couple of titles...

Yes, and if you'd been doing something other than the equivalent of puting your fingers in your ears while PvM was addressing your argument, you would know that this "important concession" means ID can't even eliminate natural selection as "the designer"

— CJO

'set theoretic complement of regularity and chance'

— C Bass

Explain how this isn't what SETI is looking for. After all, SETI isn't looking for regularity, otherwise pulsars would fill the bill. They aren't looking for chance, for that would be random noise, novae, etc. Since they are looking for neither random noise nor regularity, what's left over? The set theoretic compliment of the two. What else is there?

Then can you explain why UD has a beef with "materialism?"

— Freelurker

ID doesn't make any inferences with regard to the designer, only with regard to design. By introducing human design, you crossed that line from valid scientific inference based on the data over into speculation on the nature of the designer. Ergo, the rest of your argument is invalid.

— GuyeFaux

Firstly, what line exactly was crossed when "design" was qualified? Secondly, "human" as I used it is an adjective qualifier that does not posit an agent...

The Earth is getting warmer, and Man does contribute to CO2 levels. I have no problem with any of that. However, I am not convinced that the Earth's temperature is driven by CO2 levels.

— C Bass

For the record, as explained above, I am not a "global warming denier", but I do deny that man is the cause. Even if global warming is driven by CO2 levels, that only makes man a contributor, but still not the primary cause.

— C Bass

Probably because that philosophy forces acceptance of the Darwinian mechanism in spite of contrary evidence, and forbids consideration of intelligent agency.

Before I proceed, however, I note that Dembski makes an important concession to his critics. He refuses to make the second assumption noted above. When the EF implies that certain systems are intelligently designed, Dembski does not think it follows that there is some intelligent designer or other. He says that, "even though in practice inferring design is the first step in identifying an intelligent agent, taken by itself design does not require that such an agent be posited. The notion of design that emerges from the design inference must not be confused with intelligent agency" (TDI, 227, my emphasis).

But it does make that agent a creator of "human-like" designs. That's the line you pretend doesn't exist.

Whenever we've seen this particular feature, it has always been a product of X, ergo, when we see it in nature, it is likely also a product of X.

What's interesting is that PvM consistently refers to ID as being nothing more than the "set theoretic complement of regularity and chance", which kinda suggests the opposite of natural selection, and now you guys claim that it "could be" natural selection (i.e. natural selection cannot be eliminated). If that's the case, then PvM is wrong to call it the "set theoretic complement of regularity and chance", yes? So which is it? Does ID include NS or is it the "set theoretical compliment" of NS.

Watching people like you strut around and pat yourselves on the back never ceases to amaze me with its pathos.

What's interesting is that PvM consistently refers to ID as being nothing more than the "set theoretic complement of regularity and chance", which kinda suggests the opposite of natural selection, and now you guys claim that it "could be" natural selection (i.e. natural selection cannot be eliminated). If that's the case, then PvM is wrong to call it the "set theoretic complement of regularity and chance", yes? So which is it? Does ID include NS or is it the "set theoretical compliment" of NS. Or is NS somehow not "regularity and chance"?

And again, you insist on conflating motivation with hypothesis...

And what, exactly, is the ID "hypothesis" again? (I remember at least one IDer admitting they didn't have one.)

Give me a couple of titles...

Ever heard of places called "libraries?" They have lots of books, on lots of subjects, and things called "catalogs" that help you to find books on any subject you may have in mind. Knock yourself out, Skippy...

In other papers, Dembski has shown why Natural Selection, which 'choses from possible outcomes' indeed seems very similar to an intelligent designer. In fact, that's why we call it apparent versus actual Design. Dembski's filter does nothing to differentiate between the two. Nothing at all...

Probably because that philosophy forces acceptance of the Darwinian mechanism in spite of contrary evidence, and forbids consideration of intelligent agency.

You mean, like, a God with the power to create things that can't evolve on their own? I thought you just said ID wasn't about God.

Wesley wrote: The apparent, but unstated, logic behind the move from design to agency can be given as follows: 1. There exists an attribute in common of some subset of objects known to be designed by an intelligent agent. 2. This attribute is never found in objects known not to be designed by an intelligent agent. 3. The attribute encapsulates the property of directed contingency or choice. 4. For all objects, if this attribute is found in an object, then we may conclude that the object was designed by an intelligent agent. This is an inductive argument. Notice that by the second step, one must eliminate from consideration precisely those biological phenomena which Dembski wishes to categorize. In order to conclude intelligent agency for biological examples, the possibility that intelligent agency is not operative is excluded a priori. One large problem is that directed contingency or choice is not solely an attribute of events due to the intervention of an intelligent agent. The "actualization-exclusion-specification" triad mentioned above also fits natural selection rather precisely. One might thus conclude that Dembski's argument establishes that natural selection can be recognized as an intelligent agent.

— Wesley Elsberry

And the interesting thing is that I don't dispute any of these observations. The Earth is getting warmer, and Man does contribute to CO2 levels. I have no problem with any of that. However, I am not convinced that the Earth's temperature is driven by CO2 levels. ............. For the record, as explained above, I am not a "global warming denier", but I do deny that man is the cause. Even if global warming is driven by CO2 levels, that only makes man a contributor, but still not the primary cause.

Man does contribute to CO2 levels.

I am not convinced that the Earth's temperature is driven by CO2 levels.

Even if global warming is driven by CO2 levels, that only makes man a contributor, but still not the primary cause.

The apparent, but unstated, logic behind the move from design to agency can be given as follows: 1. There exists an attribute in common of some subset of objects known to be designed by an intelligent agent. 2. This attribute is never found in objects known not to be designed by an intelligent agent. 3. The attribute encapsulates the property of directed contingency or choice. 4. For all objects, if this attribute is found in an object, then we may conclude that the object was designed by an intelligent agent. This is an inductive argument. Notice that by the second step, one must eliminate from consideration precisely those biological phenomena which Dembski wishes to categorize. In order to conclude intelligent agency for biological examples, the possibility that intelligent agency is not operative is excluded a priori.

— Wesley Elsberry

C Bass wrote: ID's position is more along the lines of "whenever we've see this particular feature, it has always been a product of design, ergo, when we see it in nature, it is likely also a product of design".

Give me a couple of titles...

— Raging Bee

Ever heard of places called "libraries?"

See how contradictory ID really is when it comes to agency?

— PvM

This is typical of people with entrenched beliefs.

— GvlGeologist, FCD

You admit that man does contribute, but you say that the contribution does not cause the change.

Then, you say that even if it does, it's not the main effect. You're trying to have it both ways.

Can you answer these questions?

If man is not the primary cause, what do you think has caused CO2 levels to rise by 30% in the last 150 years?

Given that CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas, what leads you to think that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will not lead to increased heating?

Do you think that adding another blanket on your bed will make you warmer?

What about the concept of anthropogenically-caused climate change makes you uncomfortable?

If it's possible damage to our economy, then you're simply engaged in wishful thinking.

Guye correctly noted that this should be "human design", not just "design". If we observe X being derived from Y 100% of the time, then ALL of the traits of Y are relevant, not just the ones that suit one's agenda. Thus, since ALL of the observations of design noted in the ID definition were the product of human design, the see-it-in-nature conclusion would be that said feature was designed by humans. And of course, C Bass refutes this theory nicely by noting that these features predated humans. One does not have the option of positing a non-human designer.

— Science Avenger

Assuming the validity of your analysis, it seems that positing a non-human designer would be the only option. After all, all traits of Y are relevant, but the agent cannot possibly be Y, yet intelligence is still indicated. To claim that the only possible option to human intelligence is natural selection seems falsely dichotomous.

ID's position is more along the lines of "whenever we've see this particular feature, it has always been a product of design, ergo, when we see it in nature, it is likely also a product of design".

"Whenever we've seen this particular feature, it has always been a product of X, ergo, when we see it elsewhere, it is likely to be a product of X.

As I hinted earlier, it could be that the cause/effect relationship is the opposite --- increased heat => increased CO2 levels.

If you cannot be bothered to toss out a couple of book titles, then why should I bother to pursue the matter?

If you haven't bothered to do the research BEFORE pretending to know what you're talking about, why did you bother to open your mouth about the matter (and proceed to put your foot in it)? More to the point, why should we bother to take you seriously?

C Bass said: Assuming the validity of your analysis, it seems that positing a non-human designer would be the only option. After all, all traits of Y are relevant, but the agent cannot possibly be Y, yet intelligence is still indicated.

Well now, that's getting to the bottom of things...

After all, all traits of Y are relevant, but the agent cannot possibly be Y,...

...yet intelligence is still indicated.

It seems to me that our skeptical friend C Bass, tends to be selectively skeptical. In fact, ironically, he seems to reject the 'design inference' when it comes to global warming. After all, look at it this way: Global warming is complex and specified and we have no regularity and chance explanation (other than just so stories like -perhaps CO2 increases followed the warming or -solar spots solar spots), thus it seems quite logical to draw a design inference that humans are involved (or perhaps our God is angry with our treatment of the environment?, or perhaps it's aliens after all).

Of course, even when realizing how 'controversies' only apply when it suits ID proponents, science has done far more than rely on our ignorance to link global warming to human activities and it is ignorance which causes once again global warming deniers to avoid the obvious conclusions.

And why? Because of a 'distrust' of science... How ironic then to come to realize that it is IDers and global warming deniers who are abusing science.
Notice that, as is the case with ID, there are no real mechanisms, or explanations beyond suggestions that science may be wrong...

As I hinted earlier, it could be that the cause/effect relationsip is the opposite --- increased heat => increased CO2 levels.

— C Bass

C Bass seems to have left the building. His 'arguments' would have made DaveScot proud but ignorance is hard to continue if you do not control who gets to post and whose postings get deleted.
Ignorance can only survive in the shadows and UcD seems to be quite an appropriate place for this.
Thank God scientists and Christians alike are seeing through the smokescreen known as Intelligent Design.

Re "And why? Because of a 'distrust' of science... How ironic then to come to realize that it is IDers and global warming deniers who are abusing science."

I suspect it starts with a dislike of (some of) the conclusions of science. With global warming theory, I expect that most (maybe all) of those who accept that theory also dislike its conclusions (I know I dislike those conclusions). Yet the deniers would have us think it's supported because people like it?

Henry

Ellsberry's analysis is based on "apparent, but unstated, logic" --- what if his understanding of that logic is flawed, or incorrect?

Please provide me a url or a book citation pointing to where Dembski allegedly "admitted" that the "intelligent agent" could be natural selection. I want to see the context --- was this discussion on the EF in particular, or on ID overall?

|Besides explaining it away, there are two main options for explaining the net increase in information that an assisted search brings to an otherwise blind search. One is that an assisted search is intelligently designed by a purposive agent (cf. engineering). The other is that it is a fortuitous gift bestowed by an environment under the control of stochastic mechanisms (cf. evolutionary biology). I will argue that this latter option is inadequate and that the increase in information captured by I(μ0|U) is properly viewed as the result of a form of intelligence that cannot be reduced to stochastic mechanisms.

— Bill Dembski

By intelligence, here, I mean something quite definite, namely, the causal factors that change one probability distribution into another and thus, in the present discussion, transform a blind search into an assisted search. A logically equivalent, information-theoretic reformulation of this definition takes intelligence as those causal factors that induce a net increase in information as measured by the information measure I. Note that by a stochastic mechanism, here, I mean any causal process governed exclusively by the interplay between chance and necessity and characterized by unbroken deterministic and nondeterministic laws.

Intelligence acts by changing probabilities. Equivalently, intelligence acts by generating information. For instance, a slab of marble temporarily has a high probability of remaining unchanged. Then, without warning, Michelangelo decides to sculpt David, and the probability of that marble slab taking on a new form (i.e., receiving new information) now changes dramatically.

— Dembski

This definition of intelligence as the causal factors responsible for changes in probabilities or, equivalently, for net increases in information is noncircular and, on reflection, should seem unproblematic. If there is a problem, it concerns whether intelligence is reducible to stochastic mechanisms. The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, for instance, purports to account for biological complexity and diversity through an intelligence that is a stochastic mechanism, namely, the joint action of natural selection and random genetic mutations. To be sure, this mechanism operates in nature and is responsible for significant changes in the biological world. Nevertheless, is it the case that this mechanism accounts for biological complexity and diversity without remainder? In other words, is the intelligence responsible for biological complexity and diversity entirely reducible to this mechanism? In general, to justify the reduction of intelligence to stochastic mechanisms, these mechanisms need to supply a complete, self-consistent account of how changes in probability or net increases in information arise. As we shall see, the mathematics of blind and assisted searches precludes such an account, whether for neo-Darwinian assisted searches or for assisted searches in general

Global warming assertions are based on inconclusive evidence put forth in science reports that had not been published yet, he said.

Darwin's words are not holy writ. Neither are Dawkins'.

— Science Avenger (on April 18, 2007 4:48 PM)

So far, Dembski is aware of Elsberry's logic and has not objected. Posted by PvM on April 26, 2007 12:02 PM

Guye correctly noted that this should be "human design", not just "design". If we observe X being derived from Y 100% of the time, then ALL of the traits of Y are relevant, not just the ones that suit one's agenda.

— Science Avenger

Which I claim is an instance of this inference:

Whenever we've seen this particular feature, it has always been a product of X, ergo, when we see it elsewhere, it is likely to be a product of X.

— GuyeFaux

Wherein I (and you) pointed out that this leads to conclusions which are contrary to evidence.

If you haven't bothered to do the research BEFORE pretending to know what you're talking about...

— Raging Bee

...proves that you are incapable of arguing as an honest adult, and there is no more use in arguing with you than in arguing with a flat-Earther. Buh-bye. (Posted by Raging Bee on April 23, 2007 10:09 PM )

why should we bother to take you seriously? (Posted by Raging Bee on April 24, 2007 5:57 PM)

...it was the writings of Darwinists that provided the "scientific justification".

...considered racially or eugenically inferior by a variety of Darwinist writers and scientists, providing Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued...

We have discovered what looks like piles of elephant shit on the Moon.

— Science Avenger

Dembski has accepted that there are indeed two explanations for assisted search, one involves an 'intelligent agent' that has purpose in mind, the other an 'intelligent agent' that has function 'in mind'.

— PvM

This prompts me to ask, "How do you know?

Yet PvM seems to think he can repeatedly club me over the head with Dembski's alleged words. I have yet to see an actual cite. You've put copious verbiage into Dembksi's mouth (and even seem to know Dembksi's mind:

Watching you twist Dembski's words is truly a thing to behold. Go ahead and read Dembski's mind again, and tell us, does he really think a "stochastic process" (Dembski's actual words which you quote) is an "intelligent agent"?

No. The only traits that should be considered are the ones supported by the evidence. "Human design" simply isn't supported, as the nanotechnology of the cell is far beyond human capability. Of course, you will no doubt use this observation to again insist that the designer is supernatural, but that is also not necessitated.

Before I proceed, however, I note that Dembski makes an important concession to his critics. He refuses to make the second assumption noted above. When the EF implies that certain systems are intelligently designed, Dembski does not think it follows that there is some intelligent designer or other. He says that, "even though in practice inferring design is the first step in identifying an intelligent agent, taken by itself design does not require that such an agent be posited. The notion of design that emerges from the design inference must not be confused with intelligent agency" (TDI, 227, my emphasis).

, Dembski brushes off a criticism concerning the reliability of his "explanatory filter" by noting that the objection is the problem of induction, but fails to either solve the problem of induction or retract the claim of reliability. In other places, Dembski fails to take up the arguments of critics, as in Dembski's mischaracterization of a program written by Richard Dawkins. Two out of three of the steps that Dembski says characterize the program are, in fact, Dembski's own invention, appearing nowhere in Dawkins's work. The sad thing is that criticism of precisely this point was made by me in email to Dembski back in October of 2000. It would have been easy for Dembski to fix, but it did not happen.

That you have seen no actual cite merely means you have not taken the time to look.

— PvM

What Dembski believes is irrelevant, what matters is taking his argument to a logical conclusion.

It's self evident...

Okay, C Bass.
You think Dembski's being misrepresented. Why don't you lay out the Explanatory Filter --you know, this good version that isn't being fairly presented-- and explain how it avoids the "logical conclusion" at which PvM arrives. It's not enough to say the obvious, that Dembski never intended for anyone to look behind the curtain. You have to show that there really is nothing behind the curtain.

Or, explain how Dembski, with his mumblings about the displacement theorem, doesn't manage to end up showing that "stochastic mechanisms" can't create new information --and "intelligence" can't either. (Hint: that quotation is just up a bit, in comment #172181)

First of all, history will show that it was creationists who came up with this 'prediction' not ID.

— PvM

If something cannot be explained by regularity and chance, in other words, there are no explanatory pathways then the clear conclusion is either 1) we don't know 2) super natural.

So how come IDers are still confusing the design inference with agency/agent?

You think Dembski's being misrepresented. Why don't you lay out the Explanatory Filter -- you know, this good version that isn't being fairly presented -- and explain how it avoids the "logical conclusion" at which PvM arrives. It's not enough to say the obvious, that Dembski never intended for anyone to look behind the curtain.

— CJO

Both the intelligent designer with purpose in mind and the intelligent designer with function in mind work through the same processes.

— PvM

No. The only traits that should be considered are the ones supported by the evidence.

whenever we've seen this feature, it has always been the product design. Ergo, when we see this feature in nature, it is likely also a product of design, the qualities of which we have no idea about until we check out the evidence.

C Bass said: The only traits that should be considered are the ones supported by the evidence. "Human design" simply isn't supported, as the nanotechnology of the cell is far beyond human capability. Of course, you will no doubt use this observation to again insist that the designer is supernatural, but that is also not necessitated.

It's amusing that you truly believe these ridiculous analogies [the elephant shit on the moon story] prove your case or disprove mine. I find it distasteful to even dignify it with a reply, but, again, your introduction of elephant-like (or human like) is a red herring. You yourself point out that elephants "don't appear", so introducing elephants is unwarranted.

I use this observation to note again is that you are positing a non-human designer without any evidence of such.

— Science Avenger

trying to separate design from humans is going beyond the evidence, regardless of how much you try to weasel-word it otherwise.

anus creating elephant shit

I use such stories to illustrate how irrational and downright idiotic your arguments are. I made my elephant shit on the moon argument using your exact words, merely substituting terms.

whenever we've seen this feature, it has always been the product design. Ergo, when we see this feature in nature, it is likely also a product of design, the qualities of which we have no idea about until we check out the evidence.

— GuyeFaux

That, my friend, is a tautology.

I'll have more later but let me just say that you're not making things any better for your argument when you say things like:

"The evidence is the nanotechnology exhibited in the cell."

That is not evidence, for either position. That is the question under consideration (albeit restated in teleologically loaded jargon). It's what we're trying to explain in the first place.

Talk about circular reasoning.

It's also an example of your putting words in my mouth (the part in bold). I never actually said that --- it's just your misrepresentation of what I actually did say.

whenever we've seen this feature, it has always been the product design. Ergo, when we see this feature in nature, it is likely also a product of design

The only traits [of design] that should be considered are the ones supported by the evidence.

Great: the theory of ID, as stated by you, with this qualification, is:...

Whenever we've seen this particular feature, it has always been a product of [Q] design, ergo, when we see it in nature, it is likely also a product of [Q] design.

OK yah bass, I would like some explanation of this paragraph:
-----
And no, the Wedge Document doesn't help your case. That document is talking about the philosophy of materialism, replacing the materialist philosophy with one that allows non-materialistic explanations to be considered. And no, that does not mean "supernatural" explanations, unless you would contend that apes and dolphins and other organisms which exhibit the property we call "intelligence" are supernatural creatures.
--------

Firstly, what is this philosophy of materialism that is used in science? As far as I am aware, it is methodological naturalism. Where do you get the idea that we use philosophical materialism?

Secondly, what are non-materialistic explanations for something? Give me examples, now.

Sorry, fish-boy, your double-talk doesn't fool anyone here...

It's called "Intelligent Design", but you guys insist on thinking of it as "Supernatural Design".

There are two reasons for this conflation, both of which you already know, but can't bear to admit: first, the ID folks themselves claim supernatural agency, to excuse both their refusal to describe a specific mechanism of creation, and their lack of material evidence for such a process of creation; and second, you yourself insist that we're wrong to rule out "non-materialistic" -- which is to say supernatural -- explanations.

And no, the Wedge Document doesn't help your case. That document is talking about the philosophy of materialism, replacing the materialist philosophy with one that allows non-materialistic explanations to be considered. And no, that does not mean "supernatural" explanations...

The Wedge Document explicitly calls for replacing "materialism" with a "theistic understanding." It don't get more supernatural than that. And even if it didn't, there's no difference between "non-materialistic" and "supernatural."

There is a false dichotomy between "human-like" intelligence and "supernatural" intelligence. The possibility of merely superior intelligence (such as what SETI might encounter) never seems to be considered, or allowed for consideration.

Actually it HAS been considered, for DECADES -- ever heard of a guy named Von Daniken? -- and repeatedly ruled out due to lack of evidence.

You're a lying idiot, fish-boy, flogging a fake "theory" on an old thread and pretending you can't see what's been obvious to the rest of us for years.

Looking at the paper, you wouldn't know that it's a "pro-ID" paper at all because it contains not one shred of evidence in favor of ID, nor does it even try directly arguing for ID

C Bass dissembled thusly: The evidence is the nanotechnology exhibited in the cell. It's a matter of forceful faith to contend that natural selection can build rotary motors and sub-cellular (molecular) data storage and replication systems, without any evidence of such.

I plan to return with a more detailed response, but for now, I simply observe that you guys are indulging in flagrant denial of facts. This isn't surprising.

More later.

I plan to return with a more detailed response...

I plan to return with a more detailed response, but for now, I simply observe that you guys are indulging in flagrant denial of facts. This isn't surprising.

— C Bass

Pardon a poor layman's ignorance, C Bass, but maybe you can clear something up for me about Intelligent Design.

So far you've said Design claims things like "cellular nanotechnology":

1)are not human design

2)are not "materialistic" design, whatever that means

3)don't necessarily point to a "Designer" (though I admit this is Dembski's claim, please let me know if you disagree).

4)shouldn't be read as GODDIDIT.

So much for the negatives. What does that leave?

What, exactly, is it?

Thank you.

... somewhere in the distance, a dog barked...

...and a C Bass floundered...

He floundered? Should he ask for help from the piranha of science?

(did I say that?)

I'm still here, waiting patiently, keeping any and all fish jokes to myself.

I don't know about the problem with links. Why don't you try it with dead urls that we can cut 'n' paste if we need to and see if that works.

I too await your response with great eagerness. I make a point of not playing silly games with people's names. I grew up with a name begging to be mauled and made fun of, and my schoolmates didn't disappoint, so I know how annoying that can be.

I'm much more interested in seeing if you are going to try the "front-loaded" gambit with the EAs, or its demented cousin, the TE = ID canard. I'll be somewhat disappointed if you do, given the sheer idiocy of those arguments, and you seem capable of better. But nonetheless, demolishing poor arguments will always be far more amusing to me than making fun of someone's poor choice of parents.

It's like the bisexuality most of them practice, they do know what it's going to be from day day.

I think this pretty much rules Pumpkinhead out as a serious commentator on any subject; and possibly nothing more than a junior-high redneck with bad teeth and a stupid-looking automotive-product T-shirt. What will he do next -- call us "faggits?"

Umm, no, I'm just debating whether arguing with you recalcitrants is worth my time...

Right -- the fish-boy posts a lot of nonsense, then, when it's all been refuted and he's left with a lot of questions he can't answer, he suddenly pretends to wonder whether we're worth the time. In other words, he's not worth our time either.