Bill Dembski: ChunkDZ's gift of profane abuses

William Dembski must not be terribly bright to mistake "getting bored/frustrated with a person with poor social and reading comprehension skills who uses profanity and invectives as substitutes for punctuation" with "sputtering silence."

Then again, Mr Dembski is a man who applies his motto of "it's not my task to match your pathetic level of detail" to all aspects of his life, it seems.

"gift for profane abuse" ......

I have read about the holy spirit giving the gift of prophesy and healing to the faithful, but "profane abuse"?

I will look at Gordan Ramsey in whole different light, he has been truly blessed.

"...Chunkdz dominates the discussion and by virtue of a very considerable gift for profane abuse, succeeds in doing what I never thought possible, and that is reducing the entire PT crowd to sputtering, dim-witted incoherence. You must link to it."

First of all that's Chunkdz's version, even at that it was what psychologists call projection.


Secondly, my impression was that chunkdz, in the vivid words of Hunter Thompson, got stomped like a nark at a biker rally.

Who says that reality matters to ID proponents, it's all about apologetics anyway. :-)

so, ID has finally settled upon the measure of intellectual victory that creationists like Hovind discovered decades ago ... saying stuff so blitheringly stupid that opponents silently wonder how to even parse it into some sort of grammatical structure, then chortling at how all these fancy types with their book learning were unable to respond

Well, Dr. Dembski should know something about "sputtering, dim-witted incoherence." He's done plenty of it himself. To see for yourself, let's go back to April 2002, to that temple of evolution, the American Museum of Natural History. There, at the ID Forum, several of the top ID advocates were given a chance to explain their glorious theory of ID. (And you thought they were always silenced!) See especially this section where Dr. Robert Pennock questions Dr. Dembski. Who's sputtering?

I am getting reluctant to post but ... Dembski of
course has tuned out the fact that anyone who behaved like
that posting to UNCOMMON DESCENT would have been banned
after a few entries, while our visitor is tolerated and
engaged (if, to no surprise, with little good humor)
on PT.

I am not surprised that Dembski would endorse a thrower
of foul-mouthed tantrums, it's what I would expect of him,
or maybe less. Indeed ... how do we know that our guest
isn't a sock puppet for Dembski himself?

I must admit that this new "segregation" approach is
very satisfactory. For whatever reasons, there are
those here who like to fight with malicious visitors --
who knows, maybe they just like to fight? But they
can corner the visitor in the store-room and fight away
as long as they please, no problem. The real beauty
is that the visitors are no longer disrupting the
operation of the site, just sitting there being a
convenient punching bag. It
must take a lot of the fun out of it. And they can't
cry "censorship" any more.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Karen S. said: Well, Dr. Dembski should know something about "sputtering, dim-witted incoherence." He's done plenty of it himself. To see for yourself, let's go back to April 2002, to that temple of evolution, the American Museum of Natural History. There, at the ID Forum, several of the top ID advocates were given a chance to explain their glorious theory of ID. (And you thought they were always silenced!) See especially this section where Dr. Robert Pennock questions Dr. Dembski. Who's sputtering?

iml8 said: I am getting reluctant to post but ... Dembski of course has tuned out the fact that anyone who behaved like that posting to UNCOMMON DESCENT would have been banned after a few entries, while our visitor is tolerated and engaged (if, to no surprise, with little good humor) on PT. I am not surprised that Dembski would endorse a thrower of foul-mouthed tantrums, it's what I would expect of him, or maybe less. Indeed ... how do we know that our guest isn't a sock puppet for Dembski himself? I must admit that this new "segregation" approach is very satisfactory. For whatever reasons, there are those here who like to fight with malicious visitors -- who knows, maybe they just like to fight? But they can corner the visitor in the store-room and fight away as long as they please, no problem. The real beauty is that the visitors are no longer disrupting the operation of the site, just sitting there being a convenient punching bag. It must take a lot of the fun out of it. And they can't cry "censorship" any more. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

snaxalotl said: so, ID has finally settled upon the measure of intellectual victory that creationists like Hovind discovered decades ago ... saying stuff so blitheringly stupid that opponents silently wonder how to even parse it into some sort of grammatical structure, then chortling at how all these fancy types with their book learning were unable to respond

3 DaveScot 10/06/2008 6:09 pm What’s that cryptic comment by PT author PvM “clean up cycle finished” supposed to mean?

4 PaulBurnett 10/06/2008 7:52 pm Pim sometimes flushes trolls’ comments if they’re too off-topic or egregiously offensive. So what you see today may not fully show the moment-to-moment rough-and-tumble as the plot thickened - it’s been somewhat edited (i.e., “cleaned up”) and Pim is noting that his housekeeping cycle is completed.

Dale Husband said: Beware, PvM! Next they will start bashing for for censorship!

Dale Husband said: They are also attacking PvM's moderation style directly as well: Beware, PvM! Next they will start bashing for for censorship!

DaveScot made an absolute fool of himself here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-is-not-science-because/

Can you beleive that?! If I had been Dembski, I would have said to DaveScot: "You idiot! You just blew away our whole legal and scientific case! YOU'RE FIRED!!!"

Dale Husband said: DaveScot made an absolute fool of himself here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-is-not-science-because/ Can you beleive that?! If I had been Dembski, I would have said to DaveScot: "You idiot! You just blew away our whole legal and scientific case! YOU'RE FIRED!!!"

Stanton said: William Dembski must not be terribly bright...

PvM said: Well, Davescot is not the smartest cookie around and his flawed logic can be easily exposed. Perhaps in a future posting, but I hate to spend too much time on people who are such scientific lightweights that they reject the facts of global warming and the well established human component. What else can I say but to congratulate Davescot on a 'job well done'. As to Dembski, he must wonder how hard it is to soar like an eagle when surrounded by turkeys. On the other hand, in the land of the blind, one eye is king.

The science of biology operates under a general set of propositions, each of which is constantly tested and refined due to incoming data. The most important general proposition is that all organisms alive arose from a single population of organisms. Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists dispute common descent and argue for special creation by the deity. However, Intelligent Design advocates (at least Michael Behe and William Dembski) largely accept common descent. DaveScot over at Uncommmon Descent has a post up where he tries to make the case that Intelligent Design is actually falsifiable. He starts out by repeating the argument that Judge Jones used in the Dover case, that ID is not science because it is not falsifiable. In the next part of the post DaveScot quotes Mayr on Darwin's original creationism and how his voyage on the Beagle continually challenged that belief because of data that did not fit with his creationist mindset. Then he does an interesting rhetorical turn: Huh. It appears like Darwin was testing scientific creationism and found evidence contrary to it. So what is it. Is ID science or not science? It seems our opponents want to have their cake and eat it too by saying: “ID is not science because it cannot be falsified or verified. And by the way, ID has been repeatedly tested and shown to be false.” Now I have to say I agree with the gist of the first part of DaveScot's post. Unless DaveScot is willing to admit that creationism and ID are synonyms though, I don't quite see how his second argument makes sense. Let's break it down. Creationism is the belief that all species arose by special creation from a deity. Some creationists believe each species was created individually, while some believe the process was only by kinds with subsequent dynamic evolution from the basic kinds. Yet creationism is most definitely testable and indeed has been tested and has been falsified. I hope DaveScot can understand that. However, if someone is like Behe, and accepts common descent, but just believes that somewhere in the mix God did some stuff to help things along now and then (helping make the eye, working on some blood clotting, tweaking the bacterial flagellum a bit), then that really isn't testable. There's no way to prove that organisms weren't tweaked by God. There are multiple ways to show beyond any reasonable doubt that organisms are commonly descended. So I wonder if DaveScot understands the irony of his blog's title or not. Now the odd thing there is what DaveScot doesn't do. You'd think that if ID truly were testable, DaveScot would hang out the test that could be done to disprove it, or the findings that would invalidate it. Evolutionary biologists repeatedly have given examples of things that would invalidate the theory of evolution -- rabbits in the Cambrian being the classic example. So the argument is only rational if you admit that ID is creationism, something that the Discovery Institute spent many years trying to argue it wasn't. Thanks for admitting something that all rational people knew all along, DaveScot. Yet even there, DaveScot can't quite put his theory on the line by giving a simple proof of his point -- what exactly is the test that could be done that would falsify ID?

this is what you get for "debating" morons like FL and ChunkyZ, Pim.

I guess you think it's working for you?

Ichthyic said: this is what you get for "debating" morons like FL and ChunkyZ, Pim. I guess you think it's working for you?

steve s said:

Stanton said: William Dembski must not be terribly bright...

Besides ID, he has supported The Bible Code and faith healing. You be the judge. (At least he's not as repellently homophobic as Salvador: http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/ )

1 Avraham Barda 09/27/2008 3:14 pm Greetings, new here. In my humble opinion, your blurb, in stating that “Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted,” is in error. A pristine, uncorrupted, theism-friendly science as practiced by Galileo and Newton never existed. As someone knowledgeable in Greek philosophy and Hellenistic thought, I offer the thesis that science has always been subservient to a philosophy, one that has been inimical to Biblical creationism and intelligent design (in general, including Cicero’s version; I don’t conflate creationism and ID, there’s a lot of overlap but ID can be non-Biblical) from the very start. The pagan Greek idea of the cosmos holds, that there is an order (”cosmos”) that arches over everything, and is a closed system with no rule-breaking input possible. Even the Greek gods are subject to the rules of the cosmic order. Insofar as the Greek philosophers believed in the miracles of Zeus and other stories like that, they considered them to be possible within the cosmic order; which also decreed that gods were immortal and humans mortal. Proto-science developed in ancient Greece because the idea of the cosmos enabled it to develop. The mantle of science was reassumed in the Renaissance and reworked into what can be called a “restricted Hellenistic model”, where the cosmic order is as absolute as before, but is redefined to exclude the non-material. If there has been a change from Newton’s day to Darwin’s, it was only in the restriction of the definition of “cosmic order”; both Newton and Darwin believed in unbreakable cosmic regularity, even if the former allowed spiritual existence while the latter had no room for such. Science is and has always been a servant of a philosophy that assumes there can be no outside input to break the overarching cosmic order. Newton had as much use for “God did it” as does any present-day scientist, which is to say, none at all. The modern aversion to intelligent design (or, as they call it, “poofing,” magic,” and other names of a derogatory nature) has ancient roots, roots going back to the pagan Greek originators of science. Those roots are both anti-Biblical and anti-ID to their core. You can’t reform what has always been that which you call “corrupted”. ID can’t be conventional science; it can only be a new kind of science altogether. The basic rules must be changed. My 2 cents’ worth. Avraham

7 BarryA 09/27/2008 4:20 pm Avraham Barda, you are new here and so I won’t be too hard on you. I’ll just say this. Your comment demonstrates beyond the slightest doubt that you have not the slightest idea what ID’s thesis is. ID neither posits nor requires an act of God or an irregularity in the order of the universe. Go do your homework before you post again.

12 DaveScot 09/27/2008 4:55 pm AB Let’s be grown-ups here. I don’t assume you’re a Raelian (believer in UFO designers). I don’t “believe” in anything without evidence and I have yet to see any evidence showing that the design of life on the planet earth requires supernatural powers. I challenge you to produce some evidence of life needing a designer with supernatual abilities.

27 DaveScot 09/27/2008 6:44 pm I think materialistic ideology itself has been corrupted. That corruption takes the form of axiomatically rejecting any possibility of intelligent agency superior to mankind having played any role whatsoever in the course of organic evolution. MET is thus self-contradictory. We have intelligent agents right now (humans) altering the course of evolution through genetic manipulation. According to MET these agents arose via material processes. Obviously then, according to the theory, intelligent agency is a natural part of the material universe. So what prevents an earlier emergence of intelligent agency through natural means? Nothing is what. Richard Dawkins is on the record agreeing that life on this planet could have been engineered by an outside agency (in the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed). Does that make Richard Dawkins a Raelian? In a way, certainly. He was simply forced to acknowledge that it is physically possible. If any scientist rejects the possibility he’s either lying or sorely lacking in a solid grounding of basic science. Of course that raises the perfectly valid question of who designed the designer. But if we presume that mind is an emergent property of matter (materialist presumption) we must at the same ask where the matter came from which enabled the emergence. Surely matter didn’t create itself. In such infinite regressions both mind and matter run into the same brick wall called “The Big Bang” wherein science tells us that all the matter & energy in the universe suddenly appeared everywhere at once. So does mind predate matter or vice versa? No material answer exists.

The Big Bang could have resulted as a rebound from a previous Big Crunch. At present, of course, there is no way to know. No one should claim that this hypothesis is scientific until there is a way to test it. But it is a possibility, just as much as the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

I can easily see the appeal of Uncommon Descent. It's like never leaving home so you can keep that feeling of being the smartest kid in town forever.

When your biggest yardstick for comparison is Dembski, you can spend most of your time feeling like an articulate genius.

Larry Boy said:

The Big Bang could have resulted as a rebound from a previous Big Crunch. At present, of course, there is no way to know. No one should claim that this hypothesis is scientific until there is a way to test it. But it is a possibility, just as much as the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

I think this conclusion wonderfully demonstrates the difference in ethos between pseudo-science and science. A scientist is aware of her own ignorance, because she has a rigorous epistemology which makes it clear whether something is known. So we see an admission that several explanations are possible and then an emphasis that we don't know which one is right. Where as a pseudo-scientist would have concluded more like this: Based on the unarticulated, indescribable, and irrefutable implications of the "No Pie For Me" theory we can be quite certain that I'm right! (I suppose a good pseudo-scientist would dress that up with more verbage, but you get the point.)

Just a hypothesis : could it be possible that "Chunkdz" was Mr Dembski himself?

See especially this section where Dr. Robert Pennock questions Dr. Dembski. Who’s sputtering?

— Karen S.

It seems that the evidence for common descent is actually pretty good.

I, I take Genesis figuratively...

I think that, you know, as I've put it in my book, No Free Lunch, you want to be as conservative as possible in what you're, what you're teaching.

We have threads for discussing UD on the PT forumses, but I'd like to reiterate iml8's note about censorship at UD; for anyone who doesn't believe it, just try joining in a discussion over there. I'm currently under moderation, and my last post a week ago was deleted because it criticised a comment by DaveScot, and after THAT Davescot quietly edited his offending comment anyway.

But hey, it's all for Jes... I mean, er, the designer, isn't it?

steve s said: Besides ID, he has supported The Bible Code ...

steve s said:

Stanton said: William Dembski must not be terribly bright...

Besides ID, he has supported The Bible Code...

snaxalotl said: so, ID has finally settled upon the measure of intellectual victory that creationists like Hovind discovered decades ago ... saying stuff so blitheringly stupid that opponents silently wonder how to even parse it into some sort of grammatical structure, then chortling at how all these fancy types with their book learning were unable to respond

Everybody’s talking politics now. It’s enough to make me replace my “ant motel” traps with “politician motel” traps. Oh, wait. The National Enquirer beat me to it. Yesterday, I voted in the advance poll (Canadian General Election October 14), so I can mostly just plug my ears in peace. But passing by in the news stream, I noticed a column explaining why Teddy Roosevelt had his flaws as a US Prez. In ”Choosing the right role model” (October 5, 2008), George Will offers some interesting information about Teddy: Having read Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” at age 14, and having strenuously transformed himself from an asthmatic child into a robust adult, he advocated “warrior republicanism” (Hawley’s phrase). TR saw virtue emerging from struggle, especially violent struggle, between nations and between the “Anglo-Saxon” race and lesser races. Blending “muscular Christianity,” the “social gospel” — which sanctified the state as an instrument of moral reclamation — and Darwinian theory, TR believed that human nature evolved toward improvement through conflict.

TR invested the materialist doctrine of evolutionary struggle with moral significance for the most manly “races.” He wanted the state to rescue America from the danger, as he saw it, that a commercial republic breeds effeminacy. Government as moral tutor would pull chaotic individualists up from private preoccupations and put them in harness for redemptive collective action. Sounds to me like a recipe for government paying a ton of tax money for a zillion civil servants to poke their collective nose into the smallest corner of everyone’s business and promote laws against everyone who offends them, on the theory that we are “helping” evolution.

Dale Husband said: Thanks, O'Leary, for making George Will look stupid! Why do so many Conservatives make connections and assumptions that are so lame and ridiculous? Surely they want to be respected as advocates of absolute truth and morals. They aren't if this is typical of their propaganda.

Hi all,

Maybe you can remind my "buddy" Bill Dembski that he ought to honor my request for compensation for launching an online smear campaign against me at Amazon.com and Uncommon Descent and for his crude attempt at censorship by asking Amazon to delete my harsh, but correct, review of his mendacious intellectual pornography known as "The Design of Life", which he co-authored with fellow Dishonesty Institute Senior Fellow Jonathan Wells.

Bill owes me a brand new black Leica M7 rangefinder camera, a brand new Zeiss 28mm Biogon ZM lens with lens hood, a brand new Zeiss 21mm Biogon ZM lens with lens hood (preferably the f2.8 version, but will accept the f4.5 version) and a 21mm Zeiss viewfinder.

Bill's e-mail address is Dembski@discovery.org.

Regards,

John

Totally OT but I think there is an interest here .. - Yoko Ono withdrew the lawsuit against Premise Media

Any tacit approval of chunkdz's behavior betrays the bankrupt morality of contemporary Christians... which is just what I expected to bring out through him. It was all too easy.

God does act in mysterious ways. ROFLMAO

wad of id said: Any tacit approval of chunkdz's behavior betrays the bankrupt morality of contemporary Christians... which is just what I expected to bring out through him. It was all too easy. God does act in mysterious ways. ROFLMAO

Exactly. From post 1 on that thread it was obvious that he had no intention of carrying a dialogue. One does not come on a board and "fail" a comment that was unprovoked. My post throttling his beloved IDiot clearly struck a nerve. ;-)

The reasons aliens, even godlike ones, have a reason for consideration is that they'd push back the origins of life further, and into unguessable starting conditions. If we found out there were spacefaring living things around the galaxy, I think that would boost the stock of people who believe in extraterrestrial origin of Earthly life. It would actually nail the coffin shut for creationists, by the way, because if you let life develop on any of a billion planets you get a billion different starting conditions.

BTW I also think there's literally no connection at all to whatever ultimate origin of life there was, or even to intelligent design built into our evolving blueprint, and some tribal god for a small segment of the small segment of the tiny population of canaanites who were yahwehites, hebrew-speaking or otherwise, henotheistically or monotheistically. For that you'd have to find little menorahs (or crosses or crescents) in the genetic code or something.

right now, the alien origins and UFO stuff is a nonproductive research program - no one who's committed time and effort to it has made testable progress. Either UFOs that are aliens don't exist, are too thin on the ground to be discovered, or too tricky to be discovered, and science doesn't have to commit on that. All it has to do is decide that ESP, intelligent design, the loch ness monster, UFOs, ancient astronauts, etc. are unrewarding. If a telepath is found, or an alien signal, or something besides the laughable evidence, so called, for design, that will change the status of one of the nonproductive research paradigms.

You don't have to commit to the utter destruction of your "enemy's" theory, really, ever. BTW this is one value of Lou FCD's thread at ATBC on his latter-day biology student status. His teacher's examples where you never get an authoritative answer about what the truth was are precisely what science requires.

Marion Delgado said: You don't have to commit to the utter destruction of your "enemy's" theory, really, ever. BTW this is one value of Lou FCD's thread at ATBC on his latter-day biology student status. His teacher's examples where you never get an authoritative answer about what the truth was are precisely what science requires.

It would help if there was a theory to Intelligent Design for us to commit ourselves to destroying.

Henry J said:

It would help if there was a theory to Intelligent Design for us to commit ourselves to destroying.

That doesn't look like it would work all that well - if that were the case, there'd be lots of actual scientists studying the thing, which would just make it all that much harder to destroy. ;) Henry

Dale Husband said: DaveScot made an absolute fool of himself here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-is-not-science-because/ Can you beleive that?! If I had been Dembski, I would have said to DaveScot: "You idiot! You just blew away our whole legal and scientific case! YOU'RE FIRED!!!"

Here's one reader's response to Dembski's posting:

5

BDKnight

10/07/2008

3:26 am
Seems the PT people did just fine. What are the passages, exactly, where he schooled them?

6

BDKnight

10/07/2008

3:29 am
(And I’m not talking about silly troll-talk, but in the science)

7

BDKnight

10/07/2008

3:42 am
The reason I ask is because the post Dembski linked to shows (using the original paper) that chunkz misunderstood their results. He claimed they showed that the code is a global optimum, where the optimum is over all possible genetic codes.

However, they didn’t actually do that analysis, indeed it has been done and it has been shown it is far from optimal. That was the starting point of the paper!

The original paper, misread by chunky:
[O]ther analyses have shown that significantly better code structures are possible. Here, we show that if theoretically possible code structures are limited to reflect plausible biological constraints, and amino acid similarity is quantified using empirical data of substitution frequencies, the canonical code is at or very close to a global optimum for error minimization across plausible parameter space.

So this isn’t a global optimum over all possible codes, but is within a constrained parameter space. Plus, they say this result is highly likely no matter where you start (few of the local minima are far from the global minima within this restricted search space).

I copied those comments at around 6:30 am. When next checked, the comments were erased and BDKnight was banned. Later, the announcement that BDKnight was banned was erased. Par for the ID course.

I waded through that thread without commenting. Dembski's post on his blog has to be about the slimiest thing I have ever seen on the internet, and that covers a lot of territory. Not only does he praise an arrant troll simply for being a troll, not only does he demonstrate that he thinks that scabrous abuse is the way to win an argument, he actually has the sheer brass chutzpah to claim that the extreme tolerance with which chunky was treated is a sign of weakness. He really does want his readers to believe that not banning chunky from about his second post and erasing his every comment demonstrates that PT isn't up to taking him on.

Perhaps his readers will think that. Maybe they actually are that mindless. As for me, it only shows that Dembski is worse than wrong. He was always wrong, but now he has shown that he is worthless as well. Anybody who is capable of admiring the antics of chunky has only demonstrated that they are not fit for civilised society.

Marion Delgado said: The reasons aliens, even godlike ones, have a reason for consideration is that they'd push back the origins of life further, and into unguessable starting conditions.

Dave Luckett said: Dembski's post on his blog has to be about the slimiest thing I have ever seen on the internet, and that covers a lot of territory.

Dave Luckett said: I waded through that thread without commenting. Dembski's post on his blog has to be about the slimiest thing I have ever seen on the internet, and that covers a lot of territory.

IIRC, in the original thread, all parties agreed that the genetic code has evolved to be near optimal for an arbitrary criteria. When asked what point he was trying to make with this observation, ChunkDZ failed to respond. Now that can only be interpreted as a "victory" in bizzaro world, where everything is the opposite of reality.

Claiming that optimal functioning is evidence for design is not a good strategy. Legally, once you put the defendant on the stand he is subject to cross examination. Here, once you claim "optimal" design as evidence, you must explain suboptimal "design" as well. Why isn't the genetic code the best possible code that planning, foresight and intelligence could produce? Why is it so inefficient? Why is the genome that it decodes such a mess of random mutations and useless "junk"?

And by the way, if anyone thinks that creative profanity is a convincing argument, I guess they not only don't write scientific articles, apparently they don't read them either.

DS said: IIRC, in the original thread, all parties agreed that the genetic code has evolved to be near optimal for an arbitrary criteria.

CeilingCat said: Here's one reader's response to Dembski's posting: 5 BDKnight 10/07/2008 3:26 am Seems the PT people did just fine. What are the passages, exactly, where he schooled them? 6 BDKnight 10/07/2008 3:29 am (And I’m not talking about silly troll-talk, but in the science) 7 BDKnight 10/07/2008 3:42 am The reason I ask is because the post Dembski linked to shows (using the original paper) that chunkz misunderstood their results. He claimed they showed that the code is a global optimum, where the optimum is over all possible genetic codes. However, they didn’t actually do that analysis, indeed it has been done and it has been shown it is far from optimal. That was the starting point of the paper! The original paper, misread by chunky: [O]ther analyses have shown that significantly better code structures are possible. Here, we show that if theoretically possible code structures are limited to reflect plausible biological constraints, and amino acid similarity is quantified using empirical data of substitution frequencies, the canonical code is at or very close to a global optimum for error minimization across plausible parameter space. So this isn’t a global optimum over all possible codes, but is within a constrained parameter space. Plus, they say this result is highly likely no matter where you start (few of the local minima are far from the global minima within this restricted search space). I copied those comments at around 6:30 am. When next checked, the comments were erased and BDKnight was banned. Later, the announcement that BDKnight was banned was erased. Par for the ID course.

PvM said: Thanks for keeping track of how UcD handles 'controversies'. If they cannot even handle these trivial controversies without resorting to banning, removing of postings etc, then what credibility do they have when they oppose what they argue is 'bias in science'. Surely a first step is to not do that of which you accuse others? WWJD

CeilingCat said: Here's one reader's response to Dembski's posting: 5 BDKnight 10/07/2008 3:26 am Seems the PT people did just fine. What are the passages, exactly, where he schooled them? 6 BDKnight 10/07/2008 3:29 am (And I’m not talking about silly troll-talk, but in the science) 7 BDKnight 10/07/2008 3:42 am The reason I ask is because the post Dembski linked to shows (using the original paper) that chunkz misunderstood their results. He claimed they showed that the code is a global optimum, where the optimum is over all possible genetic codes. However, they didn’t actually do that analysis, indeed it has been done and it has been shown it is far from optimal. That was the starting point of the paper! The original paper, misread by chunky: [O]ther analyses have shown that significantly better code structures are possible. Here, we show that if theoretically possible code structures are limited to reflect plausible biological constraints, and amino acid similarity is quantified using empirical data of substitution frequencies, the canonical code is at or very close to a global optimum for error minimization across plausible parameter space. So this isn’t a global optimum over all possible codes, but is within a constrained parameter space. Plus, they say this result is highly likely no matter where you start (few of the local minima are far from the global minima within this restricted search space). I copied those comments at around 6:30 am. When next checked, the comments were erased and BDKnight was banned. Later, the announcement that BDKnight was banned was erased. Par for the ID course.

DS said: Claiming that optimal functioning is evidence for design is not a good strategy. Legally, once you put the defendant on the stand he is subject to cross examination. Here, once you claim "optimal" design as evidence, you must explain suboptimal "design" as well. Why isn't the genetic code the best possible code that planning, foresight and intelligence could produce? Why is it so inefficient? Why is the genome that it decodes such a mess of random mutations and useless "junk"?

6 GilDodgen 10/07/2008 10:37 pm I would classify myself as an old-earth designist. I was totally wrong in accepting Darwinism/materialism as a settled explanation for the origin and diversification of life, so I am now more open to being proven wrong on other points. Back in my atheist days I remember people mocking the Genesis account about light being separated from darkness before the appearance of stars, but it now appears that this is accurate: The universe began in a flash of light (ultra-high-energy gamma rays) that condensed into matter (non-light, or darkness) long before nuclear fusion ignited the first stars. Perhaps we’ll discover that the speed of light has changed, or that time itself has morphed in such a way that six days in contemporary time is mathematically equivalent to 13 billions years in morphed cosmological time. I was dead wrong about Darwinian orthodoxy, so I’m open to being proven wrong about my assumptions when it comes to the mysteries of the universe, about which we obviously only have a slight inkling.

"Saying you are open to being proven wrong while clinging to an ancient dogma and depending on science to support that dogma is simply hypocritical in the extreme!"

I agree completely. When have any of you suspended your naturalistic beliefs to examine this issue differently? When have any of you decided that the idea of randomness and chance can only take one so far in explaining the question of origins?

The genetic code is designed to limit the number of errors generated from mutational change. Tell me how we are supposed to falsify Darwinian claims that follow this logic:

If the system is sub-optimal, then it evolved. If the system is optimal, then it evolved as well. Is that science?

In the Freeland paper, they also mentioned that given the constraints they used the canonical code is optimally suited for error minimization. An ID interpretation of this data is therefore perfectly scientific. How could natural processes, without foresight and working incrementally upon pre-existing and less complex structures, create this code in particular?

"The origin of the genetic code was constrained by pre-biotic chemistry (stereochemistry hypothesis) followed by a period of selection."

Has this hypothesis been tested, or was it stated as yet another speculative explanation for how the code emerged or gradually evolved to its present state of optimization?

I had some respect for Davescot in the past but with his recent nonsense on global warming and his obsession with Obama, I have come to find him quite narrow minded, filled with anger, and of course on the losing end of so many debates, issues and facts.

Adam said:

Saying you are open to being proven wrong while clinging to an ancient dogma and depending on science to support that dogma is simply hypocritical in the extreme!

I agree completely. When have any of you suspended your naturalistic beliefs to examine this issue differently? When have any of you decided that the idea of randomness and chance can only take one so far in explaining the question of origins?

An ID interpretation of this data is therefore perfectly scientific.

The genetic code is designed to limit the number of errors generated from mutational change. Tell me how we are supposed to falsify Darwinian claims that follow this logic: If the system is sub-optimal, then it evolved. If the system is optimal, then it evolved as well. Is that science?

How could natural processes, without foresight and working incrementally upon pre-existing and less complex structures, create this code in particular?

wad of id said:

How could natural processes, without foresight and working incrementally upon pre-existing and less complex structures, create this code in particular?

Read the paper.

If the system is sub-optimal, then it evolved. If the system is optimal, then it evolved as well. Is that science?

Henry J said:

If the system is sub-optimal, then it evolved. If the system is optimal, then it evolved as well. Is that science?

The evidence is in the details, not in the oversimplification of optimal vs. sub-optimal. Henry

wad of id said:

An ID interpretation of this data is therefore perfectly scientific.

An interpretation is not in of itself science. Try again.

Since BDKnight’s comments were deleted, why are the remaining comments in perfect numberical order?

Among other things, you fail to realize that a) there is much more to Evolutionary Biology than just randomness, b) feigning ignorance of the fact that evolution has been observed countless times both experimentally in the forms of testing insects, bacteria, fungus, livestock, plants, and the recreation of wild hybrid species, as well as in nature, such as the rise of tuskless elephants, nylon-eating bacteria, toxin and antibiotic resistant bacteria, medication resistant pathogens, pesticide resistant vermin, and the appearance of indigenous animals specifically adapted to exploiting exotic species, makes you look extraordinarily ignorant if you are genuinely unaware, or makes you look maliciously insincere if you are aware and refuse to acknowledge this fact, and c) please explain how the methodology of Intelligent Design and Modern Day Creationism, which is nothing more than a simultaneous appeal to ignorance and sloth (by saying that since “GOD/DESIGNERDIDIT,” we know everything already, and have nothing more to think about), is superior to the so-called “naturalistic” way of adhering to the scientific method.

“Among other things, you fail to realize that a) there is much more to Evolutionary Biology than just randomness,”

I know there is more to it. Evolutionary Biology is a broad term that embraces many concepts. The mechanism of change, however, must be random before it is taken over by natural selection.

“feigning ignorance of the fact that evolution has been observed countless times both experimentally in the forms of testing insects, bacteria, fungus, livestock, plants, and the recreation of wild hybrid species, as well as in nature, such as the rise of tuskless elephants, nylon-eating bacteria, toxin and antibiotic resistant bacteria, medication resistant pathogens, pesticide resistant vermin, and the appearance of indigenous animals specifically adapted to exploiting exotic species, makes you look extraordinarily ignorant if you are genuinely unaware, or makes you look maliciously insincere if you are aware and refuse to acknowledge this fact,”

Well if I am feigning ignorance, then you are directly ignorant of what the IDers believe. The support for microevolution is indeed great. Most of your examples I freely accept as evidence that changes do occur in organisms. I cannot, however, extrapolate this mechanism to endorse the notion that fungi, plants, bacteria, and elephants emerged in an unguided, naturalistic progression. So when someone asks you why you support that idea, do you then produce a long list of examples of microevolution to prove that all things evolved?

Behe outlined in his book that mutations often break things down more than they build things. He has taken the molecular evidence for this very seriously, and provides a detailed assessment of what the putative evolutionary mechanism can accomplish within the laboratory. He shows that building integrated and complex machines in the cell via such a method is problematical. Therefore, without any substantive reason to believe that such structures were made this way, why should we likewise believe it?

Even the contributing authors to the Origin of Organismal Form confess that natural selection can only work on what exists; it cannot bring new forms into existence. Thus the origin of new body structures arising from random genetic change over many years is not a viable option anymore. They certainly do not believe in intelligent design, yet they confessed a serious weakness in the present paradigm, have they not? So why can’t we view ID as a competing explanation of the origin of such forms? Why can’t we consider both the natural explanation (some hidden law of assembly) and intelligent agency as plausible ideas?

Surely, many of you have read the works of the ID community, so why are you producing a weak argument like this one: “please explain how the methodology of Intelligent Design and Modern Day Creationism, which is nothing more than a simultaneous appeal to ignorance and sloth (by saying that since “GOD/DESIGNERDIDIT,” we know everything already, and have nothing more to think about), is superior to the so-called “naturalistic” way of adhering to the scientific method.”

ID provides the necessary assault upon the pseudo-philosophy of methodological naturalism; it also presents some interesting debates on the demarcation principle and what one can consider to be science. We are engaged in a debate on historical events, and should be immediately aware of our biases on the matter. I think Johnson’s assault on naturalism presented an insightful critique of the unproven assumptions that even scientists seem to hold when they think about the origin of the universe, life, intelligence, etc.

I do not find the phrase “evolution did it!” to be anymore useful to science. ID simply offers another causal explanation for the phenomenon we see in nature; it broadens the discussion and forces us to think about its possible implications. We will, of course, continue to do our scientific work under a new paradigm as we did with the old. ID may be able to tell us that something was designed, but that certainly does not tell us how said thing works or is put together. Scientists will be able to investigate such matters under ID as they did under the Modern Synthesis.

How do you people determine if something is “apparently designed”? Surely if we can do this, then we can also consider the possibility of its being real. Why do you all feel so threatened by ID?

“An interpretation is not in of itself science.”
I agree. An interpretation, however, is heavily influenced by the philosophical and religious opinions of the person doing the interpreting. Scientists who recognize this fact should be more open to other interpretations. Such things occur in other fields all the time, so why can’t it also occur in science? What makes ID, in the general sense, non-scientific? You cannot exclude an explanation for something just because the explanation does not satisfy your own beliefs about it.
You are not defending science; you are defending naturalism!

Evolution does not require the sub-optimality nor optimality of a design. In point of fact, natural selection is quite a descent optimizer with respect to the selected trait.

You need to test these claims before you place undiminished faith in natural selection. The paper by Freeland et all specifically stated that the canonical code was optimized. They used these precise words. They mentioned that other codes were “theoretically possible”, but this particular code minimizes errors to a very impressive degree. Given such an idea, design is a plausible explanation, is it not? Since neither the writers of the paper nor the scientific establishment know how it evolved, how can they attribute this optimization to evolutionary mechanisms alone? They need to start with the assumption that the code evolved (this belief is not based on science, but philosophy) and then make sure that all possible phenomenon associated with the code is explained within the paradigm itself. That is not science. Why even continue the research? Should we not admit that it evolved and stop there?

But you do realize that actually reading the paper runs counter to Intelligent Design interpretations, right?

I have read the paper and several other papers referring to the same argument that the canonical code minimizes errors. Is there anything evolution cannot do? Oh, and this is in addition to the evidence of the cell’s ability to correct copying errors. They have some interesting built-in equipment to address problems when they emerge. It is almost as if life was designed within these parameters to minimize the havoc mutations can being upon organisms. How wonderful for a blind, unintelligent process to have done that!

The evidence is in the details, not in the oversimplification of optimal vs. sub-optimal

I agree that the evidence is in the details, but the details are being inserted into an intelligently designed theory where everything that occurs in nature may be easily explained without any reference to an intelligent designer. ID has not been fairly tested and found wanting; it has been found unsavoury and left untried.

I cannot, however, extrapolate this mechanism to endorse the notion that fungi, plants, bacteria, and elephants emerged in an unguided, naturalistic progression.

— Adam

“An interpretation is not in of itself science.” I agree. An interpretation, however, is heavily influenced by the philosophical and religious opinions of the person doing the interpreting. Scientists who recognize this fact should be more open to other interpretations. Such things occur in other fields all the time, so why can’t it also occur in science? What makes ID, in the general sense, non-scientific? You cannot exclude an explanation for something just because the explanation does not satisfy your own beliefs about it. You are not defending science; you are defending naturalism!

Evolution does not require the sub-optimality nor optimality of a design. In point of fact, natural selection is quite a descent optimizer with respect to the selected trait.

Adam said:

“Among other things, you fail to realize that a) there is much more to Evolutionary Biology than just randomness,”

I know there is more to it. Evolutionary Biology is a broad term that embraces many concepts. The mechanism of change, however, must be random before it is taken over by natural selection.

“feigning ignorance of the fact that evolution has been observed countless times both experimentally in the forms of testing insects, bacteria, fungus, livestock, plants, and the recreation of wild hybrid species, as well as in nature, such as the rise of tuskless elephants, nylon-eating bacteria, toxin and antibiotic resistant bacteria, medication resistant pathogens, pesticide resistant vermin, and the appearance of indigenous animals specifically adapted to exploiting exotic species, makes you look extraordinarily ignorant if you are genuinely unaware, or makes you look maliciously insincere if you are aware and refuse to acknowledge this fact,”

Well if I am feigning ignorance, then you are directly ignorant of what the IDers believe. The support for microevolution is indeed great. Most of your examples I freely accept as evidence that changes do occur in organisms. I cannot, however, extrapolate this mechanism to endorse the notion that fungi, plants, bacteria, and elephants emerged in an unguided, naturalistic progression. So when someone asks you why you support that idea, do you then produce a long list of examples of microevolution to prove that all things evolved?

Behe outlined in his book that mutations often break things down more than they build things.

He has taken the molecular evidence for this very seriously, and provides a detailed assessment of what the putative evolutionary mechanism can accomplish within the laboratory.

He shows that building integrated and complex machines in the cell via such a method is problematical. Therefore, without any substantive reason to believe that such structures were made this way, why should we likewise believe it?

Surely, many of you have read the works of the ID community, so why are you producing a weak argument like this one: “please explain how the methodology of Intelligent Design and Modern Day Creationism, which is nothing more than a simultaneous appeal to ignorance and sloth (by saying that since “GOD/DESIGNERDIDIT,” we know everything already, and have nothing more to think about), is superior to the so-called “naturalistic” way of adhering to the scientific method.” ID provides the necessary assault upon the pseudo-philosophy of methodological naturalism; it also presents some interesting debates on the demarcation principle and what one can consider to be science. We are engaged in a debate on historical events, and should be immediately aware of our biases on the matter. I think Johnson’s assault on naturalism presented an insightful critique of the unproven assumptions that even scientists seem to hold when they think about the origin of the universe, life, intelligence, etc.

I do not find the phrase “evolution did it!” to be anymore useful to science. ID simply offers another causal explanation for the phenomenon we see in nature; it broadens the discussion and forces us to think about its possible implications. We will, of course, continue to do our scientific work under a new paradigm as we did with the old. ID may be able to tell us that something was designed, but that certainly does not tell us how said thing works or is put together. Scientists will be able to investigate such matters under ID as they did under the Modern Synthesis. How do you people determine if something is “apparently designed”? Surely if we can do this, then we can also consider the possibility of its being real. Why do you all feel so threatened by ID?

I agree that the evidence is in the details, but the details are being inserted into an intelligently designed theory where everything that occurs in nature may be easily explained without any reference to an intelligent designer. ID has not been fairly tested and found wanting; it has been found unsavoury and left untried.

Adam wrote:

"Even the contributing authors to the Origin of Organismal Form confess that natural selection can only work on what exists; it cannot bring new forms into existence. Thus the origin of new body structures arising from random genetic change over many years is not a viable option anymore."

Unfortunately, all of the available evidence indicates that this is exactly what happened. You must account for all of this evidence if you claim that it did not happen.

"ID has not been fairly tested and found wanting; it has been found unsavoury and left untried. "

What is stopping you?

Adam said: The mechanism of change, however, must be random before it is taken over by natural selection.

Behe outlined in his book that mutations often break things down more than they build things.

He [Behe] shows that building integrated and complex machines in the cell via such a method is problematical.

So why can’t we view ID as a competing explanation of the origin of such forms? ...We are engaged in a debate on historical events...

How do you people determine if something is “apparently designed”?

What makes ID, in the general sense, non-scientific?

The paper by Freeland et all specifically stated that the canonical code was optimized. They used these precise words. They mentioned that other codes were “theoretically possible”, but this particular code minimizes errors to a very impressive degree. Given such an idea, design is a plausible explanation, is it not?

ID has not been fairly tested and found wanting; it has been found unsavoury and left untried.

Adam said: The support for microevolution is indeed great. Most of your examples I freely accept as evidence that changes do occur in organisms. I cannot, however, extrapolate this mechanism to endorse the notion that fungi, plants, bacteria, and elephants emerged in an unguided, naturalistic progression. So when someone asks you why you support that idea, do you then produce a long list of examples of microevolution to prove that all things evolved?

ID has not been fairly tested and found wanting; it has been found unsavoury and left untried.

iml8 said: Of course, the whole issue here is what gets taught in public school science education

eric said: Greg this is an excellent point.

And for all the tapdancing of the DI to get that door open a crack, the payload that they want to shove through it is a textbook like OF PANDAS & PEOPLE / THE DESIGN OF LIFE or EXPLORE EVOLUTION that consists of a set of almost every classic “Henry Morris seal of approval” feeble old long-refuted creation science argument – with the religious rhetoric and some of the silliest items like the Paluxy mantracks left out.

— iml8

Adam: Are you aware that Behe's Darwin's Black Box has been smacked down? More than once?

I know there is more to it. Evolutionary Biology is a broad term that embraces many concepts. The mechanism of change, however, must be random before it is taken over by natural selection

— Adam

“ID has not been fairly tested and found wanting; it has been found unsavoury and left untried. “

Frank J said: In fairness, AIUI, all young Earth arguments are left out....OTOH, when they portray ID as a "don't ask, don't tell" strategy that accommodates anything from YEC to OEC to Raelianism, IDers are caught in a dilemma; they can't deny it, but hate to admit it.

They don’t just admit accommodation. They offer support to other ‘big tent’ bad research even when it has little to do with ID.

— eric

And yet ID is seen by many of its proponents as a valid alternative. Why is that?

Adam said: I agree completely. When have any of you suspended your naturalistic beliefs to examine this issue differently? When have any of you decided that the idea of randomness and chance can only take one so far in explaining the question of origins?

If the system is sub-optimal, then it evolved. If the system is optimal, then it evolved as well. Is that science?

Has this hypothesis been tested, or was it stated as yet another speculative explanation for how the code emerged or gradually evolved to its present state of optimization?

The whole point of ID is that certain things in biology couldn’t possibly have evolved by natural selection and therefore must have been produced by a supernatural process.

“And do you agree with Behe that life on earth has existed continuously for 3-4 billion years, or do you find a very different timeline more convincing? “

I agree with the idea that the earth is some 4-6 billion years old and the universe is roughly 13 billion years old. However, I should add that I have not tested this myself. I have only heard it related in books. I therefore would never forcefully denounce someone who has an alternative view on the matter.

I also accept, from DNA sequencing, the idea of common descent that Behe mentioned in the Edge of Evolution. Some IDers are sceptical of this idea, however. The situation in the ID camp seems to be similar to the one in the Darwinist: Jerry Fodor has raised certain objections to natural selection’s role in evolution. Debates abound in the literature on the cause of the Cambrian “explosion”, the origin of life, the origin of new body forms, etc. Many evolutionary biologists have different views on all these important debates; they are supportive, none the less, of the reigning paradigm.

1) It offers no testable, predictive hypotheses beyond those that can be addressed by naturalistic hypotheses. Go ahead, show us a nonnatural or even SUPERNATURAL scientific hypotheses, specifically proposed by ID that can be tested. Point of matter is that none of the ID proponents have successfully defended an ID hypothesis. Zero.

ID has made a bold prediction: that an irreducibly complex system cannot be evolved by Darwinian mechanisms. Why do you self-evidently identify intelligent design with supernaturalism? The IC claim is a testable, scientific hypothesis. Miller, Doolitle, and many other evolutionary biologists have tried to counter the claim that the systems Behe mentioned are IC. They have not necessarily contested the idea that IC systems pose tremendous problems for evolutionists to explain.

The Design Filter operates under the principle of “eliminative induction”, where a certain phenomenon in nature is first explained by chance or necessity and if they are not adequate, then design becomes plausible. It therefore directly employs the scientific method by asking if specified complexity can be generated by the laws of nature or chance. Where is there no science here? If you contend that the idea of specified complexity can be dismissed with scientific evidence, then design must be scientific in order for you to do that.

Scientists have already considered these ID hypotheses centuries ago. Ever since teleological arguments have been proposed thousands of years ago, nothing … and I mean NOTHING … has been advanced beyond an argument from incredulity. WHY? It speaks loudly to the infertile grounds on which teleology treads.

We also had materialism for centuries and it steadily entered the culture and the institutions of the society. You continually refer to the argument from incredulity as if it is a bad idea. I would think that being incredulous of a claim that has yet to be proven or demonstrated as plausible would be sane. What about the argument from excessive credulity that invariably afflicts the evolutionary community being assailed by ID criticisms, or are all of you just willing to defend reason and not the priority of the paradigm?

“Interpretations” are not predictive nor do they make distinguishing hypotheses. Let me illustrate: The fact that an object falls to the ground at exactly an acceleration of g is subject to 2 interpretations: a) There is a force = m * g where g is equal to mass of the planet * a universal gravitational constant, divided by the radius of the planet squared. b) There is a God who drags every particle towards another by a force = m * g where g is equal to mass of the planet times a universal gravitational constant, divided by the radius of the planet squared. Whereas b) is an “interpretation” it offers exactly 0 scientific value because it makes no additional testable hypotheses that distinguishes a) from b)

Your analogy is absurd on several levels. Scientists do not look at a particular phenomenon and suggest only two possibilities to explain it: God or nature. They take, at least they claim to do so, a variety of interpretations to explain it. They test these interpretations to make sure that the explain the phenomenon effectively.

What if I turned this around a bit? Tell me the scientific theory you would use to explain why gravity exits and why there are intelligent observers to test the law of gravity itself. Which explanation explains the event more concretely: there is a designing intelligence who created the laws of the universe, and the designer also created the brains of humans so that they would have some limited access to the secrets of this universe, or a natural process in an unguided and unintelligent way made it?

You should also know that the theory of gravitation emerged, in part, out of the study of alchemy. It seems that even in the history of science different perspectives on events can yield many fruitful results.

The bias of scientists have never survived the test of time, nor do they require help from partisans like you. IDiots like to cite Galileo and Copernicus. Case in point. IDiots like to cite Lynn Margulis. Another case in point. In point of fact, teleological arguments have already been subjected to the cleansing acid of scientific scrutiny and was found to be weak and insubstantial. Persistence in a failed topic suggests a psychiatric pathology.

So how do you characterize the evolutionary community’s reaction to being criticized? Are they pathological or neurological? For people who claim to have overwhelming evidence, you really have a hard time convincing the rest of the world of this fact. Most, if not all of your evidence has been interpreted and re-interpreted to fit the Darwinian paradigm, and that is why many people no longer trust some of the assertions from evolutionists. They have not demonstrated how the bacterial flagellum evolved, and yet believe completely that it did. That is not objective science. All the proposed explanations of co-option, TTSS (which seems to have come after the flagellum) evolving into the motor, and sheer random mutational accident do not satisfy many people. We have no reason to retain a firm allegiance to the evolutionary theory, and with the new advances in our understanding of the cell, we now realize that the story of macroevolution can no longer be portrayed as a simple, elegant, and effortless process of natural selection in combination with other processes. I am sceptical of this claim, so why are you not likewise sceptical of the idea?

The claim that evolution optimizes with respect to a selected trait has been tested extensively. The fact that you are not aware of these tests does not render the fact nonexistent. I have a homework for you: look up genetic algorithms and combinatorial optimization. There you will see that selection (be it natural or artificial) combined with mutation is optimizing. Models are very important to our understanding of nature. In fact there are many models which can be cast in optimization terms. For instance, physicists operate with energy minimization (read “optimization”) laws all the time. Solving a force balance problem, say for a falling apple, is equivalent to a system optimizing energy minimization. Completely ateleological.

All of these studies are conducted under the current paradigm. Most, if not all, of the observations made about optimizing are attributed to natural selection because there is no other alternative. However, when scientists decide to study the creative power of natural selection with bacterium, we get only trivial changes as result. Now, this is laboratory evidence of what the mechanism can do, so why should I believe that it built all the sophisticated machines in the cell and the complexity of life?

Physicists study natural laws and biologists study a computer code (GENETIC CODE) that stores information and limits the number of errors it can sustain to an impressive degree. The explanation for the origin of the code and the origin of its optimization is that necessity, chance, and natural selection did it in some way. Is that a satisfying hypothesis for you?

Evolution designs. Thus Evolution is a Designer, in fact, quite an intelligent designer. Thus, design is not an explanation but rather a characterization. ID as proposed by the IDiots offer even less. Go ahead, and show us what you mean by a designer “designing” the code. Beyond a mere label of “designed” what else do you have to offer?

One does not need to see the designer making a certain object in order to recognize a designed object. The IDers have the merit of using a methodology that takes into account natural forces as causal explanations, and if they are found wanting then to make an inductive argument that the object may have been designed. If we have no other reason to believe that the object was put together naturally, why should we not consider design as a plausible alternative?

Evolution, however, removes the possibility of design completely, not because objects can be explained naturalistically but because the explanation of design presents a redefinition of science that many conservatives here find unwholesome.

The authors are in point of fact testing an evolutionary hypothesis! They are specifically comparing two possible selected traits: one is code structure, the other amino acid similarity. You cannot fault them for testing a hypothesis that assumes the truth of the evolutionary theory. This mode of inquiry is done all the time, not only in evolutionary biology, but in a wide array of disciplines, in which earlier results are assumed true for advancement of other questions. Scientists build on the shoulders of previous scientists. Otherwise, if every scientist has to restart from ground zero, nothing would ever be advanced.

I agree completely. Evolutionary biologists demand that ID develop its own data all the time, when it seems that scientific theories can function well offering a re-interpretation of existing data. I would also caution you about the undue extrapolations that many people seem to make: they assume that if one part of the theory is proven, then the entire edifice has been validated as well. Physicists once believed that Newtonian Mechanics could be extended into the atomic world, what happened there?

Wouldn’t a possible ID prediction consider that the optimization of the code is consonant with an intelligent designer’s goal of constructing the code of life such that errors are minimized, and if they do occur some can be corrected in an efficient fashion?

The actual testing of the hypothesis that there is an evolutionary pressure behind the genetic code is STRENGTHENED by this paper. For in fact, if there were no identifiable selective traits for the code, then the evolutionary hypothesis would be severely weakened. Science works by induction: if A, then B; we observe B, increasing the plausibility of A. It does not “assume” A. It forms a hypothetical.

So what is wrong with idea that: A) the bacterial flagellum is IC, and we know (according to our present knowledge on the matter) that evolutionary processes cannot create an IC system; B) we observe (from the cause-effect structure of our world) that intelligence can do the job, so maybe intelligence created the motor in question? If we establish that IC is a signature of intelligence, then it follows that chance and necessity or any other naturalistic mechanism could not have produced this.

How is the postulation of an unknown naturalistic process to create IC systems more scientific then the inference to design?

Every scientific paper succeeds on those three levels. To date, thousands of years after teleological arguments were proposed, ID has fulfilled none. Why? Does the argument of “bias” hold any water when such a failed paradigm has been so infertile for so long?

ID has made daring predictions and arguments about specified information and IC systems. These are testable ideas that can indeed be falsified. Stephen Meyer published a paper on the Cambrian “Explosion”, stating that the evolutionary explanation for that event is insufficient given what we know of how new information is produced. It is also insufficient given the prediction of the evolutionists that this complexity should not have appeared so abruptly.

One could also do further research on the canonical code from an ID perspective. We should consider what relation optimization has to intelligence. We could assess whether the degree of optimization is such that natural selection could not easily achieve that threshold. This will never be done, however, because all the evidence is interpreted from an evolutionary perspective. Remember, the paper only mentioned that natural selection can optimize, but to what degree can it do this? I wonder if there are not some severe limitations to its ability to optimize. They just assume that it can because there is no competing alternative to address in the paper.

So, then, are you also ignorant of the fact that useful mutations are more likely to be retained in the population while harmful mutations are more likely to be lost, or do you refuse to acknowledge this fact like the way Behe does?

I do not deny that useful mutations are retained. Are you suggesting that these mutations can be coherently ordered to produce complex, integrated machines that reside in the cell? So far there appears to be no reason to make the leap from the retention of beneficial mutations to the idea that new biochemical machines could be produced thereby.

Then how come Behe has never personally experimentally tested his pet hypothesis of Irreducible Complexity? Why is it that when researchers did examine the various examples of irreducibly complex structures Behe named, they were all demonstrated to not be irreducibly complex? And why did Behe ignore them?

Behe never ignored his critics; he contested the notion that they disproved IC. He mentioned that they misrepresented the concept. As Miller did in claiming that the separate parts of an IC system could perform a different function. IC does not deny this. It only asserts that in order for the system to function, it needs all the 40 or so protein parts to do so. It also needs the assembly instructions for making the flagellum existing in an equally complex arrangement in the cell.

And Behe refuses to admit that portions of one biological system can be co-opted by another, such as the proteases used in both protein digestion, and in the vertebrate blood-clotting cascade, or that the microtubules of the inner structure of the eukaryote flagellum are also used in the cytoskeleton, among other things.

Parts may be co-opted for other systems, but one needs nearly 30 new proteins with a specific structure to form a specific function, so where are you going to borrow these from? You have merely listed examples of co-option, but what about the flagellum itself? Your reasoning needs to be more precise. The argument is about the flagellar motor in particular.

Here’s what I mean by “useful explanation.” You’re a fossil hunter. And you’re wondering whether its worth your time to dig for an amphibian-fish transitional skeleton. TOE predicts that they exist. It predicts in which strata (i.e. what geological age) you should look. This is useful information! Now its ID’s turn: does it exist? Where do I dig for it? Is ID’s answers different from evolution? THAT would be a competing explanation.

Well, what about the Cambrian “explosion” that many scientists have described as a creation-like event. This contrasts sharply with the idea that gradualism dominated the story. If one can set-up a particular pattern in the fossil record, then perhaps we can make ID-related predictions: the lack of transitional forms and intermediates for instance, or even the sudden appearance of new forms followed by long periods of stasis. If we can detect a creation pattern, then perhaps one can predict what will follow from the evidence. If it runs contrary to our predictions, then perhaps we should either reconsider our assumption or consider a competing explanation.

Scientists, at present, have no explanation for the Cambrian, so have they even tried to consider ID?

Of course, the whole issue here is what gets taught in public school science education

I agree. What is wrong with introducing this debate to 16 and 17 year olds who are much smarter than we give them credit for? What is wrong with insisting that parents also take care to supervise the education of their children on this issue? What is wrong with introducing a debate in the literature and asking the question of what is scientific and what is not?

I am not a YEC or an IDer. I just find their arguments to be reasonable and fair. I am willing to alter that opinion should compelling evidence arise to invalidate their claims.

Adam, did you even read what I wrote just above before you typed all that rhetoric there? Do that and then get back with me!

Dale Husband said: The whole point of ID is that certain things in biology couldn't possibly have evolved by natural selection and therefore must have been produced by a supernatural process. If you can show a hypothesis in which such a thing could indeed have arisen purely by the known laws of chemistry and physics, including the process of natural selection, you falsify the assumptions of the ID promoters, at least for the thing in question.

And here I thought he hadn't gotten to the bottom of things...

Adam said: I am not a YEC or an IDer. I just find their arguments to be reasonable and fair. I am willing to alter that opinion should compelling evidence arise to invalidate their claims.

Adam said: Well, what about the Cambrian “explosion” that many scientists have described as a creation-like event. This contrasts sharply with the idea that gradualism dominated the story. If one can set-up a particular pattern in the fossil record, then perhaps we can make ID-related predictions: the lack of transitional forms and intermediates for instance, or even the sudden appearance of new forms followed by long periods of stasis. If we can detect a creation pattern, then perhaps one can predict what will follow from the evidence. If it runs contrary to our predictions, then perhaps we should either reconsider our assumption or consider a competing explanation. Scientists, at present, have no explanation for the Cambrian, so have they even tried to consider ID?

Hox genes are a particular set of genes that determine the form and arrangement of body segments in various animals. First discovered in fruit flies, they were later found to exist in very simular forms in many other species, including mice and humans. The hox genes are responsible for informing the cells in each body segment what form they are to take. Hox genes are found together on the same chromosome, but in the mouse there are four sets of them, not one like in the fruit fly. Indeed, the hox genes of the fruit fly (an arthopod) so greatly resemble those of the mouse (a vertebrate) that they give evidence that both species descend from a common ancestor that also had hox genes. And here is where things get really interesting. The animals that have hox genes are known as the protostomes (like the fruit fly and other arthropods) and the deuterostomes (like the mouse and other vertebrates). And the fossil record indicates that the various forms of protostomes and deuterostomes didn't start appearing until the early Cambrian period, about 570 million years ago, and then these various phylums appear quickly, so quickly, in fact, that the event is known as the "Cambrian Explosion". This was a serious puzzle to Darwin and many other evolutionists in the late 19th Century, and Creationists have made a big deal out of the fact to attack the notion that evolution must proceed in slow steps, which the record of the Cambrian explosion seems to deny. But now, with the discovery of the hox genes, the mystery may be solved. Is it no coincidence that the animals appearing in the Cambrian explosion were also the ones that needed hox genes to form their body segments? Indeed, it is quite possible that simple mutations of the hox genes and the other homeobox genes that control the formation and positioning of body organs would explain the arising of nearly all advanced animals phyla in the Cambrian period and that once those forms were established, they became stuck that way. In order for such an explosive diversification to even occur, the homeobox genes would have had to be evolved first, and that might have taken hundreds of millions of years before they came to be in the right formation to produce animals like those of the protostomes and deuterostomes. Incidentally, other animals that belong to neither of those supergroups, such as jellyfish and coral polyps, have homeobox genes (as do plants, fungi and some protists), but not hox genes. One more thing: The homeobox genes that code for the placement of certain organs, such as eyes, are so simular in fruit flies and mice that experiments have been done on fruit fly embryos to replace the original fruit fly eye placement genes in them with those of mice, and the result was fruit flies with normal insect eyes, despite the profound difference in form between insect eyes and vertebrate eyes. This suggests that the common ancestor of insects and vertebrates also had genes for eye placement, and thus may have had light sensing organs of some kind as well, while the exact forms of eyes in the various phyla of animals developed later from different genes.

Off topic, but I am right now watching BEN STINE on the Dr. Phil show. Only he is posing as an expert on economics.

Adam said: ID has made a bold prediction: that an irreducibly complex system cannot be evolved by Darwinian mechanisms.

Why do you self-evidently identify intelligent design with supernaturalism?

So how do you characterize the evolutionary community’s reaction to being criticized?

We know (according to our present knowledge on the matter) that evolutionary processes cannot create an IC system.

Scientists, at present, have no explanation for the Cambrian, so have they even tried to consider ID?

What is wrong with introducing this debate to 16 and 17 year olds who are much smarter than we give them credit for?

What is wrong with insisting that parents also take care to supervise the education of their children on this issue?

What is wrong with introducing a debate in the literature and asking the question of what is scientific and what is not?

Sorry, I cannot hold a written discussion with someone who does not have the organizational skills to present his thoughts logically.

Try again.

wad of id said: Try again.

Is it no coincidence that the animals appearing in the Cambrian explosion were also the ones that needed hox genes to form their body segments? Indeed, it is quite possible that simple mutations of the hox genes and the other homeobox genes that control the formation and positioning of body organs would explain the arising of nearly all advanced animals phyla in the Cambrian period and that once those forms were established, they became stuck that way.

Adam said: “And do you agree with Behe that life on earth has existed continuously for 3-4 billion years, or do you find a very different timeline more convincing? “ I agree with the idea that the earth is some 4-6 billion years old and the universe is roughly 13 billion years old.

Adam said: However, I should add that I have not tested this myself. I have only heard it related in books. I therefore would never forcefully denounce someone who has an alternative view on the matter.

And do you agree with Behe that life on earth has existed continuously for 3-4 billion years, or do you find a very different timeline more convincing?

— I

I agree with the idea that the earth is some 4-6 billion years old and the universe is roughly 13 billion years old.

— Adam

I also accept, from DNA sequencing, the idea of common descent that Behe mentioned in the Edge of Evolution.

— Adam

Some IDers are sceptical of this idea, however.

— Adam

ID has made a bold prediction: that an irreducibly complex system cannot be evolved by Darwinian mechanisms. Why do you self-evidently identify intelligent design with supernaturalism? The IC claim is a testable, scientific hypothesis.

Parts may be co-opted for other systems, but one needs nearly 30 new proteins with a specific structure to form a specific function, so where are you going to borrow these from?

Contrary to the assertions by Behe and Dembski, a survey has shown that only 23 of the 42 proteins of the Salmonella Typhimurium flagellum are universally necessary in bacterial flagella; and that of those 23, 21 have already been found to have homologous related proteins that function in other, simpler biochemical systems

The IDers claims that the designer isn't necessarily God, are of course ridiculous. Apart from the fact that virtually every major player in the ID crowd is devoutly religious and views ID primarily as a means of pursuing a religious agenda, there is the tiny detail that only God as the designer saves ID from infinite regress. Of course, maybe it really is turtles all the way down. But, if they're not willing to accept that possibility, they would get a little more respect, if not more credibility, if they were more upfront with their beliefs and goals.

Is this better? You can now erase my other comment if you wish.

Frank J said,

“And do you agree with Behe that life on earth has existed continuously for 3-4 billion years, or do you find a very different timeline more convincing? “

I agree with the idea that the earth is some 4-6 billion years old and the universe is roughly 13 billion years old. However, I should add that I have not tested this myself. I have only heard it related in books. I therefore would never forcefully denounce someone who has an alternative view on the matter.

I also accept, from DNA sequencing, the idea of common descent that Behe mentioned in the Edge of Evolution. Some IDers are sceptical of this idea, however. The situation in the ID camp seems to be similar to the one in the Darwinist: Jerry Fodor has raised certain objections to natural selection’s role in evolution. Debates abound in the literature on the cause of the Cambrian “explosion”, the origin of life, the origin of new body forms, etc. Many evolutionary biologists have different views on all these important debates; they are supportive, none the less, of the reigning paradigm.

Wad of Id said,

“1) It offers no testable, predictive hypotheses beyond those that can be addressed by naturalistic hypotheses. Go ahead, show us a nonnatural or even SUPERNATURAL scientific hypotheses, specifically proposed by ID that can be tested. Point of matter is that none of the ID proponents have successfully defended an ID hypothesis. Zero.”

ID has made a bold prediction: that an irreducibly complex system cannot be evolved by Darwinian mechanisms. Why do you self-evidently identify intelligent design with supernaturalism? The IC claim is a testable, scientific hypothesis. Miller, Doolitle, and many other evolutionary biologists have tried to counter the claim that the systems Behe mentioned are IC. They have not necessarily contested the idea that IC systems pose tremendous problems for evolutionists to explain.

The Design Filter operates under the principle of “eliminative induction”, where a certain phenomenon in nature is first explained by chance or necessity and if they are not adequate, then design becomes plausible. It therefore directly employs the scientific method by asking if specified complexity can be generated by the laws of nature or chance. Where is there no science here? If you contend that the idea of specified complexity can be dismissed with scientific evidence, then design must be scientific in order for you to do that.

Wad of Id said,

“Scientists have already considered these ID hypotheses centuries ago. Ever since teleological arguments have been proposed thousands of years ago, nothing … and I mean NOTHING … has been advanced beyond an argument from incredulity. WHY? It speaks loudly to the infertile grounds on which teleology treads.”

We also had materialism for centuries and it steadily entered the culture and the institutions of the society. You continually refer to the argument from incredulity as if it is a bad idea. I would think that being incredulous of a claim that has yet to be proven or demonstrated as plausible would be sane. What about the argument from excessive credulity that invariably afflicts the evolutionary community being assailed by ID criticisms, or are all of you just willing to defend reason and not the priority of the paradigm?

Wad of id said,

“Interpretations” are not predictive nor do they make distinguishing hypotheses. Let me illustrate: The fact that an object falls to the ground at exactly an acceleration of g is subject to 2 interpretations: a) There is a force = m * g where g is equal to mass of the planet * a universal gravitational constant, divided by the radius of the planet squared. b) There is a God who drags every particle towards another by a force = m * g where g is equal to mass of the planet times a universal gravitational constant, divided by the radius of the planet squared. Whereas b) is an “interpretation” it offers exactly 0 scientific value because it makes no additional testable hypotheses that distinguishes a) from b)”

Your analogy is absurd on several levels. Scientists do not look at a particular phenomenon and suggest only two possibilities to explain it: God or nature. They take, at least they claim to do so, a variety of interpretations to explain it. They test these interpretations to make sure that the explain the phenomenon effectively.

What if I turned this around a bit? Tell me the scientific theory you would use to explain why gravity exits and why there are intelligent observers to test the law of gravity itself. Which explanation explains the event more concretely: there is a designing intelligence who created the laws of the universe, and the designer also created the brains of humans so that they would have some limited access to the secrets of this universe, or a natural process in an unguided and unintelligent way made it?

You should also know that the theory of gravitation emerged, in part, out of the study of alchemy. It seems that even in the history of science different perspectives on events can yield many fruitful results.

Wad of id said,

“The bias of scientists have never survived the test of time, nor do they require help from partisans like you. IDiots like to cite Galileo and Copernicus. Case in point. IDiots like to cite Lynn Margulis. Another case in point. In point of fact, teleological arguments have already been subjected to the cleansing acid of scientific scrutiny and was found to be weak and insubstantial. Persistence in a failed topic suggests a psychiatric pathology.”

So how do you characterize the evolutionary community’s reaction to being criticized? Are they pathological or neurological? For people who claim to have overwhelming evidence, you really have a hard time convincing the rest of the world of this fact. Most, if not all of your evidence has been interpreted and re-interpreted to fit the Darwinian paradigm, and that is why many people no longer trust some of the assertions from evolutionists. They have not demonstrated how the bacterial flagellum evolved, and yet believe completely that it did. That is not objective science. All the proposed explanations of co-option, TTSS (which seems to have come after the flagellum) evolving into the motor, and sheer random mutational accident do not satisfy many people. We have no reason to retain a firm allegiance to the evolutionary theory, and with the new advances in our understanding of the cell, we now realize that the story of macroevolution can no longer be portrayed as a simple, elegant, and effortless process of natural selection in combination with other processes. I am sceptical of this claim, so why are you not likewise sceptical of the idea?

Wad of id said,

“The claim that evolution optimizes with respect to a selected trait has been tested extensively. The fact that you are not aware of these tests does not render the fact nonexistent. I have a homework for you: look up genetic algorithms and combinatorial optimization. There you will see that selection (be it natural or artificial) combined with mutation is optimizing. Models are very important to our understanding of nature. In fact there are many models which can be cast in optimization terms. For instance, physicists operate with energy minimization (read “optimization”) laws all the time. Solving a force balance problem, say for a falling apple, is equivalent to a system optimizing energy minimization. Completely ateleological.”

All of these studies are conducted under the current paradigm. Most, if not all, of the observations made about optimizing are attributed to natural selection because there is no other alternative. However, when scientists decide to study the creative power of natural selection with bacterium, we get only trivial changes as result. Now, this is laboratory evidence of what the mechanism can do, so why should I believe that it built all the sophisticated machines in the cell and the complexity of life?

Physicists study natural laws and biologists study a computer code (GENETIC CODE) that stores information and limits the number of errors it can sustain to an impressive degree. The explanation for the origin of the code and the origin of its optimization is that necessity, chance, and natural selection did it in some way. Is that a satisfying hypothesis for you?

Wad of id said,

“Evolution designs. Thus Evolution is a Designer, in fact, quite an intelligent designer. Thus, design is not an explanation but rather a characterization. ID as proposed by the IDiots offer even less. Go ahead, and show us what you mean by a designer “designing” the code. Beyond a mere label of “designed” what else do you have to offer?”

One does not need to see the designer making a certain object in order to recognize a designed object. The IDers have the merit of using a methodology that takes into account natural forces as causal explanations, and if they are found wanting then to make an inductive argument that the object may have been designed. If we have no other reason to believe that the object was put together naturally, why should we not consider design as a plausible alternative?

Evolution, however, removes the possibility of design completely, not because objects can be explained naturalistically but because the explanation of design presents a redefinition of science that many conservatives here find unwholesome.

Wad of id said,

“The authors are in point of fact testing an evolutionary hypothesis! They are specifically comparing two possible selected traits: one is code structure, the other amino acid similarity. You cannot fault them for testing a hypothesis that assumes the truth of the evolutionary theory. This mode of inquiry is done all the time, not only in evolutionary biology, but in a wide array of disciplines, in which earlier results are assumed true for advancement of other questions. Scientists build on the shoulders of previous scientists. Otherwise, if every scientist has to restart from ground zero, nothing would ever be advanced.”

I agree completely. Evolutionary biologists demand that ID develop its own data all the time, when it seems that scientific theories can function well offering a re-interpretation of existing data. I would also caution you about the undue extrapolations that many people seem to make: they assume that if one part of the theory is proven, then the entire edifice has been validated as well. Physicists once believed that Newtonian Mechanics could be extended into the atomic world, what happened there?

Wouldn’t a possible ID prediction consider that the optimization of the code is consonant with an intelligent designer’s goal of constructing the code of life such that errors are minimized, and if they do occur some can be corrected in an efficient fashion?

Wad of id said,

“The actual testing of the hypothesis that there is an evolutionary pressure behind the genetic code is STRENGTHENED by this paper. For in fact, if there were no identifiable selective traits for the code, then the evolutionary hypothesis would be severely weakened. Science works by induction: if A, then B; we observe B, increasing the plausibility of A. It does not “assume” A. It forms a hypothetical”.

So what is wrong with idea that: A) the bacterial flagellum is IC, and we know (according to our present knowledge on the matter) that evolutionary processes cannot create an IC system; B) we observe (from the cause-effect structure of our world) that intelligence can do the job, so maybe intelligence created the motor in question? If we establish that IC is a signature of intelligence, then it follows that chance and necessity or any other naturalistic mechanism could not have produced this.

How is the postulation of an unknown naturalistic process to create IC systems more scientific then the inference to design?

Wad of id said,

“Every scientific paper succeeds on those three levels. To date, thousands of years after teleological arguments were proposed, ID has fulfilled none. Why? Does the argument of “bias” hold any water when such a failed paradigm has been so infertile for so long?”

ID has made daring predictions and arguments about specified information and IC systems. These are testable ideas that can indeed be falsified. Stephen Meyer published a paper on the Cambrian “Explosion”, stating that the evolutionary explanation for that event is insufficient given what we know of how new information is produced. It is also insufficient given the prediction of the evolutionists that this complexity should not have appeared so abruptly.

One could also do further research on the canonical code from an ID perspective. We should consider what relation optimization has to intelligence. We could assess whether the degree of optimization is such that natural selection could not easily achieve that threshold. This will never be done, however, because all the evidence is interpreted from an evolutionary perspective. Remember, the paper only mentioned that natural selection can optimize, but to what degree can it do this? I wonder if there are not some severe limitations to its ability to optimize. They just assume that it can because there is no competing alternative to address in the paper.

Stanton said,

“So, then, are you also ignorant of the fact that useful mutations are more likely to be retained in the population while harmful mutations are more likely to be lost, or do you refuse to acknowledge this fact like the way Behe does?”
I do not deny that useful mutations are retained. Are you suggesting that these mutations can be coherently ordered to produce complex, integrated machines that reside in the cell? So far there appears to be no reason to make the leap from the retention of beneficial mutations to the idea that new biochemical machines could be produced thereby.

Stanton said,

“Then how come Behe has never personally experimentally tested his pet hypothesis of Irreducible Complexity? Why is it that when researchers did examine the various examples of irreducibly complex structures Behe named, they were all demonstrated to not be irreducibly complex? And why did Behe ignore them?”

Behe never ignored his critics; he contested the notion that they disproved IC. He mentioned that they misrepresented the concept. As Miller did in claiming that the separate parts of an IC system could perform a different function. IC does not deny this. It only asserts that in order for the system to function, it needs all the 40 or so protein parts to do so. It also needs the assembly instructions for making the flagellum existing in an equally complex arrangement in the cell.

Stanton said,

“And Behe refuses to admit that portions of one biological system can be co-opted by another, such as the proteases used in both protein digestion, and in the vertebrate blood-clotting cascade, or that the microtubules of the inner structure of the eukaryote flagellum are also used in the cytoskeleton, among other things.”

Parts may be co-opted for other systems, but one needs nearly 30 new proteins with a specific structure to form a specific function, so where are you going to borrow these from? You have merely listed examples of co-option, but what about the flagellum itself? Your reasoning needs to be more precise. The argument is about the flagellar motor in particular.

Eric said,

“Here’s what I mean by “useful explanation.” You’re a fossil hunter. And you’re wondering whether its worth your time to dig for an amphibian-fish transitional skeleton. TOE predicts that they exist. It predicts in which strata (i.e. what geological age) you should look. This is useful information! Now its ID’s turn: does it exist? Where do I dig for it? Is ID’s answers different from evolution? THAT would be a competing explanation.”

Well, what about the Cambrian “explosion” that many scientists have described as a creation-like event. This contrasts sharply with the idea that gradualism dominated the story. If one can set-up a particular pattern in the fossil record, then perhaps we can make ID-related predictions: the lack of transitional forms and intermediates for instance, or even the sudden appearance of new forms followed by long periods of stasis. If we can detect a creation pattern, then perhaps one can predict what will follow from the evidence. If it runs contrary to our predictions, then perhaps we should either reconsider our assumption or consider a competing explanation.

Scientists, at present, have no explanation for the Cambrian, so have they even tried to consider ID?

Im18 said,

“Of course, the whole issue here is what gets taught in public school science education”

I agree. What is wrong with introducing this debate to 16 and 17 year olds who are much smarter than we give them credit for? What is wrong with insisting that parents also take care to supervise the education of their children on this issue? What is wrong with introducing a debate in the literature and asking the question of what is scientific and what is not?
I am not a YEC or an IDer. I just find their arguments to be reasonable and fair. I am willing to alter that opinion should compelling evidence arise to invalidate their claims

Two things must be noted here: Adam completely ignored all my and PvM's points made earlier, and he resorts to long, long, loooooooooooooooooooooooooong comments, as if he thinks that they will somehow intimidate the rest of us. If anything, it only annoys me. Lots of foolish words are no better than a few.

Pick one or two points at a time, Adam. And please answer my comment here:

Dale Husband replied to comment from Adam | October 9, 2008 2:53 PM

and here:

Dale Husband replied to comment from Adam | October 9, 2008 3:36 PM

"What kind of an argument is that? You won’t catch me doing that! Instead, I would say, “If a system is sub-optimal, then either it was produced by natural selection or the Intelligent Designer that made it is really incompetent.” That’s exactly why Intelligent Design is theologically unsound, because it implies that God is an Idiotic Designer. The existence of ANY sub-optimal design lessens the grandure of the ID concept."

— Dale Husband

"Demanding that we test what happened millions or billions of years ago by repeatable experiment is not only a gross distortion of the scientific method (it is only used to support and confirm physical and chemical laws as well as test issues that are contemporary and short term in nature and is the BEGINNING of scientific research, not the totality of it), it is a false rhetorical trick known as “moving the goalpost”. You can move the goalpost all you want to justify a failed position or assumption, but that simply is not scientific in thinking, but dogmatic."

— Dale Husband

"Its also worth noting that in 20 years, ID theorists have put forward only three (3) ‘things in question’ and, more toublingly, zero (0) papers describing the methodology of how to figure out whether something is designed. Behe’s conclusions are thus irreproducible. Such a paucity of detailed method even 20 years after he claims to have used it is strong evidence that his “method” of inferring design consists of nothing more than rectal extraction."

— Eric

"If ID says “it’s aliens”, ID needs to find corroborating evidence of aliens to make a case any sensible person is going to buy: that’s an enormous assumption. If they say “it’s supernatural”, then they are saying there really isn’t an explanation. If they say “we aren’t going to touch that question” they’re taking the Fifth: “I refuse to answer on the grounds it might incrimate me.”

— im18

"As one of exasperation to have endlessly repeated explanations simply ignored while they are accused of being Nazis. As has been pointed out, physicists would sound exasperated too if they had to defend the law of gravity in court every other year."

— im18

"Try reading any contemporary book on paleontology and see if evo science even really agrees there was a Cambrian explosion"

“Apparently you have trouble reading, as do the great majority of anti-evolutionists who respond, and answer the wrong question as you did. And the ones who even answer are in the minority of those I ask. Try again. The question is about the age of life, not earth or universe.”

— Frank J

“So do you agree with Behe that, regardless of mechanisms or “designer intervention”, humans share common ancestors with other animals, and come from a lineage going back billions of years?”

— Frank J

“It is a testable prediction of evolution and has no relevance to ‘design’. Unless, as ID does, design is a placeholder for ‘we don’t know’.”

— PvM

“Remember that ID is the set theoretic complement of regularity and chance, in other words, design is that which remains when known laws of science and chance have been eliminated. Even if the claim is shown to be correct, that there does exist a pathway which is inaccessible to Darwinism, it adds no credibility to ID.”

— PvM

All ID has left is claim: Not sufficient, not sufficient…"

— PvM

“The IDers claims that the designer isn’t necessarily God, are of course ridiculous. Apart from the fact that virtually every major player in the ID crowd is devoutly religious and views ID primarily as a means of pursuing a religious agenda, there is the tiny detail that only God as the designer saves ID from infinite regress. Of course, maybe it really is turtles all the way down. But, if they’re not willing to accept that possibility, they would get a little more respect, if not more credibility, if they were more upfront with their beliefs and goals.”

— Tresmal

Adam said: Frank J said, “And do you agree with Behe that life on earth has existed continuously for 3-4 billion years, or do you find a very different timeline more convincing? “ I agree with the idea that the earth is some 4-6 billion years old and the universe is roughly 13 billion years old. However, I should add that I have not tested this myself. I have only heard it related in books. I therefore would never forcefully denounce someone who has an alternative view on the matter. …

Wad of Id said, “1) It offers no testable, predictive hypotheses beyond those that can be addressed by naturalistic hypotheses. Go ahead, show us a nonnatural or even SUPERNATURAL scientific hypotheses, specifically proposed by ID that can be tested. Point of matter is that none of the ID proponents have successfully defended an ID hypothesis. Zero.” ID has made a bold prediction: that an irreducibly complex system cannot be evolved by Darwinian mechanisms.

Why do you self-evidently identify intelligent design with supernaturalism? The IC claim is a testable, scientific hypothesis. Miller, Doolitle, and many other evolutionary biologists have tried to counter the claim that the systems Behe mentioned are IC. They have not necessarily contested the idea that IC systems pose tremendous problems for evolutionists to explain.

Dale Husband said,

“Two things must be noted here: Adam completely ignored all my and PvM’s points made earlier, and he resorts to long, long, loooooooooooooooooooooooooong comments, as if he thinks that they will somehow intimidate the rest of us. If anything, it only annoys me. Lots of foolish words are no better than a few.”

The comment I posted was a copy of the one I previously posted, but which generated a great deal of confusion because I forgot to specify who said what. I am not trying to intimidate; I am trying to understand why such a simple debate creates so much hatred on both sides. If it annoys you, then don’t read it!

So, then, Adam, can you explain how appealing to an omnipotent and or otherwise unknowable "Intelligent Designer" is a superior way of doing science than, say, studying something and explaining it without the need to appeal to an Intelligent Designer? How does appealing to an Intelligent Designer help scientists who study genetic disorders such as Huntington's Disease, or scientists who study placoderms or trilobites?

Can you point out the work Intelligent Design proponents have been doing on the "Small Shelly Fauna" of the Cambrian? Can you point out the work Intelligent Design proponents have been doing on the Archaean flagellum? Can you explain how the antifreeze glycoprotein of Antarctic icefish demonstrates Irreducible Complexity, even though scientists have traced it to a stretch of non-coding DNA of an Argentinian relative? Or, can you explain how the fact that there are two different forms of the enzyme Nylonase in two unrelated strains of bacteria is evidence of an Intelligent Designer, despite that common sense would suggest that an intelligent designer would find only one version more efficient?

Or, do you plan on dismissing these questions as being "weak arguments?"

But, if they’re not willing to accept that possibility, they would get a little more respect, if not more credibility, if they were more upfront with their beliefs and goals.

SWT said: The simple fact is, an evolutionary biologist (Muller) predicted quite a long time ago that IC features would be produced by evolutionary processes.

Adam said:

Tresmal said, “The IDers claims that the designer isn’t necessarily God, are of course ridiculous. Apart from the fact that virtually every major player in the ID crowd is devoutly religious and views ID primarily as a means of pursuing a religious agenda, there is the tiny detail that only God as the designer saves ID from infinite regress. Of course, maybe it really is turtles all the way down. But, if they’re not willing to accept that possibility, they would get a little more respect, if not more credibility, if they were more upfront with their beliefs and goals.”

Adam said
The motivations and beliefs of evolutionary biologists can be brought up as well, but they are not arguments against the claims of anyone. Are the evolutionists for the most part devoutly atheistic?

First there is no evidence that biologists accept (not believe) evolution is based on their religious beliefs. There is, on the other hand abundant evidence that ID was conjured up as a vehicle for a religious agenda by people whose main, and sometimes sole, motivation was religious. Secondly much of the effort on the science side of this debate has been made by people, such as Ken Miller and PvM who hosts at this site, are devout Christians. How many atheists are there pushing ID? If there are such, do they have an utilitarian, keep the peasants behaving, attitude towards religion?

Adam said
The implication of the designer being God would come presumably from natural theology, but not everything about the designer can be revealed to us. We cannot claim the designer is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, or omniscient. ID therefore cannot properly be referred to as solely a religious idea. It is another way in which one can look at the scientific data. The difference, of course, is that intelligence can produce these systems, and evolutionary mechanisms apparently cannot.

You missed the point. If you posit that the bacterial flagellum had a designer, then that designer in turn would need a designer etc. The only way out of this infinite regress is a designer that has pretty much all of the capabilities of the abrahamic God.
By the way, to create the boxes just hit "reply" at the top of a person's post. That post will automatically appear in a box. To do that with another bit of text you do this: (less than sign)blockquote (greater than sign) text (less than sign /blockquote (greater than sign)

Adam said:

How do you know that the intelligent designer is incompetent? You do not even know who designed the universe or the code. All of your statements are theological objections, and many people can see right through them. What about the scientific argument related to this matter? Well, you concede that there appears to be two debateable options: natural selection and a designer. Intelligent design is thus a perfectly decent and reasonable explanation for the phenomenon in question. The code is optimal, so can design now explain it? What affect does that have on your theological presuppositions? I am not demanding that you give every detail concerning how something evolved in the history of life. I referred to the eminently reasonable hypothesis that an IC system could not have evolved by evolutionary means, and that we are therefore justified in asserting that it may have been designed. Science has not ended here. One could discover a mechanism at some later date, but for the present none has been forthcoming so why can't science employ an inference to design to explain what is known? The comment I posted was a copy of the one I previously posted, but which generated a great deal of confusion because I forgot to specify who said what. I am not trying to intimidate; I am trying to understand why such a simple debate creates so much hatred on both sides. If it annoys you, then don’t read it!

It offers no testable, predictive hypotheses beyond those that can be addressed by naturalistic hypotheses. Go ahead, show us a nonnatural or even SUPERNATURAL scientific hypotheses, specifically proposed by ID that can be tested. Point of matter is that none of the ID proponents have successfully defended an ID hypothesis. Zero.

The Design Filter operates under the principle of “eliminative induction”, where a certain phenomenon in nature is first explained by chance or necessity and if they are not adequate, then design becomes plausible. It therefore directly employs the scientific method by asking if specified complexity can be generated by the laws of nature or chance. Where is there no science here? If you contend that the idea of specified complexity can be dismissed with scientific evidence, then design must be scientific in order for you to do that.

"Interpretations” are not predictive nor do they make distinguishing hypotheses. Let me illustrate: The fact that an object falls to the ground at exactly an acceleration of g is subject to 2 interpretations: a) There is a force = m * g where g is equal to mass of the planet * a universal gravitational constant, divided by the radius of the planet squared. b) There is a God who drags every particle towards another by a force = m * g where g is equal to mass of the planet times a universal gravitational constant, divided by the radius of the planet squared. Whereas b) is an “interpretation” it offers exactly 0 scientific value because it makes no additional testable hypotheses that distinguishes a) from b)”

What if I turned this around a bit? Tell me the scientific theory you would use to explain why gravity exits and why there are intelligent observers to test the law of gravity itself. Which explanation explains the event more concretely: there is a designing intelligence who created the laws of the universe, and the designer also created the brains of humans so that they would have some limited access to the secrets of this universe, or a natural process in an unguided and unintelligent way made it?

You should also know that the theory of gravitation emerged, in part, out of the study of alchemy. It seems that even in the history of science different perspectives on events can yield many fruitful results.

The bias of scientists have never survived the test of time, nor do they require help from partisans like you. IDiots like to cite Galileo and Copernicus. Case in point. IDiots like to cite Lynn Margulis. Another case in point. In point of fact, teleological arguments have already been subjected to the cleansing acid of scientific scrutiny and was found to be weak and insubstantial. Persistence in a failed topic suggests a psychiatric pathology.

The claim that evolution optimizes with respect to a selected trait has been tested extensively. The fact that you are not aware of these tests does not render the fact nonexistent. I have a homework for you: look up genetic algorithms and combinatorial optimization. There you will see that selection (be it natural or artificial) combined with mutation is optimizing. Models are very important to our understanding of nature. In fact there are many models which can be cast in optimization terms. For instance, physicists operate with energy minimization (read “optimization”) laws all the time. Solving a force balance problem, say for a falling apple, is equivalent to a system optimizing energy minimization. Completely ateleological.

Physicists study natural laws and biologists study a computer code (GENETIC CODE) that stores information and limits the number of errors it can sustain to an impressive degree. The explanation for the origin of the code and the origin of its optimization is that necessity, chance, and natural selection did it in some way. Is that a satisfying hypothesis for you?

Evolution designs. Thus Evolution is a Designer, in fact, quite an intelligent designer. Thus, design is not an explanation but rather a characterization. ID as proposed by the IDiots offer even less. Go ahead, and show us what you mean by a designer “designing” the code. Beyond a mere label of “designed” what else do you have to offer?

Evolution, however, removes the possibility of design completely, not because objects can be explained naturalistically but because the explanation of design presents a redefinition of science that many conservatives here find unwholesome.

The authors are in point of fact testing an evolutionary hypothesis! They are specifically comparing two possible selected traits: one is code structure, the other amino acid similarity. You cannot fault them for testing a hypothesis that assumes the truth of the evolutionary theory. This mode of inquiry is done all the time, not only in evolutionary biology, but in a wide array of disciplines, in which earlier results are assumed true for advancement of other questions. Scientists build on the shoulders of previous scientists. Otherwise, if every scientist has to restart from ground zero, nothing would ever be advanced.

Wouldn’t a possible ID prediction consider that the optimization of the code is consonant with an intelligent designer’s goal of constructing the code of life such that errors are minimized, and if they do occur some can be corrected in an efficient fashion?

The actual testing of the hypothesis that there is an evolutionary pressure behind the genetic code is STRENGTHENED by this paper. For in fact, if there were no identifiable selective traits for the code, then the evolutionary hypothesis would be severely weakened. Science works by induction: if A, then B; we observe B, increasing the plausibility of A. It does not “assume” A. It forms a hypothetical.

Wad of id said, “Every scientific paper succeeds on those three levels. To date, thousands of years after teleological arguments were proposed, ID has fulfilled none. Why? Does the argument of “bias” hold any water when such a failed paradigm has been so infertile for so long?

One could also do further research on the canonical code from an ID perspective. We should consider what relation optimization has to intelligence. We could assess whether the degree of optimization is such that natural selection could not easily achieve that threshold. This will never be done, however, because all the evidence is interpreted from an evolutionary perspective. Remember, the paper only mentioned that natural selection can optimize, but to what degree can it do this? I wonder if there are not some severe limitations to its ability to optimize. They just assume that it can because there is no competing alternative to address in the paper.

PvM Wrote: “It is a testable prediction of evolution and has no relevance to ‘design’. Unless, as ID does, design is a placeholder for ‘we don’t know’.”

— Adam

If it is a prediction of evolution, then why do so many evolutionists try to dismiss the idea of IC?

Given Behe’s definition of IC, how on earth could evolutionary processes make such a system?

We have tested natural selection and gene mutation in the laboratory. We thus have no good reason to believe that the putative mechanism could actually build such complex, integrated systems.

ID has made daring predictions and arguments about specified information and IC systems. These are testable ideas that can indeed be falsified. Stephen Meyer published a paper on the Cambrian “Explosion”, stating that the evolutionary explanation for that event is insufficient given what we know of how new information is produced. It is also insufficient given the prediction of the evolutionists that this complexity should not have appeared so abruptly.

— Adam

The field of human evolution is not as solid as it immediately appears. There are still many mysteries concerning our origin and there are still debates on the identity of our ancestors from known fossil evidence. The five species progression from Australopithecus Afarensis to Africanus, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and Homo Sapiens could also be explained with an ID perspective in view.

— Adam

It can’t. ID only offers labels: “designed” or “not designed.” Beyond that it is a sterile mode of inquiry.

— PvM

Adam said:

"Its also worth noting that in 20 years, ID theorists have put forward only three (3) ‘things in question’ and, more toublingly, zero (0) papers describing the methodology of how to figure out whether something is designed. Behe’s conclusions are thus irreproducible. Such a paucity of detailed method even 20 years after he claims to have used it is strong evidence that his “method” of inferring design consists of nothing more than rectal extraction."

— Eric

The ID theorists have published books which were peer-reviewed and reviewed by evolutionary biologists who strongly dissent from their claims. Does that not qualify as a scholarly activity? Michael Behe and David Snoke also published a paper detailing the limitations of the evolutionary mechanism in creating new, novel structures.

If it is a prediction of evolution, then why do so many evolutionists try to dismiss the idea of IC? Given Behe’s definition of IC, how on earth could evolutionary processes make such a system?

thnks

Not wanting to read all the comments, I may repeat what someone already asked, but...

Just how much (anti-)science could he posssibly be doing if creative profaneness in a bunch of blog comments is so exciting to the great and powerful Wizard of Oz ID (anti-)scientist William Dembski?

Could real science truly be so dull to him?

Could real science truly be so dull to him?

*cough* how old did he think LIFE on earth was? I think I missed it. *cough*

Saddlebred said: *cough* how old did he think LIFE on earth was? I think I missed it. *cough*

Adam said:

“Apparently you have trouble reading, as do the great majority of anti-evolutionists who respond, and answer the wrong question as you did. And the ones who even answer are in the minority of those I ask. Try again. The question is about the age of life, not earth or universe.”

— Frank J

I admit that I answered the wrong question. I agree with Behe that life has existed on the planet for the length of time you have specified. I do not agree that this length of time makes the evolutionary scenario any more plausible.

Adam said:

“It is a testable prediction of evolution and has no relevance to ‘design’. Unless, as ID does, design is a placeholder for ‘we don’t know’.”

— PvM

If it is a prediction of evolution, then why do so many evolutionists try to dismiss the idea of IC? Given Behe’s definition of IC, how on earth could evolutionary processes make such a system? We have tested natural selection and gene mutation in the laboratory. We thus have no good reason to believe that the putative mechanism could actually build such complex, integrated systems.

In fairness, he did answer this one, in the middle of one of his long posts:

— SWT

SWT said: ID is wrong.

iml8 said:

SWT said: ID is wrong.

No. It's not EVEN wrong. White Rabbbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

SWT said:

iml8 said:

SWT said: ID is wrong.

No. It's not EVEN wrong. White Rabbbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Sorry, my bad ...

Adam said:

"Its also worth noting that in 20 years, ID theorists have put forward only three (3) ‘things in question’ and, more toublingly, zero (0) papers describing the methodology of how to figure out whether something is designed. Behe’s conclusions are thus irreproducible. Such a paucity of detailed method even 20 years after he claims to have used it is strong evidence that his “method” of inferring design consists of nothing more than rectal extraction."

— Eric

The ID theorists have published books which were peer-reviewed and reviewed by evolutionary biologists who strongly dissent from their claims. Does that not qualify as a scholarly activity? Michael Behe and David Snoke also published a paper detailing the limitations of the evolutionary mechanism in creating new, novel structures.

Adam wrote:

"Michael Behe and David Snoke also published a paper detailing the limitations of the evolutionary mechanism in creating new, novel structures."

No. What they claimed was that gene duplication and divergence could not produce new genes or new functions. And they were spectaculary wrong. Here is a reference published soon after that proves that they were absolutely worng:

Kapfer et al. (2005) Metabolic functions of duplicated genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genome Research 15:1421-30.

The paper details at least four major pathways by which duplicated genes take on new functions. Of course real biologists have known this since Ohno published in 1970. Seems Behe and company can never bother to read the relevant literature. In fact, their own paper proves that the process will inevitably occur, not that it is impossible. Apparently they didn't even read their own paper!

The statement “Biological systems are designed” adds absolutely nothing towards understanding biological systems.

— Stanton

Not once have I ever heard any Intelligent Design proponent satisfactorily explain or seen one demonstrate how Intelligent Design can be used in science.

— Stanton

Frank J said: The real "design sciences," e.g. forensics and archaeology are useful, and IDers are quick to advertise them and pretend that their method is similar. But they don't easily admit that they lack an essential feature of those methods, which is independent evidence of candidate designers. And unlike those methods that do work, ID refuses to take the next step and determine what the designer did, when or how.

Though, many Intelligent Design proponents freely or subtly confess that the Designer in question is none other than God as described in the King Jame’s translation of the Holy Bible, and that He miracled everything into the way they are/were about 6,000 years ago.

— Stanton

Adam wrote:

"Michael Behe and David Snoke also published a paper detailing the limitations of the evolutionary mechanism in creating new, novel structures."

No they didn't. What they published was a theoretical paper that actually demonstrated that duplicated genes could diverge and take on new functions. Apparently they not only ignored all of the relevant literature, but they even failed to read their own paper!

Shortly after that, a paper was published that demonstrated conclusively that duplicated genes have taken at least four different pathways in evolving new functions:

Kapfer et. al. (2005) Metabolic functions of duplicated genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genome Research 15:1421-1430.

So Behe was exactly wrong and he was proven to be wrong, just as he was proven to be wrong about the flagellum, the blood clotting cascasde and the immune system. Of course, even if he had been right, it would still only be evidence aganinst evolution and not evidence for intelligent design at all.

DS said: Adam wrote: "Michael Behe and David Snoke also published a paper detailing the limitations of the evolutionary mechanism in creating new, novel structures." No they didn't. What they published was a theoretical paper that actually demonstrated that duplicated genes could diverge and take on new functions. Apparently they not only ignored all of the relevant literature, but they even failed to read their own paper! Shortly after that, a paper was published that demonstrated conclusively that duplicated genes have taken at least four different pathways in evolving new functions: Kapfer et. al. (2005) Metabolic functions of duplicated genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genome Research 15:1421-1430. So Behe was exactly wrong and he was proven to be wrong, just as he was proven to be wrong about the flagellum, the blood clotting cascasde and the immune system. Of course, even if he had been right, it would still only be evidence aganinst evolution and not evidence for intelligent design at all.

James F said [Quoting Lynch et al.'s abstract]: It is shown here that the conclusions of this prior work are an artifact of unwarranted biological assumptions, inappropriate mathematical modeling, and faulty logic.

"The united efforts of paleontology and molecular biology, the latter stripped of its dogmas, should lead to the discovery of the exact mechanism of evolution, possibly without revealing to us the causes of the orientations of lineages, of the finalities of structures, of living functions, and of cycles. Perhaps in this area biology can go no further: the rest is metaphysics."

What do you think of this quote?

Perhaps we should appeal to metaphysics and recognize the limitations of natural processes. The facts should guide our thinking on this matter; the theory should thus come second. We orient our research in a predetermined direction when we only use facts that agree with the theory, or seek evidence and make it agree with the theory. Therefore eliminating one's bias is difficult, but remains essential to understanding the mechanism of evolution. I have read many of your comments and you people appear to be ultra-Darwinians. You do not offer one criticism of the theory of evolution. The intelligent design proponents, for good or ill, are defending a claim that I think is scientific. We shall see if they succeed in convincing the rest of the world of that fact.

Your comments are permeated with a triumphalist tone that is absurd given the number of scientists who question aspects of the theory. You have produced good arguments for evolution, but most of your objections to design appear to be theological or metaphysical. You just cannot perceive of the possibility that an intelligent agent was involved in life's development. The IDers are not fanatics; they started their journeys of doubt believing in evolution and, upon greater reflection, humbly submitted to the idea that it is not the full explanation. You have submitted to evolution with total and inescapable devotion. You may be right, and if so then congratulations on having defended the theory that even Darwin was sceptical about (he wrote on his doubts in a letter to his grandson).

I have asked questions related to this matter as far as I can at present. I need to read more materials on the topic, and hope to come to some solid conclusions in time. Thanks for some of your more courteous and generous replies to my concerns. I do not feel comfortable moving any further without mastering both sides of the literature more fully. I told you that I did not come here to debate; I only wanted to seek the truth. We shall see where that leads me.

You are clearly not fools. I guess will find out who was right one day.

So then please explain to us how Intelligent Design is scientific by demonstrating how appealing to an Intelligent Designer would help scientists understand biological systems better than, say, actually studying the aforementioned systems. Like, say, explain how labeling the antifreeze glycoprotein of Antarctic icefish would bring more insight about this glycoprotein than actually studying Antarctic icefish and their non-Antarctic relatives.

If Intelligent Design is so scientific, then, please explain why no Intelligent Design proponent has ever been motivated to do actual laboratory research to test Intelligent Design.

Stanton said: ...Like, say, explain how labeling the antifreeze glycoprotein of Antarctic icefish as Irreducibly Complex would bring more insight about this glycoprotein than actually studying Antarctic icefish and their non-Antarctic relatives.

I've been following this discussion between "Adam" and the rest of you. After several pages of factual (and rational)
answers to his questions (and a wealth of information and links to other sources), he STILL manages to wind up at "But, but....
evolution is just a BELIEF, too!"

The utter tardensity of these people would be amazing if it weren't so boringly predictable.

Adam, the folks on this blog were honestly trying to help you understand, but the hard truth is that the "weaknesses" you think are so damning to the quest for 'truth' have been rebutted and debunked for a hundred years. The 'triumphalist' tone you find so off-putting is the utter frustration people feel when they run into the exact same bone-headed attitudes again and again and again.....
I feel frustrated by posters like you, and I'm not even a scientist.

You have some serious catching up to do.

You just cannot perceive of the possibility that an intelligent agent was involved in life’s development.

Adam wrote:

"Perhaps we should appeal to metaphysics and recognize the limitations of natural processes."

Sure thing. Thing is, there is only one way to do that. You have to study the natural processes and examine all of the evidence in order to determine exactly what natural processess can and cannot accomplish. That is what real scientists do every day. Now if you don't want to accept their conclusions, then you must become even more of an expert and do the work yourself. The "you don't know everything therefore I don't have to believe anything you say" routine is not going to fly with people who know the evidence. Modern evolutionary theory is based on over two hundred years of experimental and observational evidence. Many critical hypotheses have been rigorously tested. It takes a lifetime in order to become familiar with even a small percentage of this evidence. You can focus on the limits of knowledge if you choose, but that limit is constantly being pushed back.

"You do not offer one criticism of the theory of evolution."

Sure we do. In fact, many of us have spent our entire careers testing and attempting to falsify certains aspects of evolutionary theory. We know that we don't know everything, that isn't the point. The point is what we do about it. What we don't do is cry "GOD DID IT " and throw our hands up and give up. Building a base of knowledge is hard work, but it has been proven to be a highly successful approach. Compare the approach that Matzke has taken to understanding flagellum evolution to that taken by Behe. Which approach do you think will be more successful?

Thanks for being courteous and thanks for being open to the evidence. That is like a breath of fresh air around here. Others would do well to follow your example.

Adam said: Perhaps we should appeal to metaphysics and recognize the limitations of natural processes.

You just cannot perceive of the possibility that an intelligent agent was involved in life's development.

You have submitted to evolution with total and inescapable devotion.

Adam said: "The united efforts of paleontology and molecular biology, the latter stripped of its dogmas, should lead to the discovery of the exact mechanism of evolution, possibly without revealing to us the causes of the orientations of lineages, of the finalities of structures, of living functions, and of cycles. Perhaps in this area biology can go no further: the rest is metaphysics." What do you think of this quote?

Perhaps we should appeal to metaphysics and recognize the limitations of natural processes. The facts should guide our thinking on this matter; the theory should thus come second. We orient our research in a predetermined direction when we only use facts that agree with the theory, or seek evidence and make it agree with the theory. Therefore eliminating one's bias is difficult, but remains essential to understanding the mechanism of evolution.

I have read many of your comments and you people appear to be ultra-Darwinians.

... The intelligent design proponents, for good or ill, are defending a claim that I think is scientific. We shall see if they succeed in convincing the rest of the world of that fact.

Your comments are permeated with a triumphalist tone that is absurd given the number of scientists who question aspects of the theory....You do not offer one criticism of the theory of evolution.

You have produced good arguments for evolution, but most of your objections to design appear to be theological or metaphysical. You just cannot perceive of the possibility that an intelligent agent was involved in life's development.

The IDers are not fanatics; they started their journeys of doubt believing in evolution and, upon greater reflection, humbly submitted to the idea that it is not the full explanation.

You have submitted to evolution with total and inescapable devotion. You may be right, and if so then congratulations on having defended the theory that even Darwin was sceptical about (he wrote on his doubts in a letter to his grandson).

I have asked questions related to this matter as far as I can at present. I need to read more materials on the topic, and hope to come to some solid conclusions in time. Thanks for some of your more courteous and generous replies to my concerns. I do not feel comfortable moving any further without mastering both sides of the literature more fully. I told you that I did not come here to debate; I only wanted to seek the truth. We shall see where that leads me.

You are clearly not fools. I guess will find out who was right one day.

Adam said: Your comments are permeated with a triumphalist tone that is absurd given the number of scientists who question aspects of the theory.

I only wanted to seek the truth.

I keep having the strangest feeling that our visitor here
has been assigned some sort of training exercise.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Your comments are permeated with a triumphalist tone that is absurd given the number of scientists who question aspects of the theory.

— Adam

Adam said: I have asked questions related to this matter as far as I can at present. I need to read more materials on the topic, and hope to come to some solid conclusions in time. Thanks for some of your more courteous and generous replies to my concerns. I do not feel comfortable moving any further without mastering both sides of the literature more fully. I told you that I did not come here to debate; I only wanted to seek the truth. We shall see where that leads me.

The number of biologists who question evolution however, is trivial.

Henry J said: Or physicists who question the existence of electrons or protons. Henry

Dear Adam,

If Intelligent Design is a viable scientific alternative to evolution, then where are its testable hypotheses? What predictions does it make? How does it do a better job in explaining the current complexity and structure and history of our planet's biodiversity.

In private e-mail correspondence I have had with Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers Mike Behe and Bill Dembski, I have asked them how ID provide a better, more persuasive, alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory in trying to explain the current structure and history of Planet Earth's biodiversity. Neither one could answer that question. If they can't, then that merely demonstrates how and why Intelligent Design creationism ought to be thought of as mendacious intellectual pornography.

John

“However, when questioned about the existence of neutrons, the aforementioned physicists elected to remain neutral about the subject.”

Perhaps we should appeal to metaphysics and recognize the limitations of natural processes.

— Adam

We orient our research in a predetermined direction when we only use facts that agree with the theory, or seek evidence and make it agree with the theory.

— Adam

I have read many of your comments and you people appear to be ultra-Darwinians.

— Adam

You do not offer one criticism of the theory of evolution. The intelligent design proponents, for good or ill, are defending a claim that I think is scientific. We shall see if they succeed in convincing the rest of the world of that fact.

— Adam

Your comments are permeated with a triumphalist tone that is absurd given the number of scientists who question aspects of the theory.

— Adam

You have produced good arguments for evolution, but most of your objections to design appear to be theological or metaphysical.

— Adam

I have asked questions related to this matter as far as I can at present. I need to read more materials on the topic, and hope to come to some solid conclusions in time.

— Adam

Remarks like that could cause me to retell the one about the atom that lost an electron!

— Henry J

Frank J said:

I have asked questions related to this matter as far as I can at present. I need to read more materials on the topic, and hope to come to some solid conclusions in time.

— Adam

Please do read more material. I recommend "Finding Darwin's God" and "Only a Theory" by Kenneth Miller to start. For a more theological perspective there's "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and "God After Darwin" by John Haught (I haven't read Haught's book yet, but I have read many articles by him, as well as his Dover testimony). These gentlemen are all Christians, as you may know. Please also read "Why Intelligent Design Fails" by Matt Young and Taner Edis for a more in-depth look at how ID fails as science. For interesting non-Darwinian perspectives that don't resort to pseudoscience I recommend "The Origins of Order" by Stuart Kauffman and "Dear Mr. Darwin" by Gabriel Dover.

Are you sure the atom lost an electon? ;-)

groan. Where are the rotten tomatoes when you need them? :)

tresmal said: groan. Where are the rotten tomatoes when you need them? :)