Science v Intelligent Design: Dembski again

I wonder what is the alternative? *poof* idea?

At least evolution gives us something to work on, if we presuppose that some part magicly came into existence via unknown method what can we work on?

Nothing...

Toni Petrina: I wonder what is the alternative? *poof* idea? At least evolution gives us something to work on, if we presuppose that some part magicly came into existence via unknown method what can we work on? Nothing...

but not give any detailed testable step by step scenario

The problem is that if ID were to present a scenario, it would reduce it to regularity and chance processes and thus disprove itself :-)

How can anyone who is an advocate of ID make such a complaint about evolutionary biology?

PvM: The problem is that if ID were to present a scenario, it would reduce it to regularity and chance processes and thus disprove itself :-)

The problem is that if ID were to present a scenario, it would reduce it to regularity and chance processes and thus disprove itself :-)

Right, and so the best they have is to look and point at alleged discontinuities and then pray that everybody just shrugs and says "Okey dokey if you say so. We believe you." :P

Dembski’s words show that he clearly does not comprehend the concept of ‘design’ and the scientific response to it.

Well, according to Dembski, ID can look for discontinuities.

No need to do any engineering work or any design work or anything, that’s enough.

And then there's the flip side of that: while scientists toil away, uncovering the mechanisms and achievements of evolution, Dembski and his friends display no curiosity at all about the "pathetic detail" of this alleged engineering and design work -- their "science" consists of nothing more than claiming that God did it (with a little bit of bumbling and inept "here's why it must be that God did it" that never pans out).

"Well, according to Dembski, ID can look for discontinuities."

Exactly. Any evidence that any organism has just poofed into existence without any connection or relatedness to any other orgnsism would be evidence for ID. Any evidence for any complex system that had no simpler precursors or homologous genes would be evidence of "poof". Well, care to give an example of such a discontinuity? I thought not.

You see all organisms are related by the tree of life. There are no major discontinuities. There are no branches off in space with no connection to the rest of the tree. There are no complex systems without simpler precursors or homologous genes in other organisms. Bacterial flagella, no. Bird wings, no. Eyes, no. Bombadier beetles, no. Immune systems, no. Every time you examine the comparative evidence carefully, the intermediate steps become apparent. And even if science has not figured out each pathway completely yet, you can bet that it will eventually. That sure beats "poof" as an explanation any day.

The only discontinuities that Dembski has been able to demonstrate are those between his ideas and the evidence.

RBH (above) kindly alerted us to the "Baraminology Study Group" which recently held their annual meeting at that hotbed of cutting-edge biology, Liberty University, founded in 1971 by Jerry Falwell as Lynchburg Baptist College.

Another institution of higher learning apparently associated with the BSG is Bryan College, located in Dayton, Tennessee, named after William Jennings Bryan of Scopes Trial fame.

For those of you unacquainted with baraminology, see http://www.conservapedia.com/Baraminology.

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering. William A. Dembski Organisms using GAs vs. Organisms being built by GAs thread at ISCID 18. September 2002

No need to do any engineering work or any design work or anything, that’s enough. Enough to point to these intermediate systems. but not give any detailed testable step by step scenario for how point A could have evolved by gradual means into point B.

Remember, Dembski is not a scientist nor does he play one on TV or in a blog.

Here's a recent quote from a talk he gave at OU in Norman, Oklahoma:

"I've got plenty of ulterior religious motive, I'd like to see ID succeed because of my Christian background and beliefs."

That's it in a nutshell.

Thank you, Dr. Dr.

Well, according to Dembski, ID can look for discontinuities.

there are in fact many not only testable but tested steps for evolution ... suggests that Dembski is in fact simply a lying hypocrite.

How can anyone who is an advocate of ID make such a complaint about evolutionary biology? This is not a rhetorical question. I don’t understand.

— TomS

GvlGeologist, FCD,

Here is my reply to Dembski's "bait" quote, from a June, 2006 PT comment):

WD: You’re asking me to play a game:

No, you’re already playing a game. We’re asking you to stop.

WD: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.”

We’ll settle for less detail, since we’ve had a few years’ head start. Unless you count Paley, in which case you had the head start. But we don’t just need “causal mechanisms,” we also need you to tell us what those mechanisms explain. You know, the “what happened and when” of biological history. Even YECs can do that part, so we’re confident that you can too.

WD: ID is not a mechanistic theory,…

It isn’t a theory, period.

WD: …and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.

ID can’t match any level of detail, which is why you no longer demand that it be taught in schools. So you just promote the phony “critical analysis” of evolution, which insulates all the other attempts at “theories”, e.g. YEC, OEC, saltation, front loading, etc., from a real critical analysis. Nice trick, I must admit.

WD: If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots.

Tell that to the YECs and OECs who insist on connecting the dots in the wrong way.

Besides, you conveniently overlook the fact that when a designer is detected in forensics and archaeology - using the “side information” that those fields have that yours lacks - investigators continue to “connect the dots” by determining what the designer did, when and how. In contrast, the object of your game is to get your critics to dwell on whether or not there is a designer. That saves you from having to say what the designer did, when and how. And you don’t want to do that because you know that the answer is “it’s still evolution.” Maybe not your “Darwinism” caricature, but still evolution.

WD: True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

Then what exactly are the “fundamental discontinuities?” They must not be biological because Michael Behe made it clear that there is “biological continuity” (his phrase for common descent at the Kansas Kangaroo Court), and you have not challenged him on it. So for all your gyrations about “the” flagellum, barring any extraordinary evidence to the contrary, the most reasonable explanation is still that modern flagella originated “in vivo” not “in vitro.” Likewise humans are “modified monkeys,” not “modified dirt.” And the process is still evolution. But we understand. You can’t say too much because you need YEC political support. We know the game. Like astrology, which Behe likened it to at Dover, ID continues to fool millions of people, but it fools no biologists except the handful who already sold out to pseudoscience. And since the sell-outs seem to know that it’s a scam, we can’t necessarily say that it fools them either.

Paul Burnett:

In the interest of being "fair and balanced" (as if "equal time" for Conservapedia could be anywhere near that even among mainstream conservatives) the Wikipedia entry on "Baraminology" says:

"Baraminology is not accepted by the scientific community. It has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous tests, and post-study rejection of data to make it better fit the desired findings.[6] Baraminology has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[7] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany since 1924.[8]"

Frank J -

Perhaps. I am still amazed when one professional politician says of another politician's opposition on a political issue that he's playing politics. Even more impressed when the newsreader reports it without laughing.

JohnS:

Dembski’s words show that he clearly does not comprehend the concept of ‘design’ and the scientific response to it.

I'm not certain that Dembski believes his own words. He may understand only too well what he is trying to cover over. I think on some level he is aware that his goal is to deceive the target audience by whatever means are available. When he crafts (creates?) his explanation of nature, he starts from selected facts with the desired conclusion in mind and then makes his leaps of faith. He only believes his lies to the extent it makes it easier to convince the audience that he believes. He is a practising professional liar for whom the ends justify the means.

Frank J: Paul Burnett: In the interest of being "fair and balanced" (as if "equal time" for Conservapedia could be anywhere near that even among mainstream conservatives) the Wikipedia entry on "Baraminology" says: "Baraminology is not accepted by the scientific community."

Paul,

I should have noted that I had figured that you weren't serious about Consevapedia. That site must be an embarrassment even to most OECs and IDers. Although I doubt that many of them will admit it in public.

Nevertheless that is enough to convince them because from their perspective design is a non-starter, it’s unthinkable

Darwinian mechanisms is a divide and conquer strategy.

You take a system and if you can find a sub system of that system which performs some function then you have divided the problem . Clearly the global system evolved from the system that is embedded in it.

End of story. No need to do any engineering work or any design work or anything, that’s enough.

Enough to point to these intermediate systems. but not give any detailed testable step by step scenario for how point A could have evolved by gradual means into point B.