Evolution in Florida and God and Intelligent Design

Don't you just love it when they keep spilling the beans on ID? I know I do.

PS, I'm using this comment thread to test a cookie problem I've been having...

Yeah, it seems Spybot Search & Destroy's cookie precautions were doing it... It kept flipping cookie settings to "block" for whatever domain on which I was trying to invoke CoComment.

It does not surprise me too much that the ID supporters believe that the "designer" of ID is God. I mean, really, what else could it be?

BTW, this line:
"Too many things on this world cannot just be an accident"

is a classic argument from personal incredulity.

As their proponents keep saying - "...but there are, there are, there are gaps that only ID (Insert Deity) can answer...."

Don’t you just love it when they keep spilling the beans on ID? I know I do.

— Aerik

It does not surprise me too much that the ID supporters believe that the “designer” of ID is God.

— Nigel D

Too many things on this world cannot just be an accident.

Question: When presented with specific reasons why ID is not religious, what can you guys do?

Answer: Nothing.

Except, of course, to keep on saying "ID is religious", over and over like some kind of mantra, while hoping the lurkers don't notice that you keep on avoiding actual engagement with the specific reasons given.

So here's a treat just for you lurkers. Watch the Panda Gang duck this one:

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/E%20Richardson%20is%20ID%20religion.htm

Finger-lickin' good!

******

Now, here's a question for you PvM.

Given the following 3-point ID hypothesis (adapted from Dembski's book "Intelligent Design" and Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box"):

1. Specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable.

2. Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity.

3. Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity.

Tell me now, from this hypothesis itself, exactly how this particular 3-point ID hypothesis is religious, since it clearly doesn't depend on ANYBODY's religious text nor pre-requires, pre-assumes or states ANY religious claims (not even supernaturalism or theism) at ANY plank of the hypothesis.

Thanks in advance!

FL

Given the following 3-point ID hypothesis... Tell me now, from this hypothesis itself, exactly how this particular 3-point hypothesis is religious...

While PvM takes valuable time out of his busy day to answer FL (or not)....

The Ledger reported...Mickey Carter, pastor at Landmark Baptist Church in Haines City, said: "We are denying freedom of ideas, speech and shutting down one side,...the kids ought to be able to study both sides of it so we don't just turn out a bunch of rubber-stamped robots in the classroom."

Now lets consider applying this "rubber-stamped robots" notion to Sunday bible study class.

Mickey might consider saying, "OK kids, here are the precepts of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Taoism, atheism, FSMism, ...and about 30 other belief systems. We will study each in depth until you are 18 and then you may decide which best suits your belief system."

Now that ought to allay Pastor Carter's concern about "rubber-stamped robots in the classroom."

Ya think?

FL - OK, I'm a lurker (non-biologist, non-scientist) and I read through that link you provided.

If that's the best you can provide, you're no closer to swaying me.

The title of that nonsense is "Is ID a Religion?"

I don't think too many folks would argue that it's "a religion" - a stand alone religion. The question is, "is ID religious in its origins/assumptions relying on the supernatural?" I think it clearly is - as a layman, man-on-the-street observer. Until someone can provide evidence otherwise, "poof" is supernatural.

But wait, there's more -

The article states: "The theory is based on the empirically-testable assumption that systems which exhibit high-information content are more likely the result of an intelligent design rather than undirected natural causes."

Can you please point me to the empirically-tested results? Hint: giving up and not looking further just because something looks designed isn't good enough. A lot of naturally occuring things looked designed until you continue looking and find natural reasons. Despite your assertion to PvM, based on my reading, natural causes have been shown capabale of all the "irreducible complexity" claims by IDists.

As for the rebuttal to ID isn't religious > The Wedge.

Dave,
going back to lurk mode

FL, please give definitions of specified complexity and irreducible complexity, and please show how they can be empirically detected.
Furthermore, how does Intelligent Design explain organisms such as Thalassocnus, or heteromorph ammonites such as Nipponites?

Carter said that science is limited in its ability to determine every fact. “When it’s all said and done, folks just don’t give God enough credit,” Carter said. “Too many things on this world cannot just be an accident. You’ve got to give some credit to some intelligence.”

Tell me now, from this hypothesis itself, exactly how this particular 3-point ID hypothesis is religious

FL, you are phunny. NOT!

Intelligent Design is not a "religion" in itself, but it is a philosophical assumption that can be used to support religion. Indeed, all three of the claims above you gave:

(((1. Specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable.

2. Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity.

3. Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity.)))

are FALLACIES! Even the blind, unintelligent process known as natural selection is a method of design, just not intelligent design. And it explains such absurdities as the miswired vertebrate eyes, why most plants are green rather than a more light absorbing color like black, and why organisms can because so specialized to their environments that they become prone to extinction later.

These attributes are generally attributed to deities.

— I

The truth is that the fact that the designer is God isn't really a problem for ID.

Consider it this way: They believe evidence for God can be found by examining the details. Thus it should be possible to discuss this "evidence" without endorsing a specific religion. Hence the creation of ID, where the specifics of the designer would in principal (though it is likely to fail in practice) be left outside the classroom. In much the same way "In God we trust" is not generally considered an government endorsement of a specific religion.

Of course the quest for the mythical "fingerprints" of God has always been a fruitless one. Which is not to say that God was not responsible, but rather to say that like any good master criminal he wore gloves.

FL:

Question: When presented with specific examples of how the true motivation of the vast majority of ID supporters are religiously motivated, what can you do? Answer: Nothing.

Either is ID is thinly veiled religion that exists only to promote religion, or it is just a poor excuse for science that never provides any real answers. Either way, why should anyone take it seriously?

Question: When presented with specific reasons why ID is not religious, what can you guys do? Answer: Nothing.

— FL

Except, of course, to keep on saying “ID is religious”, over and over like some kind of mantra, while hoping the lurkers don’t notice that you keep on avoiding actual engagement with the specific reasons given.

Intelligent Design is not a “religion” in itself, but it is a philosophical assumption that can be used to support religion.

FL:

Intelligent Design is not a “religion” in itself, but it is a philosophical assumption that can be used to support religion.

You mean the same way that evolution can be used to support the religions of atheism or Buddhism but evolution is not itself considered to be a religion? Mmmm. Well, then, sincere thanks indeed. Now we can KNOW for certain that ID is NOT a religion, and that some folks around here (not to mention a certain judge back east) have got things very badly mistaken (either by accident--or more likely by design!). FL

Given the following 3-point ID hypothesis (adapted from Dembski’s book “Intelligent Design” and Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box”): 1. Specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable.

— FL

2. Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity.

3. Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity.

Tell me now, from this hypothesis itself, exactly how this particular 3-point ID hypothesis is religious, since it clearly doesn’t depend on ANYBODY’s religious text nor pre-requires, pre-assumes or states ANY religious claims (not even supernaturalism or theism) at ANY plank of the hypothesis.

You mean the same way that evolution can be used to support the religions of atheism or Buddhism but evolution is not itself considered to be a religion? Mmmm. Well, then, sincere thanks indeed. Now we can KNOW for certain that ID is NOT a religion, and that some folks around here (not to mention a certain judge back east) have got things very badly mistaken (either by accident–or more likely by design!).

— FL

PvM:

You mean the same way that evolution can be used to support the religions of atheism or Buddhism but evolution is not itself considered to be a religion? Mmmm. Well, then, sincere thanks indeed. Now we can KNOW for certain that ID is NOT a religion, and that some folks around here (not to mention a certain judge back east) have got things very badly mistaken (either by accident–or more likely by design!).

— FL

Almost right. ID however was invented as a transition from creationism and thus historically lays at the foundation of the ID movement. The basic claim of ID that design is the set theoretic complement of regularity and chance makes design one or more of the following 1) the empty set 2) ignorance 3) supernatural. In fact, ID is clear that it wants to add the supernatural to scientific inquiry. Combine this with the inevitable lack of scientific content and fertility and it is clear that ID is nothing more than creationism in drags. Hope this helps. I just wonder how many more times I have to educate FL about these simple facts?

as to 2. Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity.

Even Dembski admits that natural causes can explain specified complexity and irreducible complexity but now the argument is probabilistic rather then deterministic, destroying the explanatory filter approach.

You mean the same way that evolution can be used to support the religions of atheism or Buddhism but evolution is not itself considered to be a religion? Mmmm. Well, then, sincere thanks indeed. Now we can KNOW for certain that ID is NOT a religion, and that some folks around here (not to mention a certain judge back east) have got things very badly mistaken (either by accident–or more likely by design!). FL

The IDist have left so many tracks and clues and statements that their Intelligent Designer is Jehovah, that at this point to deny the Designer is a pointless lie. Pointless because it is easily demonstrably wrong and also because everyone knows who they mean.

Something to be said about not lying constantly. Makes them look like devious, shady, conpeople.

You’ve got to give some credit to some intelligence.

Yes. Give the intelligent people some credit. Listen to them, and when they tell you that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution, don't insist that this be balanced with some sectarian fables.

And of course ID isn't religious--Dembski said so. Except when he said it was.

It looks like Nigel quite thoroughly covered the reasons, if necessarily redundantly for the obtuse FL (ignoring what we write doesn't absolve you of honesty, churl), why ID is religious.

There is another worth mentioning, though, I think, hinted at, but worthy of a more direct statement. ID is retained and promoted by religious dolts like FL with obvious religious zeal. The mere fact that FL can't support any of his claims, and ridiculously resorts to the fallacy of appeal to authority, yet maintains that ID is science and not religion, is an indication that he's likely driven by religion alone, as most IDists are (some may be unbalanced, but the majority are clearly just religiously motivated).

Indeed, there is no secular rationale behind ID. And this is not for FL, who cannot learn--the reason there is no secular rationale for ID is not that claiming that anything, including life, has been designed, is on the face of it religious. The reason is exactly what I mentioned before, real erroneous scientific hypotheses are abandoned when they're either shown to be incorrect (many versions of ID), or to be unverifiable (the rest of the versions of ID). When demonstrably false or vacuous "hypotheses" are flogged by people who want to change the meaning of science to fit their beliefs, we know that it's something other than scientific investigation that drives them. To be sure, that "something other" is not always religion, but in the case of ID it is religion at least 99% of the time, while the various problems involved with its other supporters do not detract from the thrust of the Wedge and its religious goals and aims.

Now, we know that monotonous ignorant drones like FL will turn around and accuse us of having religious zeal. Yay yuh, FL, when you can discuss a single subject intelligently, then we might start listening to your zealous religious propaganda.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable.

How much specified complexity is there in the watch, and how much is there in the grass?

ignoring what we write doesn’t absolve you of honesty

ID is not religion. It is true that the designer is de facto "God", in essence the very definition of god; however this does not constitute a religion, anymore than the "In God we trust" printed on money constitutes a bible. Where are the priests, the prayers, the rituals, the worship, the mythology?

It is the specific use of ID and the proponents behind it which transform it from a clean form into an endorsement of their religion.

Take the Dover trial was what they tried to teach ID or creationism? The judge correctly ruled that it was creationism. But ask yourself, if the "reference" (I use the term loosely) book was "Darwin's Black Box" rather than "Of Pandas and People", would there have been the same decision? Behe's book may be considered bad science but it is not an endorsement for Creationism.

Take the Dover trial was what they tried to teach ID or creationism? The judge correctly ruled that it was creationism. But ask yourself, if the “reference” (I use the term loosely) book was “Darwin’s Black Box” rather than “Of Pandas and People”, would there have been the same decision? Behe’s book may be considered bad science but it is not an endorsement for Creationism.

ID is not religion. It is true that the designer is de facto “God”, in essence the very definition of god; however this does not constitute a religion, anymore than the “In God we trust” printed on money constitutes a bible. Where are the priests, the prayers, the rituals, the worship, the mythology?

BTW, in what units does one measure "specified complexity"?

in what units does one measure “specified complexity”?
Poofs! symbol :P

BTW, in what units does one measure “specified complexity”?Poofs! symbol :P

BTW, in what units does one measure “specified complexity”?

Once again, FL does nothing but repeat the same tired and disproven assertions he's been repeating for years, thinking the lurkers are too dumb to notice that he consistently runs away the minute they are disproven again. Has FL ever even tried to stand his ground and respond, in an adult manner, to our responses? Of course not -- he knows he's full of crap, he knows he can't defend his "arguments," and he also knows he has nothing better to do with his time and doesn't have the guts or the stamina to actually pick up a book and LEARN anything. It must really suck to be him.

Dembskis (symbol :D) are units of CSI, not SC. keep it straight.

for kilo-poofs, the preferred symbol is k:P

Looking at both sides, obviously ID is founded upon religion. I believe that God made the universe and all that is in it. I just don't see so much complexity comming from a loss of genetic information via mutations in a universe that is wearing out over time. I am not an ID proponent, I think it is vague. I think ID proponants spend too much time trying to define what the boundaries are, rather than discussing the questions that evolution present.

I just don’t see

Did anybody say that ID is a religion? Apparently you have an inability to read, much like FL, so while we’re pointing out that ID is religious, you’re off in your bizarre little world making arguments against the voices in your head.

— Glen Davidson

To be sure, that “something other” is not always religion, but in the case of ID it is religion (emphasis added) at least 99% of the time, while the various problems involved with its other supporters do not detract from the thrust of the Wedge and its religious goals and aims.

— Glen Davidson

That ID proponents want to hide behind a meaningless terminology ‘design’ is puzzling. Surely they should not be ashamed of who the designer has to be?

— PvM

I do like "poofs" and "kilo-poofs" over bits.

How much specified complexity is there in the watch, and how much is there in the grass?

Alann: first you say:

To be a church vs state issue [ID] really has to be an endorsement of a specific religous view.

Then you say:

The change in terminology is an attempt to abstract the concept from a specific religion.

So now you're admitting that ID is "abstracted" from a specific religion, therefore it is indeed an "endorsement of a specific religious view" (one NOT shared by all theists, or even all Christians, BTW), deliberately disguised as "science" by substituting "abstracted" terminology.

Case closed.

Alann-
It's possible the Dover case would have turned out differently if "Darwin's Black Box" had been the text, but it isn't clear that a teacher could actually present that material to a junior high or high school class. Behe spends so much time obfuscating that it's difficult even for working scientists to follow his argument. I doubt very much that the Dover school board, let alone the kids, could make heads or tails of it.

Okay, got lots 'o' interestin' responses there! Let's talk some more and see if you evolutionists got anything to offer in response to my original inquiry.

1. First off, we already have an admission (Dale H.) that the intelligent design hypothesis is NOT a "religion" in itself. That's no small thing to point out, and obviously the 3-point ID hypothesis doesn't constitute religion nor does it depend or pre-assume or pre-require anybody's religion or religious text.

2. GuyeFaux says "In 3, the lack of an operational definition for “intelligent causation” makes the hypothesis religious." Problem is, he's taking an implication that FOLLOWS #3 if the ID hypothesis is true, and mistakenly talking like #3 itself somehow pre-requires or preassumes a religious deity. Simply put, IT DOESN'T. What you said Guye, that "these attributes are generally attributed to deities", is a inference that you're welcome to make IF the hypothesis survives falsification.

But NONE of the three planks, including #3, REQUIRE or ASSUME that any deity of any attributes even EXIST at all. Nor is there ANY requirement or pre-assumption that the supernatural exists. Remember, the 3-point doesn't say "supernatural causation", it just says "intelligent causation."
The ID hypothesis STOPS at "intelligent causation" period!

3. Stanton says "So, how does this provide a definition of “specified complexity” and “irreducible complexity” and how does this demonstrate how either concept can be empirically detected in, say, Thalassocnus or heteromorph ammonites like Nipponites?".
Problem here is that I didn't ask whether you ACTUALLY AGREED with the planks of the hypothesis or not. I'm ONLY asking you to show me specifically and intrinsically that they're religious.

So any and all "Please defend this or that plank" requests (and I see quite a few), I WILL have to pass on 'em. You're welcome to assume the 3 planks are FALSE or (as Bill G wrote) "EMPTY SET or IGNORANCE"--- the only concern here, however is
"are... they... religious"?

(Dale H., PvM and others, this applies to your comments too.)

4. Nigel, despite his long post, is "sure that I have missed one or two points off the list."

What I'M sure of, however, is that Nigel actually ducked my request to show me from the 3-point ID hypothesis itself that ID is religious. Appreciate his response, but he's GOTTA be kidding me with that kind of ducking. (If you're reading this Glen D and CJO, I'm talking about you too. Reading comprehension, boys?)

Still, let's do a couple of Nigel's.

a. "The ID argument from ignorance is logically identical to the “God of the gaps” argument."

No time for paragraph- or page-long quotes, but philosopher of science Dr. Del Ratzsch specifically TORPEDOED that one in detail in his 2001 book Nature, Design and Science. The conclusion of his analysis was that "Gap objections seem mistaken on all counts–--conceptual, logical, empirical, and historical." (p.149). Check out that book for details.

b. "Early drafts of ID’s seminal text, Of Pandas and People has been shown in a court of law to have been drafts for a new creationist book."

That one is Directly and specifically refuted in the Foundation For Thought And Ethics (FTE) Amicus Brief which Judge Jones (and several other evolutionists too?) forgot to read and study.

Finally, PvM: "The entanglement of ID with religion was found to be an essential part of the ruling."

Is that the same ruling where Judge Jones forgot to even define religion? And btw, Judge Jones certainly never showed where Dembski's specific 3-point ID hypothesis planks was religious at all, either, just like you guys fail to do.

Gotta stop there. Hope this helps. You can stop that whining about not getting a response now!!

FL

I think the units for “specified complexity” would be “bits” from information theory.

I thought a "bit" was a quantity or object that could have a value of either "1" or "0". Larger units, such as "bytes," are made up of a certain number of "bits." That wouldn't work in evolution or genetic mutation, because unlike man-made computers, they don't use binary machine-code.

Each bits being representative of an individual mutation in the DNA.

That wouldn't be very helpful, because different "individual mutations" have different effects, and significant changes in DNA can be small (i.e., one nucleic acid substituted for another), or huge (i.e., a broken strand of DNA). The magnitude of the mutation, and that of the resulting change in the overall life-form, won't necessarily be proportional.

Of course you really dealing with more of a mathematical abstraction, then something which can be simply represented.

And as long as it remains an abstraction, and is never exactly quantified, all this "information theory" stuff will remain empty and useless, at best.

PS: once again, I see FL simply tossed out a disorderly heap of assertions, all of which are either word-salad, flatly refuted long ago, or so obvious that even most creationists have been forced to admit them. ("ID is not religious?" Even the leading lights of the ID movement (including Dembski) have explicitly admitted that it is. Don't you even read your own masters' memos?)

But then again, what else did we expect from a moral relativist who worships a deceiver God?

Oops, I'm typing in haste again. I meant to say: "...or so obviously false that even most creationists have given up defending them."

First to Glen: Glen Davidson Wrote: Did anybody say that ID is a religion? Apparently you have an inability to read, much like FL, so while we’re pointing out that ID is religious, you’re off in your bizarre little world making arguments against the voices in your head.

Glen Davidson Wrote: To be sure, that “something other” is not always religion, but in the case of ID it is religion (emphasis added) at least 99% of the time, while the various problems involved with its other supporters do not detract from the thrust of the Wedge and its religious goals and aims.

As for my opinion I do not think it loses meaning if you substitute the word religous for religion. To be a church vs state issue it really has to be an endorsement of a specific religous view.

For good or for bad, there is actualy a tacit endorsement of religion in a general sense in a number of areas.

What I’M sure of, however, is that Nigel actually ducked my request to show me from the 3-point ID hypothesis itself that ID is religious. Appreciate his response, but he’s GOTTA be kidding me with that kind of ducking. (If you’re reading this Glen D and CJO, I’m talking about you too. Reading comprehension, boys?)

So now you’re admitting that ID is “abstracted” from a specific religion, therefore it is indeed an “endorsement of a specific religious view” (one NOT shared by all theists, or even all Christians, BTW), deliberately disguised as “science” by substituting “abstracted” terminology.

— Raging Bee

But as to how much specified complexity, don’t we need a complexity meter for that? Off the top of my head, 42 or pi or a zillion. LOL

— raven

Actually, I think a change of one of four possible nucleotides for another would have to be represented by a difference of two bits, not one.

The fact that the designer is God by itself should not make this a church vs state issue.

Wrong. If the "designer" is believed by all involved in the ID movement to be a "God," and if "ID theory" says nothing specific contrary to this belief, and if "ID theory" is supported by absolutely no actual scientific work, then "ID theory" is, in fact, a disguised expression of religious belief, and nothing more; therefore, the teaching of ID as "science" in public schools does indeed become a church vs. state issue.

let me see, so i know how it works; i put a post that is pretty straightforward, you call me stupid and ivoke Fallwells name. Then you say everything else I wrote is wrong. Is this statement wrong: Evolutions mechanism for advancement is via mutation? or is this statement wrong The older the universe or anything in it, is wearing out. Which of those two statements is wrong. Hurry now-drop some religious authors name I have never read or referenced and call me stupid. And don't comment on my two wrong statements.

Given the following 3-point ID hypothesis (adapted from Dembski’s book “Intelligent Design” and Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box”): 1. Specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable. 2. Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity. 3. Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity.

your mendacious fallacy that we suppose that ID is “a religion”.

Is this statement wrong: Evolutions mechanism for advancement is via mutation? or is this statement wrong The older the universe or anything in it, is wearing out. Which of those two statements is wrong.

Those statements are both wrong. Mutations are necessary for evolution to occur, but do not constitute a "mechanism for advancement."

True or false? The older a fetus gets, the more it wears out.

Marv -both your assertions are wrong- where do you get that the universe is "wearing out" and what is the relevance of this assertion? and evolution's (one of several but the one most talked about) mechanism is SELECTION not mutation (and what do you mean by advancement? evolution is NOT directional)

FL - ID is scientifically null (there is no convincing reason why the "conclusions" of the 3 point hypothosis not to be the the 'empty set' or 'we don't know yet' - vs. "design" [where advovates of ID say design = GOD dit it]

the assertion that "if its not a known natural mechanism it must be 'design' "
is scientifically vacuous.

what is the purpose of trying to get ID taught in schools AS SCIENCE if not (as Glen D put is so well) ID is not merely accommodation or acknowledgement of religion, it is establishment [of religion]

In a courthouse where folks are dealing with a public education controversy, “religion” and “religious concept” are in fact the same terminology and the same domain (the domain of religion as opposed to the domain of science.).

And you boys clearly count on that fact to work in the courts and the media, towards ensuring that science students are exclusively indoctrinated (not educated, merely indoctrinated) in the Darwin Dogma Dogfood.

So, let us be clear–and honest, k?–about things.

I didn’t even ask you to agree with ‘em. I only asked you to show me specifically, from the actual hypothesis itself,

how they are religious since they obviously didn’t depend on or require or pre-assume or state anybody’s religion claims nor religious text.

And what did you do? You danced and ducked it! (And you weren’t the only one!)

You still have a chance to cool off, drink some Diet Sprite, chill out and actually engage my request the way I asked it.

That’s the only information I’m listening for anyway; nothing else.

Your being upset about it only puts a nasty smile on my mischeivous creationist face, so please move past it and get on with engaging the issue!

FL wrote: 3. Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity.

please help me understand, some write the force behind evoltion is not mutation, but selection, others write mutation is necessary for evolution to happen. which is it? could evolution happen without mutation?

Gotta stop there. Hope this helps. You can stop that whining about not getting a response now!!

So any and all “Please defend this or that plank” requests (and I see quite a few), I WILL have to pass on ‘em. You’re welcome to assume the 3 planks are FALSE or (as Bill G wrote) “EMPTY SET or IGNORANCE”— the only concern here, however is “are… they… religious”?

FL: 3. Stanton says "So, how does this provide a definition of “specified complexity” and “irreducible complexity” and how does this demonstrate how either concept can be empirically detected in, say, Thalassocnus or heteromorph ammonites like Nipponites?". Problem here is that I didn't ask whether you ACTUALLY AGREED with the planks of the hypothesis or not. I'm ONLY asking you to show me specifically and intrinsically that they're religious. So any and all "Please defend this or that plank" requests (and I see quite a few), I WILL have to pass on 'em. You're welcome to assume the 3 planks are FALSE or (as Bill G wrote) "EMPTY SET or IGNORANCE"--- the only concern here, however is "are... they... religious"?

You mean the same way that evolution can be used to support the religions of atheism or Buddhism but evolution is not itself considered to be a religion? Mmmm. Well, then, sincere thanks indeed. Now we can KNOW for certain that ID is NOT a religion, and that some folks around here (not to mention a certain judge back east) have got things very badly mistaken (either by accident--or more likely by design!). FL

marv funder: please help me understand, some write the force behind evoltion is not mutation, but selection, others write mutation is necessary for evolution to happen. which is it? could evolution happen without mutation?

Marv wrote:

"please help me understand, some write the force behind evoltion is not mutation, but selection, others write mutation is necessary for evolution to happen. which is it? could evolution happen without mutation?"

As others have pointed out, yes both mutation and selection are required for evolution. Some limited changes could occur due to recombination through sexual recombination and some changes in allele frequency could occur by drift without selection. But, the only way in which novel features could arise and the only way in which adaptation could come to increase in frequency deterministically would be the combination of random mutations and natural selection.

Think of it this way, do you need to shuffle and bet to play poker? Not really, but it would be pointless and boring if either of these steps were left out. Without shuffling you would always get the same hand and so no one care after the first hand. Without betting no one could win, so why bother? Likewise, without mutation nothing really new could ever evolve and without selection no one could ever have an increased survival probability due to beneficial variation, so even if something beneficial did evolve it wouldn't do you any good anyway. So, just like shuffling and betting, random mutation and natural selection are important to evolution. And of course there are other things that can happen asa well.

I thought I'd make a comment that actually refers to the subject at hand for a change.

FL, I think that you are getting two responses:

1. Your hyphothesis is not a hypothesis. That is, it does not follow the rules that science requires hypotheses to follow. Therefore, to ask whether the three-part hyphothesis is "religious" is a non-question, because it isn't a hypothesis.

2. Related is the response that because the three-part hypothesis doesn't follow the rules of science it does not fall into the catory of "science." Due to the many things have been said about the clear motivations of ID proponents, the category it fits best is "religion."

So you see, the objections to the individual parts of the ID "hypothesis" were indeed the answer to your challenge to show that the "hypothesis" as a whole is religious.

so, without mutation, evolution would not happen. Is this a true statement?

FL wrote:

"And you boys clearly count on that fact to work in the courts and the media, towards ensuring that science students are exclusively indoctrinated (not educated, merely indoctrinated) in the Darwin Dogma Dogfood."

Can you spell PROJECTION? So what, now you want us to believe that evolution is a religion but ID is not? Nice try but no sale.

Evolution is taught exactly the same way as every other science. Hoe could it possibly be otherwise? So, according to your logic, students are indoctrinated (not educated) to believe that the earth is round and the earth goes around the sun, etc. If you ever had any real science education you would soon realize that this is the way religion is taught, not science. Indeed, this is the antithesis of how all good science is done and taught. Get a scorecard, then maybe you will be able to keep the players straight.

If you really have the audacity to presume to tell me what goes on in my own classroom and every other classroom, then perhaps you could be so kind as to reveal the source of your knowledge. You can challenge the integrity of every scientist in the world with nonsensical arguments all you want, but making things up doesn't mean they are true. Perhaps you are just upset that the judge saw throught the ID scam and justifiably kept ID out of science classrooms. The point is, that even if it isn't necessarily religion strictly speaking, it sure isn't science and never will be. Deal with it.

Marv wrote:

"so, without mutation, evolution would not happen. Is this a true statement?"

Yes, it is. What part of my previous post was unclear? You can get some limited variation produced by recombination, which strictly speaking is not really a type of mutation, but you will not get any new alleles, genes, gene families, structures, functions etc. without some kind of heritable change, which is by definition mutation. Technically, you can get some changes in allele frequency without mutation, but there must be a source of variation and new alleles in order for changes in allele frequency to be possible. So even in that sense, yes, you need mutation for evolution.

And before you ask, yes, we know a great many different types of mutations, their molecular mechanisms, their relative and absolute rates, their phenotypic consequences, their selection coefficients, etc. And yes, the vast majority of them are deleterious, but a small proportion of them can be beneficial at least in some environments. And yes, they can cause both extinction and speciation. And no, it isn't possible for a DNA based life form to reproduce without some mutation, even if it is asexual. Nor would that be desirable in a variable environment.

I appreciate your explanation. It does clear alot up. I didn't know there were different types of mutations. You say that a small percentage could be beneficial. Is this a correct statement; from the emergence of life on earth to our present humanism, wouldn't there have to be literally millions or even billions of beneficial mutations that have been successfully passed on?

Yes. Just keep in mind that many many mutations happen all the time, and that what is beneficial in one environment at one time may not be beneficial in another environment, or at another time.

Looking at both sides, obviously ID is founded upon religion.

— Marv Funder

I believe that God made the universe and all that is in it.

I just don’t see so much complexity comming from

a loss of genetic information via mutations

in a universe that is wearing out over time.

I am not an ID proponent,

I think it is vague.

I think ID proponants spend too much time trying to define what the boundaries are, rather than discussing the questions that evolution present.

Marv,

Yes, you are correct.

It is a mind-bogglingly large number isn't it?

The thing is, if you start with something simple like bacteria, reproducing (dividing) every 20 minutes, you can get to trillions of reproduction events very quickly. Starting with a single bacterium, 30 generations (10 hours) yields over a billion bacteria (assuming none die). It takes about a year and a half to get to 1 trillion.

! trillion means only a one-in-a-million beneficial mutation (i.e. 1 beneficial mutation in 1,000,000 reproductions) rate is require to obtain 1 million beneficial mutations in total.

These are just theoretical calculations and don't take into account many factors that would greatly reduce the trillion number. But when you consider the total number of Bacteria on Earth (5 million trillion trillion or 5 x 10^30), it's pretty easy to imagine a billion beneficial mutations.

And all of the above is not even considering the 3.5 billion years life has been on earth.

Don

marv funder: I appreciate your explanation. It does clear alot up. I didn't know there were different types of mutations. You say that a small percentage could be beneficial. Is this a correct statement; from the emergence of life on earth to our present humanism, wouldn't there have to be literally millions or even billions of beneficial mutations that have been successfully passed on?

Then you say everything else I wrote is wrong.

Looking at both sides

I just don’t see ...

BTW, this line: “Too many things on this world cannot just be an accident” is a classic argument from personal incredulity.

So here’s a treat just for you lurkers. Watch the Panda Gang duck this one:

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/E%20Richardson%20is%20ID%20religion.htm " Intelligent design" is a theory of the origins of life that suggests that intelligent causes best explain the origin of living systems and their features.

The theory is based on the empirically-testable assumption that systems which exhibit high-information content are more likely the result of an intelligent design rather than undirected natural causes.

Simply put in lay terms, living things are too complex to have happened by chance and there was likely some intelligent cause involved in their origins.

Tell me now, from this hypothesis itself, exactly how this particular 3-point ID hypothesis is religious,

Take the Dover trial was what they tried to teach ID or creationism? The judge correctly ruled that it was creationism. But ask yourself, if the “reference” (I use the term loosely) book was “Darwin’s Black Box” rather than “Of Pandas and People”, would there have been the same decision? Behe’s book may be considered bad science but it is not an endorsement for Creationism.

To be a church vs state issue it really has to be an endorsement of a specific religous view.

For good or for bad, there is actualy a tacit endorsement of religion in a general sense in a number of areas.

I thought a “bit” was a quantity or object that could have a value of either “1” or “0”. Larger units, such as “bytes,” are made up of a certain number of “bits.” That wouldn’t work in evolution or genetic mutation, because unlike man-made computers, they don’t use binary machine-code.

Yes. Just keep in mind that many many mutations happen all the time, and that what is beneficial in one environment at one time may not be beneficial in another environment, or at another time.

as far as i can tell, your argument seems to be this:

because your three main planks of ID make no mention of religion or a specific religious deity they are not intrinsically religious.

You are playing a typical slippery evolution-denier's semantic game.

So looking purely at the "evidence" you provide, we can say with absolute certainty, that ID is an empty concept that cannot be explored scientifically, and is therefore not science.

So here is where your semantic game comes in to play. Because you are arguing a straw man, you get to "win" by your own definition of the rules. "prove your claim that ID is religious purely on the grounds of what it hypothesises" "well we can't" "HA! SEE!" "yeah the thing is we cant because that isn't our claim - our claim is that the scientific vacuity of those hypotheses, coupled with the stated intent of the authors, which when viewed together unambiguously demonstrates the religious construction and purpose of ID. Can you refute this?" "crickets chirp..."

I just don’t see so much complexity comming from a loss of genetic information

a universe that is wearing out over time

4. Nigel, despite his long post, is “sure that I have missed one or two points off the list.” What I’M sure of, however, is that Nigel actually ducked my request to show me from the 3-point ID hypothesis itself that ID is religious.

— FL

Appreciate his response, but he’s GOTTA be kidding me with that kind of ducking.

. . . Still, let’s do a couple of Nigel’s.

a. “The ID argument from ignorance is logically identical to the “God of the gaps” argument.” No time for paragraph- or page-long quotes, but philosopher of science Dr. Del Ratzsch specifically TORPEDOED that one in detail in his 2001 book Nature, Design and Science. The conclusion of his analysis was that “Gap objections seem mistaken on all counts––conceptual, logical, empirical, and historical.” (p.149). Check out that book for details.

Is this statement wrong: Evolutions mechanism for advancement is via mutation?

Yes, it is wrong, because mutation is only one of many "mechanisms" by which evolution works.

...or is this statement wrong The older the universe or anything in it, is wearing out.

In addition to being ungrammatical, it is meaningless, because you have not defined what you mean by "wearing out." As another respondent said, one doesn't see a fetus "wearing out" as it gets older.

So, if “intelligent causation” isn’t implying a deity then what does it mean? Maybe a natural intelligence like aliens? If so, what would have created the alien life? I just don’t understand how “intelligent causation” can be anything but God. Which would be religion. Maybe there is something I am missing. Could you explain it to me? Seriously.

"Finally, Crick and Orgel (1973) suggest a third possibility, which they call directed panspermia. Earth's founding microbes were sent here intentionally, aboard a spacecraft, by intelligent extraterrestrials bent on seeding the galaxy with life. Crick and Orgel argue that, within the foreseeable future, it will probably be possible for us to launch such a mission. Therefore, it is at least conceivable that some other civilization actually did so 4 billion years ago." Drs. Scott Freeman & Jon Herron, Evolutionary Analysis 3rd Edition, 2004, pg 629.

"Orgel admitted to John Horgan (1991) that he and Crick intended their directed panspermia hypothesis as "sort of a joke." In their 1973 paper,however, Crick and Orgel treat the idea seriously enough to consider biological pattterns that might serve as evidence."

So even though it’s clearly possible that the inference “a deity created life” is what might FOLLOW the 3-point ID hypothesis by implication (the ID hypothesis doesn’t pre-require or pre-assume that claim), the fact is that you are not even required to infer a “deity” FOLLOWING the hypothesis.

— FL

ook at this opening statement from PvM: ”Intelligent Design is correctly identified as a religious concept.” You and I both understand what he’s saying there, we’ve both done our readings, there’s honestly no need for you to play dumb about it. In a courthouse where folks are dealing with a public education controversy, “religion” and “religious concept” are in fact the same terminology and the same domain (the domain of religion as opposed to the domain of science.).

So, if “intelligent causation” isn’t implying a deity then what does it mean? Maybe a natural intelligence like aliens? If so, what would have created the alien life? I just don’t understand how “intelligent causation” can be anything but God. Which would be religion. Maybe there is something I am missing. Could you explain it to me? Seriously.

— Eric J

Your opening questions are perceptive—you’re onto something significant which explains why the ID hypothesis is NOT religion.

— FL

See, the evolutionists have “been there done that” in terms of putting forth the hypothesis “a natural intelligence like aliens”, and of course that’s considered a scientific hypothesis, good enough to talk about in an university-level evolutionary biology textbook. Did you know that?

(But in the process, they accidently proved that the specific 3-point ID hypothesis is NOT religious. Mmm!)

The idea that you cannot discuss ID in a scientific sense because the philosophical implications point to a supernatural creator is wrong. There are ways of discussing the issue without making this an endorsement issue.

The idea that you can examine a set of data and look for abnormalities, like spikes in a graph and conclude that these spikes represent something not explained by our current understanding of the data is clearly science. It is also in the realm of science to show that these spikes cannot be explained by random noise or other known phenomenon, that there may even be details about these spikes which give basis for indicating an intelligent agent being more likely than a non-intelligent one. That's where the science ends. There is a little room left over for a discussion on the philosophical context surrounding this without being an endorsement of religion.

This becomes an endorsement issue when those with religious motives seek to provide false or misleading information to elevate the actual status of ID; because the real problem which ID faces is then not its religious origin, but the fact that they have failed to legitimately identify significant spikes much less enough to make any statements about their causation.

As I said at the beginning:

Of course the quest for the mythical “fingerprints” of God has always been a fruitless one. Which is not to say that God was not responsible, but rather to say that like any good master criminal he wore gloves.

I notice, though, FL, that you are not even attempting to answer the questions.

Eric J’s question, well, I answered that one in much detail.

— FL

Nevertheless, asking that question doesn’t eliminate the hypothesis itself, even if everybody can only respond “I don’t know at this time what created the alien life.”

— FL

b. “Early drafts of ID’s seminal text, Of Pandas and People has been shown in a court of law to have been drafts for a new creationist book.” That one is Directly and specifically refuted in the Foundation For Thought And Ethics (FTE) Amicus Brief which Judge Jones (and several other evolutionists too?) forgot to read and study.

— FL

In layman’s terms, it’s like this. Mutation and variation lead to a diverse population. Environmental pressures weed out certain organisms (or naturally “select” them), driving the population in a certain direction (evolution). Without mutation, there would be nothing to select. Without selection, you’d just have a random pile of variations that never went anywhere. Evolution requires both.

Wow, I never realized if I thank someone for a response I would be portrayed as some lurch hiding his real motives. Or, that correct grammer in this discussion is so highly valued, Im sure all other posts throughout the history of Pandas Thumb would have made all of our high school english teachers proud! Maybe we should start diagramming all of them as well. In my very first post I admitted the abhorable that I believed the Lord created us, and I am interested in understanding how evolutionists view mutation, and the role they play in the theory. I don't understand how mutation (most of what I've witnessed are harmful to the organism) can be passed on and create something stronger.

Marv,
Let go of mutations for a second and focus on the more basic concept of simple variation. I'm sure you can agree that members of a species vary within populations. This can easily be observed by anyone. And it's not too much of a stretch to say that, sometimes, a variant trait provides an individual with an advantage within its environment over other members of the population. Accept this simple logic, and you understand how mutations can occasionally confer an advantage, since mutations are one source of variation within a population.

I don’t understand how mutation (most of what I’ve witnessed are harmful to the organism) can be passed on and create something stronger.

Marv--
I don't think anyone has mentioned gene duplication yet. Sometimes part of a chromosome mutates so that there are two copies of a gene. (This may have little if any negative effect on the organism.) The second copy of the gene can then mutate without having an adverse effect, since the original copy of the gene is still unmutated. Sometimes these spare copies mutate until they have a new, positive effect on an organism (which would, of course, be the original organism's decendant.) Gene duplication is an important mechanism for adding new adaptive features.

The other point that you may not have considered is that most mutations have virtually no effect at all. You almost certainly are carrying a mutation somewhere in your genes-- one or more of your 3 billion base pairs is probably unlike the same site in either of your parents. Someday that mutation, which is likely to be passed on to one of your kids, may have some survival advantage. In the mean time, it has no effect.

By the universe "wearing out" are you referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics? That law only applies to closed systems (like the universe) but not to open systems (like a planet receiving energy from sunlight.) It's true that evolution would be impossible in a closed system-- but so would a fertilized egg growing into a baby and then an adult. If you are going to argue that evolution is impossible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you also have to argue that babies are impossible-- and how far are you going to get with THAT? ;-)

FL - Sorry, I hate to jump on the band wagon but your reply didn't answer anything for me.
Nigel best put into words the problem I have. When I think about your 3rd point, the logical conclusion for me is that somewhere, there must be a deity involved. If not for us, than for the hypothetical aliens that created us. As much as I think about your hypothesis, I always come to the conclusion that some sort of magic had to happen. That's where I see the direct connection to religion. Thank you for the attempt.

marv funder - I might be able to help with the idea of mutations. At least I think I understand the problem you have with them. I believe that a lot of people automatically associate the negative with the word "mutation". For example, my first memory of an understanding of the word "mutation" had something to do with monsters. A negative. From what I can tell, mutations in nature are neither inherently negative or positive. (Is "inherently" the right word?) What determines that in the end, is the environment. For instance, the same mutation that would be positive in a wet environment, would be negative in a dry environment. So the mutated organism in the wet environment would be more likely to live long enough to reproduce and pass on the mutative trait to the next generation than the dry environment organism. And so on. For those in the know, am I in the right ball park here?

Science. 2007 Aug 10;317(5839):813-5. Links Adaptive mutations in bacteria: high rate and small effects.Perfeito L, Fernandes L, Mota C, Gordo I. Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Rua da Quinta Grande, number 6, 2780-156 Oeiras, Portugal. Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10(-5) per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity.

That is a point that effectively proves that the 3-point ID hypothesis is NOT religious, whether or not a person agrees or disagrees with the individual planks or the overall hypothesis itself.

So a few idiots mentioning aliens proves ID is not religious? Even by FL's "standards," that's a lame defense -- especially when ALL of the leaders of the ID movement have themselves admitted that a) the "designer" is, and can only be, a supernatural God capable of manipulating life-forms at the molecular level without leaving a trace; and b) their aim is to get religious doctrine inserted into scientific discourse.

FL: This post started with a description of CHRISTIAN MINISTERS trying to get their narrow religious doctrine inserted into science classes, in the guise of ID. And you're trying to tell us ID is not religious? This only proves what a blind, ridiculous liar you are.

The problem with FL's 3 pronged hypothesis argument is very basic: it doesn't describe what ID actually knows and does, so it really doesn't matter whether it is religious or not.

The premises aren't correct FL, and the logic doesn't follow. Yes, that does matter. Otherwise, I could claim the following is not a religious argument:

1. Specified Jesusosity and/or irreducible divinity is well-defined and empirically detectable.

2. Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining Jesusosity and/or irreducible divinity.

3. Deistic resurrection best explains specified Jesusosity and/or irreducible divinity.

My terms aren't well-defined you say? So? You don't seem to care that yours aren't, even though you have been asked several times to explain exactly what "specified complexity" means. My factual premises are incorrect you say? So? That doesn't change the hypothesis you say. The logic from #2 to #3 doesn't follow you say? So? Yours doesn't, but that doesn't keep you from touting it as if it as if it were some brilliant piece of logic.

You've accomplised a great semantic goal, nothing more. You've created a formulation of words and apparent arguments that can never be shown to be religious, no matter what the subject. Congratulations. May all the other successes in your life be as grand. Now leave the scientists alone and let them, you know, do some science.

So a few idiots mentioning aliens proves ID is not religious?

raven:

So a few idiots mentioning aliens proves ID is not religious?

The aliens did it or galactic computer did it form of ID doesn't work. This just pushes the supernatural back a step or two. Who made the aliens? Or the Galactic supercomputer? Godditit or they themselves evolved.

or claim that the design was done by time travellers

— Marek14

As a result of the above, I gave you (and Torbsson too btw, since he asked for it in a previous thread) a very specific ID hypothesis, 3 clear logical planks to shoot at.

Given the following 3-point ID hypothesis (adapted from Dembski’s book “Intelligent Design” and Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box”): 1. Specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable. 2. Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity. 3. Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity.

Pairs of events in spacetime may be classified into 3 distinct types based on 'how far' apart they are: time-like (more than enough time passes for there to be a cause-effect relationship between the two events; ...

Obviously I'm specious when I note that there isn't any attempt of definition. But not really, because I hold that there aren't any true and robust definitions given within IDC.

It can't, because then it would move from its religious motivation to being motivated to find the facts. FL is welcome to provide the lacking definitions and prove me wrong. It wouldn't require much additional text.

And to not unduly aggravate any statisticians among the readers, I might add that correlations is an excellent example of the types of constraints that I listed under "natural direction".

And I still forgot to bite the bigger bullet; I'm specious about "direction" as well. Again, not really, since FL need to define it. And I hold that theories and laws is what provides any "direction" that we observe.

Of course asking the question “who designed the designer?” invalidates the non-theistic ID concept. It starts an infinite recursion.

If the cosmological argument is successful, it provides the means for answering certain important objections to the design argument. For example, a common and serious objection to the design argument is the threat of an infinite regress. The world is highly organized, so we infer a designer. But, every intelligent designer we know (i.e., human beings) are themselves highly organized systems. So, it seems that we need to infer a designer of the designer, and so on to infinity. Apparently, we haven't gained anything, so we should stop at the first step, and assume that the cosmos has no designer. The cosmological argument, if successful, provides a powerful reply to this objection. The cosmological argument tells us that there is an uncaused first cause of the world. If the world bears the signs of intelligence, it is reasonable to attribute intelligence to the first cause. There is no threat of infinite regress, because we know that the first cause is uncaused. It provides the natural stopping point. Dr. Robert Koons http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/lec2.html

I don’t accept Ratzch as an authority, so I don’t care what he said.

Then you don’t define “specified complexity”, “irreducible complexity”, “undirected natural causes” or “intelligent causation”. This means we can’t make any predictions to test, and this isn’t hypotheses predicted by a coherent theory.

if you combine the design argument with the cosmological arguement, you eliminate the infinite recursion thing, and the ID concept is again validated as non-religious.

uh, no.

"who fine-tuned the universe" simply becomes the first level of a new recursion.

or at least it doesn’t matter in this forum

the argument from authority shouldn't matter in ANY forum, FL.

it does, however, very often seem to matter to YOU.

Which, ONE MORE TIME, brings us to this main point: the specific 3-point ID hypothesis is NOT religion nor religious.

like we keep saying, all you have to do is define how the designer operates, and you're good to go.

hypotheses can be generated and tested, etc.

why can't you do this?

oh, that's right, because it IS based on religious ideology, and claiming to know the mind of god is blasphemy.

Since we know that undefined fuzzy-wuzzy mess is NOT testable, and since we know that SC and IC are indeed testable (because that’s what you evolutionists have admitted), that HAS to mean that SC and IC are quite well enough defined for evolutionists to boast that they actually can be tested and defeated on a scientific basis.

do we really need to go over what Miller ACTUALLY said wrt to the testability of the concept of IC?

do we really need to point out to you, yet again, that he actually made a theoretically testable definition of IC that the ID community itself hadn't even bothered to do, and still have not, and then showed how all observable data refute it?

your poor mind is so confused you've mixed up all the quotemines and partial thoughts in there and come to some rather far flung conclusions about what HAS and HAS NOT been said by the scientific community.

not surprising, really, but rather pathetic nonetheless.

hypotheses can be generated and tested, etc.

Including the ID hypothesis. Did you know that?

there is no ID hypothesis, and both you and Denyse are entirely confused about what the term "hypothesis" even means.

that you fail to recognize this, after years of projecting your fantasies onto what actual science does, is not only pathetic, but laughable.

like i said, all you have to do is define how the designer operates, so we can actually predict what might be "designed", and you're good to go.

any anthropologist can make easily testable hypotheses about whether a specific item is human designed.

all you have to do is figure out how a designer operates, and then you can do the same.

you know how your god desiger works, right?

er, other than in "mysterious ways", i mean?

we've been waiting for years now. well, hundreds of years to be more precise.

still nothing.

the silence is deafening.

Specified Complexity is like the sentences in your post or mine. Too high in both specification and complexity together, to be attributable to mere chance or necessity (natural laws.) Irreducible Complexity is a special case of Specified Complexity, it is like a mousetrap in which all the individual parts must work as one and work correctly all at once in order for the mousetrap to fulfill its function.

That is a point that effectively proves that the 3-point ID hypothesis is NOT religious, whether or not a person agrees or disagrees with the individual planks or the overall hypothesis itself.

Just a quick note: In philosophy, if you combine the design argument with the cosmological arguement, you eliminate the infinite recursion thing, and the ID concept is again validated as non-religious.

— FL

That’s fine (or at least it doesn’t matter in this forum.) Just be sure not to “care what Ratzsch said” when PvM quotes him likewise.

— FL

Specified Complexity is like the sentences in your post or mine. Too high in both specification and complexity together, to be attributable to mere chance or necessity (natural laws.)

— FL

Irreducible Complexity is a special case of Specified Complexity, it is like a mousetrap in which all the individual parts must work as one and work correctly all at once in order for the mousetrap to fulfill its function.

Undirected natural causes would necessarily mean evolution, of course, because “evolutionary theory does not admit conscious anticipation of the future, i.e. conscious forethought” as Futuyma wrote in his famous evolutionary biology textbook (3rd ed.)

This outright and total denial of teleology at any point in the evolutionary process (“a completely mindless process” as Fut says), is the hallmark of evolution and evolutionist, and it’s proclaimed by Ernst Mayr and others.

“Intelligent causation” is pretty self-evident there, especially in light of Fut’s statement.

Causation deriving from “conscious forethought”, teleological goal-directed purposeful causation—well there you go amigo.

And don’t be too quick to dismiss those definitions just cuz you’re an evolutionist.

Evolutionist Ken Miller has already admitted that IC is testable, and evolutionist Victor Stenger has already admitted that SC is testable. (Both think that they’ve been shot down of course, which is wrong, but they at least clearly said out loud that SC and IC are testable.)

Since we know that undefined fuzzy-wuzzy mess is NOT testable, and since we know that SC and IC are indeed testable (because that’s what you evolutionists have admitted),

that HAS to mean that SC and IC are quite well enough defined for evolutionists to boast that they actually can be tested and defeated on a scientific basis.

Which, ONE MORE TIME, brings us to this main point: the specific 3-point ID hypothesis is NOT religion nor religious.

Now you have your definitions Torbjorn, and make no mistake–they are quite clear. You now have no basis on which to claim that the ID hypothesis is religious. Agreed?

PS….for those who want mathematical rigorous definitional stuff and all that jazz, see Dembski’s onlinearticle: “Specification: The Pattern that Signifies Intelligence.”

But I’ve found that most folks can understand what I said earlier, quite a bit easier.

I need to ask if you have a copy of Dembski’s book “Intelligent Design” and Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box”.

Specified Complexity is like the sentences in your post or mine. Too high in both specification and complexity together, to be attributable to mere chance or necessity (natural laws.)

Evolutionist Ken Miller has already admitted that IC is testable,

evolutionist Victor Stenger has already admitted that SC is testable.

Which, ONE MORE TIME, brings us to this main point: the specific 3-point ID hypothesis is NOT religion nor religious.

I have to wonder: in the "phrase" "specified complexity", by whom or what is the "complexity" specified, and why?

When a human designed something, it's the requirements that are specified. Any resulting complexity is a side effect, and in general the less complex it is the better so long as it meets the specifications.

So to an engineer (or at least to this software engineer), "specified complexity" makes no sense.

Henry

Henry, I agree.

When I first heard about "Irreducible Complexity" a few years ago, my first thought was: how can you use complexity as a marker for design? Simplicity is a sign of good design.

A classic example of this is pebbles on a beach. We may find all sorts of ovoid shapes that are quite complex (i.e. describing them requires a lot of text); whereas if we were to discover a pebble that was a perfect sphere, we would suspect that it had been shaped by human hands (or a machine), because it is a much simpler shape.

If you wish to use complexity as a marker for design, it can only be a marker for poor design.

Simplicity is a sign of good design.

So to an engineer (or at least to this software engineer), “specified complexity” makes no sense.

When I see a modern car engine I suspect part of the specification was ‘make it complex’ ;-)

— Richard Simons

FL:

hypotheses can be generated and tested, etc.

Including the ID hypothesis. Did you know that? See examples in the "Denyse O'Leary" thread. You are invited to respond there, to the same comments that I'm offering to Stanton. FL

Richard Simons: I'm not too sure about that. When I see a modern car engine I suspect part of the specification was 'make it complex' ;-)

Intelligent design is at its heart a purely anti-evolution belief that asserts that naturalistic explanations of some biological entities are not possible and such entities can only be explained by supernatural causes. Advocates of ID maintain that their belief is scientific and provides empirical "proof" for the existence of God. They claim that intelligent design should be taught in the science classroom as an alternative to the science of evolution. ID is essentially a hoax, however, since evolution is inconsistent with a belief in an intelligent designer of the universe. The two are contradictory and are not competing for the same "proofs.". ID is proposed mainly by Christian apologists at the Discovery Institute and their allies, who feel science threatens their Biblical-based view of reality. They also should point out that their said same beliefs call for a flat earth, an ark and the slavery of others. this they always seem to forget. ID is a sham, an idea from a time long since past and it needs to be forgotten. Religion has managed to retard human progress for nearly twenty centuries. It's time has passed- it needs to go.

One could also point out that by saying evolution can't happen in a way consistent with natural law, they're saying that arranging things that way was beyond God's abilities.

Henry