"Pro-ID", "endorse ID" and "ID-friendly" - Holy terminological ambiguity, Batman!

Posted 15 February 2012 by Jack Scanlan

[Republished from Homologous Legs]

Intelligent design, as a scientific hypothesis, is in trouble if it doesn't have peer-reviewed papers establishing, analysing and providing evidence for its core ideas - so it's no surprise that proponents of ID are quite adamant that such papers do in fact exist.

Casey Luskin, intelligent design expert and apparent head writer over at Evolution News & Views, is naturally no exception, and he recently answered an objection to the claim that over 50 peer-reviewed articles support ID: namely, that the majority of the articles cited by the Discovery Institute in this list do not mention ID at all.

His answer?

The short answer is that all of the articles endorse ID arguments, in one way or another, whether or not they use the term "intelligent design."

Now, this post is not about to dissect all 50+ citations, that's for someone else (or me, if I ever get some free time) to do at another time, but I would like to look at exactly how Casey describes the way these papers, even if they don't mention it by name, "endorse" ID.

I believe there's a distinction here that isn't being adequately recognised - one between articles that provide positive evidence for ID and articles that provide positive evidence for ideas of ID proponents. This distinction is apparent, but not noted, within Casey's post:

For example, there are papers by biochemist Michael Behe, who is clearly pro-ID, that don't use the term ID. But those papers argue that the complexity of biological systems is too much for Darwinian mechanisms to produce. That's an ID argument.

But what does he mean by an "ID argument"? Does ID really predict that naturalistic evolutionary mechanisms are unable to produce the complexity of biological systems, such as bacterial flagella? I don't think it does. Whilst Behe and friends like to claim that such an inability demonstrates that intelligent intervention was required in the production of said systems (which is a false dichotomy), ID, if true, does not necessitate that evolutionary mechanisms are powerless to produce complexity, at least not under the extremely vague definition of ID put forward by proponents. So what is the "ID argument" here? It's not actually an argument from ID that Behe is making: it's an argument that evolution is unable to produce complexity, which is a personal belief of Behe (and of other proponents too).

Other examples can be found in the work of protein biochemist Douglas Axe, whose anti-evolution papers are glowingly cited in the DI's list. His paper "The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds" (published in the semi-in-house journal BIO-Complexity) is all about demonstrating that functional protein folds cannot evolve by Darwinian mechanisms, and it is cited as pro-ID because ID proponents claim that ID is required to explain the origin of protein folds. But again, ID could be true and protein folds could be accessible by Darwinian mechanisms. It's not a positive argument for ID that Axe is making.

These examples reflect that the majority of the papers cited in the DI's list support not ID itself but the notions of the ID movement, many of which are technically unrelated to ID as a scientific hypothesis - and by using ambiguous phrases like "pro-ID", "endorses basic ID arguments", "the ID paradigm" and "ID-friendly", Casey is helping blur the line.

What would be a proper positive argument for ID? Physical evidence that beings with the capability to produce life visited our planet in the past would be one. Perhaps a message left by these beings. Perhaps a message left in the genomes of all living things. These are just examples, it's really up to the ID community to do the hard yards and generate testable predictions and find good evidence.

So what does this all mean for the legitimacy of the 50+ citations? Well, a lot of them are simply irrelevant when you draw the distinction between papers that support ID with positive evidence and papers that merely affirm the related beliefs of ID proponents. Out go the majority of the papers by Michael Behe, Douglas Axe, William Dembski and others! However, some survive this culling. Is ID therefore a legitimate scientific enterprise, fruitfully producing publishable results and making intellectual progress? Not necessarily.

It's ultimately the job of the biological community at large to judge whether or not these papers are any good. Peer-review is not the only hurdle to a successfully published idea - it must also survive out in the wild. Will these papers make an impact? Will they be cited numerously and, more importantly, favourably? Will they inspire other researchers to follow the exciting new ideas and concepts present in intelligent design? Many of the non-culled "pro-ID" papers have been published in small journals with low impact factors, and are therefore unlikely to be taken seriously by many biologists - but if the hypotheses contained within are strongly supported, people will eventually notice.

The onus is on the ID community to produce good papers supporting the core ideas inherent to intelligent design. If they find unambiguously positive evidence for ID, the support of the academic community will start to swing their way. The current lack of such support is a clear indication that, despite much posturing, ID research still has a long way to go.

121 Comments

apokryltaros · 15 February 2012

The onus is on the ID community to produce good papers supporting the core ideas inherent to intelligent design. If they find unambiguously positive evidence for ID, the support of the academic community will start to swing their way. The current lack of such support is a clear indication that, despite much posturing, ID research still has a long way to go.

There is also the profound problem of how Intelligent Design proponents also lack the desire to produce these alleged "good papers supporting the (movement's) core ideas." I mean, look at the ridiculous posturing and blatant lying Luskin just went through to pretend that he had a list of papers supporting Intelligent Design. With one one-hundredth of what the Discovery Institute spends on propaganda and schmoozing Right-wing lackwit politicians, they could fund a hundred laboratories to do research. Yet they don't, and they don't want to.

Robert Byers · 16 February 2012

The peers are the public .Not already committed evolutionists.

It actually is more demanding for evolutionary biology to show its conclusions are based on biological investigation using the scientific method or something close to it!!!
I always find that they don't draw conclusions, or many, from biological examination but from geological investigation coupled with biological conclusions. Certainly in the great relationships they draw.
Indeed lines of reasoning, hunches, or special cases are the substance for much in evolutionary biology.

Is evolution a product of biological investigation using the scientific method???
Enquiring minds want to know!

Dave Luckett · 16 February 2012

The peers are people who know the subject. Not ignorant, absurdly prejudiced twits who reject the very idea of evidence, let alone the evidence itself.

Yes, evolution is a product of biological investigation using the scientific method. Enquiring minds understood that a century ago.

TomS · 16 February 2012

The onus is on the ID community to produce good papers supporting the core ideas inherent to intelligent design.

I suggest that the first step is to produce a positive, substantive description of "intelligent design". A basic example would be an expository essay telling us things like Who, What, Where, When, Why, or How. Rather than merely, "Something, somehow is wrong with evolutionary biology". Once we get some idea of what happens when "intelligent design" takes place, then we can get to the "details" such as comparing the explanatory power of that exposition with that of evolutionary biology. Such as "what is the probability that intelligent designers would produce DNA?"

apokryltaros · 16 February 2012

TomS said:
The onus is on the ID community to produce good papers supporting the core ideas inherent to intelligent design.
I suggest that the first step is to produce a positive, substantive description of "intelligent design". A basic example would be an expository essay telling us things like Who, What, Where, When, Why, or How. Rather than merely, "Something, somehow is wrong with evolutionary biology".

Correction, Intelligent Design is "Something, somehow is wrong with evolutionary biology because GODDIDIT"

harold · 16 February 2012

Robert Byers, or any other ID advocate, feel free to answer these questions. Please keep replies civil and make a serious attempt to convince a skeptical individual. That is how science works. If you look at a scientific paper in a journal, you will never see language insulting readers.

1) Who is the designer? How do you know?

2) What did the designer do, exactly?

3) Precisely HOW did the designer do this? Give a sufficiently mechanistic model that it can be tested. Propose a scientific test that can distinguish between the designer doing it as you say, versus the same thing happening via natural processes. Propose a scientific test distinguishing between the designer doing it, versus an alternate designer, such as Allah.

4) When did the designer do it? How do you know? Some ID proponents argue that life originated approximately 6000 years ago. State precisely whether you agree or disagree with this, and why. If you agree that mainstream science has mis-dated the origin of the universe, of the earth, and the youngest possible age of cellular life (youngest reasonable date of unequivocal cellular fossils), offer a reasonable alternate explanation for all classes of dating evidence. If you do accept scientific dating methods, state so very clearly and say directly that YEC date claims, and any theological or conclusions dependent on YEC date claims, are completely wrong.

5) Offer an example of something that is not designed by the designer. Explain how this entity came into being without any intervention by the designer. Explain how you can distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not designed.

John · 16 February 2012

apokryltaros said:
The onus is on the ID community to produce good papers supporting the core ideas inherent to intelligent design. If they find unambiguously positive evidence for ID, the support of the academic community will start to swing their way. The current lack of such support is a clear indication that, despite much posturing, ID research still has a long way to go.
There is also the profound problem of how Intelligent Design proponents also lack the desire to produce these alleged "good papers supporting the (movement's) core ideas." I mean, look at the ridiculous posturing and blatant lying Luskin just went through to pretend that he had a list of papers supporting Intelligent Design. With one one-hundredth of what the Discovery Institute spends on propaganda and schmoozing Right-wing lackwit politicians, they could fund a hundred laboratories to do research. Yet they don't, and they don't want to.

Intelligent Design has had more than twenty years to demonstrate that it is a viable alternative to the Modern Synthesis as a scientific theory accounting for the history and current composition of Earth's biodiversity. No leading Intelligent Design proponent I know of and, as an aside, I have asked Behe and Dembski to do this - has offered anything that will show that Intelligent Design is indeed better than the Modern Synthesis in accounting for the history of life on our planet. I suspect that it will be a cold day in Hell before Intelligent Design proponents can demonstrate that it is indeed "scientific".

DS · 16 February 2012

In the final analysis, it doesn't matter if a million papers are published that are "pro ID" or "ID friendly" or "endorse ID". The only thing that matters is that they provide some evidence. They have not. They can not. They will not. They refuse to even propose any real research, let alone do any. They even refuse to propose any testable hypothesis. They insist on denigrating real science, as though that will ever get them anywhere.

The most they can hope for is that their incessant whining eventually goads real scientists into actually doing some experiments. You know, like the peppered moth fiasco. If they really thought there was any real problem with the data, they should have been falling all over themselves to do the experiments that demonstrated that. They did not. They could not. They would not. Instead, a real scientist eventually got fed up with their lies and did some experiments himself. Guess what, he demonstrated that they were completely and utterly wrong and that their accusations were groundless. Maybe that's why they don't do any experiments themselves. Maybe that's why they never do.

TomS · 16 February 2012

John said: No leading Intelligent Design proponent I know of and, as an aside, I have asked Behe and Dembski to do this - has offered anything that will show that Intelligent Design is indeed better than the Modern Synthesis in accounting for the history of life on our planet.

I'm more flexible than you. I'd just like to hear how Intelligent Design makes any attempt (better, equal, or worse) at accounting for something. As far as I know, there is no attempt at an explanation for the "tree of life" which does not involve common descent with modification. Or, for that matter, I'd just like to hear of any alternative narrative of "what happened and when", even if it doesn't get around to accounting for the things that resulted. And, by the way, I'd like to mention my appreciation for harold's bringing up point (5). I think that this opens up several interesting issues.

DS · 16 February 2012

Robert Byers said: The peers are the public .Not already committed evolutionists. It actually is more demanding for evolutionary biology to show its conclusions are based on biological investigation using the scientific method or something close to it!!! I always find that they don't draw conclusions, or many, from biological examination but from geological investigation coupled with biological conclusions. Certainly in the great relationships they draw. Indeed lines of reasoning, hunches, or special cases are the substance for much in evolutionary biology. Is evolution a product of biological investigation using the scientific method??? Enquiring minds want to know!

Well your peers are the public Robert. You know, the uneducated, unwashed masses with no background, training or reasoning skills. They are not the peers of the scientific community. There is no such thing as a committed evolutionist. There are real scientists committed to the evidence, that is all. You should try it some time. Evolutionary biology is based soundly on the scientific method. That;s what real scientists do Robert. You should try it some time. Evolutionary biology explains many observations in geology. That is what a good scientific theory does. You should try it some time Robert. When you get an enquiring mind Robert, then you will know. Until then, all you gots is ignorances. And of course, everyone can see that you completely and utterly failed to describe a creationist "model" that is used to find fossil fuels. Thanks for demonstrating that you were just lying about that Robert.

John · 16 February 2012

TomS said:
John said: No leading Intelligent Design proponent I know of and, as an aside, I have asked Behe and Dembski to do this - has offered anything that will show that Intelligent Design is indeed better than the Modern Synthesis in accounting for the history of life on our planet.
I'm more flexible than you. I'd just like to hear how Intelligent Design makes any attempt (better, equal, or worse) at accounting for something. As far as I know, there is no attempt at an explanation for the "tree of life" which does not involve common descent with modification. Or, for that matter, I'd just like to hear of any alternative narrative of "what happened and when", even if it doesn't get around to accounting for the things that resulted. And, by the way, I'd like to mention my appreciation for harold's bringing up point (5). I think that this opens up several interesting issues.

The issue isn't one of flexibility, TomS. Intelligent Design proponents like Behe and Dembski contend that theirs does a better job in explaining what we observe in the biological sciences than does the Modern Synthesis. Okay, if that is so, THEN DEMONSTRATE IT. While I agree with you that harold's point (5) has merit, I contend that if Intelligent Design proponents are serious in claiming that their "theory" is scientific, then they must show that it is better than the Modern Synthesis in explaining the history and current composition of our planet's biodiversity. They haven't and they won't be able, period.

Karen S. · 16 February 2012

1) Who is the designer? How do you know? 2) What did the designer do, exactly? 3) Precisely HOW did the designer do this? Give a sufficiently mechanistic model that it can be tested. Propose a scientific test that can distinguish between the designer doing it as you say, versus the same thing happening via natural processes. Propose a scientific test distinguishing between the designer doing it, versus an alternate designer, such as Allah. 4) When did the designer do it? How do you know? Some ID proponents argue that life originated approximately 6000 years ago. State precisely whether you agree or disagree with this, and why. If you agree that mainstream science has mis-dated the origin of the universe, of the earth, and the youngest possible age of cellular life (youngest reasonable date of unequivocal cellular fossils), offer a reasonable alternate explanation for all classes of dating evidence. If you do accept scientific dating methods, state so very clearly and say directly that YEC date claims, and any theological or conclusions dependent on YEC date claims, are completely wrong. 5) Offer an example of something that is not designed by the designer. Explain how this entity came into being without any intervention by the designer. Explain how you can distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not designed.

You know the rule: Don't ask, don't tell

cwjolley · 16 February 2012

Robert Byers said: The peers are the public.

That is literally true. ID is a mass advertising campaign. Nothing to do with science at all.

Tenncrain · 16 February 2012

Robert Byers said: The peers are the public .Not already committed evolutionists. It actually is more demanding for evolutionary biology to show its conclusions are based on biological investigation using the scientific method or something close to it!!! I always find that they don't draw conclusions, or many, from biological examination but from geological investigation coupled with biological conclusions. Certainly in the great relationships they draw. Indeed lines of reasoning, hunches, or special cases are the substance for much in evolutionary biology. Is evolution a product of biological investigation using the scientific method??? Enquiring minds want to know!

Well Byers, despite evolution seemingly having multiple lines of independent evidence (molecular genetics, biogeography, comparative anatomy, fossil record, etc), a few dissenting scientists could still produce better scientific evidence that is then confirmed by other independent scientists. This could win over the scientific consensus despite any strong initial resistance. Far from being "committed evolutionists", the scientific consensus could toss evolution into the proverbial trash can rather quickly. Robert, we are eagerly waiting for your 'scientists' to come up with all this evidence, it's about 150 years in the making. One could imagine your 'scientists' are hard at work in the field and the laboratory. Of course, if there is high confidence in success in the lab and field station, no need to waste time trying to bypass the scientific process by doing political action in state legislatures and school boards. If scientifically successful, your scientists would likely win a Nobel Prize or two, or three. Indeed, a Nobel Prize and other rewards can make science rather self-critical, even when a current paradigm seems to have good evidence; click here for examples of mainstream scientists challenging aspects of current evolutionary theory, including by biologist William Provine (showing that even Provine, a rather outspoken atheist, is far from a total defender of everything Charles Darwin). These are more challenges of mainstream science by mainstream scientists, including the final example in which Darwin’s - and Alfred Wallace's - cornerstone idea of natural selection was shown to be incorrect.

Richard B. Hoppe · 16 February 2012

Jack wrote

What would be a proper positive argument for ID? Physical evidence that beings with the capability to produce life visited our planet in the past would be one. Perhaps a message left by these beings. Perhaps a message left in the genomes of all living things. These are just examples, it’s really up to the ID community to do the hard yards and generate testable predictions and find good evidence.

As I've been writing for many years now (see, e.g., here in an exchange with Francis Beckwith), the content of ID "theory" is just this:

Sometime or other, some intelligent agent(s) designed something biological, and then somehow manufactured that thing in matter and energy, all the while leaving no independent evidence of the design process, the manufacturing process, or the presence (or even existence) of the designing and manufacturing agent(s).

So far no ID theorist has filled in any of the "somexxxx" placeholders with an operationally definable and testable concept. ID is quite literally content-free.

bigdakine · 16 February 2012

Robert Byers said: The peers are the public .Not already committed evolutionists.

I'm also a commited Plate Tectonicist, General Relativist.. etc. I'm committed because of the overwelming evidence in support of these theories. Yet you ignore your commitment to YEC based on nothing but supersition.

It actually is more demanding for evolutionary biology to show its conclusions are based on biological investigation using the scientific method or something close to it!!!

Happens every day. Which scientific journals do you peruse Robert? Or do you expect a special invitation?

I always find that they don't draw conclusions, or many, from biological examination but from geological investigation coupled with biological conclusions. Certainly in the great relationships they draw. Indeed lines of reasoning, hunches, or special cases are the substance for much in evolutionary biology.

Fine Robert. Pick one such paper you have read in the peer-reviewed professional literature and present your criticisms.

Is evolution a product of biological investigation using the scientific method??? Enquiring minds want to know!

An inqiuiring mind is a great thing. To bad you do not possess one.

Atheistoclast · 16 February 2012

Here we go again:

1) Who is the designer? How do you know?

The Elohim. Read Genesis, first verse.

2) What did the designer do, exactly?

Created the heavens and the earth and life on it.

3) Precisely HOW did the designer do this? Give a sufficiently mechanistic model that it can be tested. Propose a scientific test that can distinguish between the designer doing it as you say, versus the same thing happening via natural processes. Propose a scientific test distinguishing between the designer doing it, versus an alternate designer, such as Allah.

We are working on this. There are many current hypotheses. We do know from our own experiments in directed evolution and artificial selection that intelligent processes can achieve things a blind process could not.

4) When did the designer do it? How do you know? Some ID proponents argue that life originated approximately 6000 years ago. State precisely whether you agree or disagree with this, and why. If you agree that mainstream science has mis-dated the origin of the universe, of the earth, and the youngest possible age of cellular life (youngest reasonable date of unequivocal cellular fossils), offer a reasonable alternate explanation for all classes of dating evidence. If you do accept scientific dating methods, state so very clearly and say directly that YEC date claims, and any theological or conclusions dependent on YEC date claims, are completely wrong.

I think the Earth was created around 1.545 billion years ago. The calculations are a little too massive to be posted here.

5) Offer an example of something that is not designed by the designer. Explain how this entity came into being without any intervention by the designer. Explain how you can distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not designed.

A cave is not designed. It is the result of natural erosion. Scientists use valid methodologies to distinguish between design and non-design in fields as diverse as palaeontology (stone tools, controlled use of fire) through to radio astronomy (SETI).

John_S · 16 February 2012

Atheistoclast said: Here we go again:
1) Who is the designer? How do you know?
The Elohim. Read Genesis, first verse. you only answered the first question.
2) What did the designer do, exactly?
Created the heavens and the earth and life on it. That's like asking a mechanic "What did you do with my car?" and having him answer "I fixed it".
3) Precisely HOW did the designer do this? Give a sufficiently mechanistic model that it can be tested. Propose a scientific test that can distinguish between the designer doing it as you say, versus the same thing happening via natural processes. Propose a scientific test distinguishing between the designer doing it, versus an alternate designer, such as Allah.
We are working on this. There are many current hypotheses. Many? Describe one for which there is actual evidence; not just an "ad hoc hypothesis" pulled out of the air. We do know from our own experiments in directed evolution and artificial selection that intelligent processes can achieve things a blind process could not. Artificial selection just substitutes the breeder's artificial environment for the organism's natural one. Again, you only addressed the first question 4) When did the designer do it? How do you know? Some ID proponents argue that life originated approximately 6000 years ago. State precisely whether you agree or disagree with this, and why. If you agree that mainstream science has mis-dated the origin of the universe, of the earth, and the youngest possible age of cellular life (youngest reasonable date of unequivocal cellular fossils), offer a reasonable alternate explanation for all classes of dating evidence. If you do accept scientific dating methods, state so very clearly and say directly that YEC date claims, and any theological or conclusions dependent on YEC date claims, are completely wrong. I think the Earth was created around 1.545 billion years ago. The calculations are a little too massive to be posted here. So you offer Genesis 1 for the first question, then disagree with Genesis for this one?

phhht · 16 February 2012

Atheistoclast said: Here we go again...

Here we go again. Theistoclast, you haven't the slightest evidence for your comic book stories about magic creator gods. You are wrong to believe that they exist. They do not. You haven't got any proof whatsoever for your purported gods. Your religious delusions compel you to see gods where there are none. Of course you can show me up in an instant, Theistoclast. All you need is one tiny, teeny, simple bit of empirical evidence for your gods. But you don't have one. Not an iota. Not a shred. Not an atom. All you have is hot air.

Tenncrain · 16 February 2012

Atheistoclast said: I think the Earth was created around 1.545 billion years ago. The calculations are a little too massive to be posted here.

Any links to such calculations, and to the other studies you mention? Perhaps I can be forgiven, but I wasn't a science major and thus unfamiliar with searching papers in science journals.

Just Bob · 16 February 2012

O Lord, not all this again, please!

Robert Byers · 16 February 2012

harold said: Robert Byers, or any other ID advocate, feel free to answer these questions. Please keep replies civil and make a serious attempt to convince a skeptical individual. That is how science works. If you look at a scientific paper in a journal, you will never see language insulting readers. 1) Who is the designer? How do you know? 2) What did the designer do, exactly? 3) Precisely HOW did the designer do this? Give a sufficiently mechanistic model that it can be tested. Propose a scientific test that can distinguish between the designer doing it as you say, versus the same thing happening via natural processes. Propose a scientific test distinguishing between the designer doing it, versus an alternate designer, such as Allah. 4) When did the designer do it? How do you know? Some ID proponents argue that life originated approximately 6000 years ago. State precisely whether you agree or disagree with this, and why. If you agree that mainstream science has mis-dated the origin of the universe, of the earth, and the youngest possible age of cellular life (youngest reasonable date of unequivocal cellular fossils), offer a reasonable alternate explanation for all classes of dating evidence. If you do accept scientific dating methods, state so very clearly and say directly that YEC date claims, and any theological or conclusions dependent on YEC date claims, are completely wrong. 5) Offer an example of something that is not designed by the designer. Explain how this entity came into being without any intervention by the designer. Explain how you can distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not designed.

Luckily you said free. I decline. Its quite weighty even if legitimate questions. anyways I asked a question but don't expect a reply because its just a part of a bigger point. Either evolutionary biology is the result of accurate or inaccurate biological investigation or there is NO biological investigation going on but something else. I say, largely or the big points, its the latter.

DS · 16 February 2012

Jack,

I would suggest that you start moving troll nonsense to the bathroom wall. Unless of course you want one hundred more pages of this off topic nonsense from Joe and Robert. They have proven that they are just here to be disruptive. Why let them get away with it?

Helena Constantine · 16 February 2012

TomS said: I'm more flexible than you. I'd just like to hear how Intelligent Design makes any attempt (better, equal, or worse) at accounting for something. As far as I know, there is no attempt at an explanation for the "tree of life" which does not involve common descent with modification. Or, for that matter, I'd just like to hear of any alternative narrative of "what happened and when", even if it doesn't get around to accounting for the things that resulted. And, by the way, I'd like to mention my appreciation for harold's bringing up point (5). I think that this opens up several interesting issues.

I always imagined that the ID explanation for the tree of life would be very like art history. Picasso had his blue period, his rose period, his cubist period, etc. Same thing with he designer. He worked in fish for a while. Got tired of that and started amphibians: the changes that look like evolution are the evolution of his artistic inspiration. When he was in his mammal phase he had a relapse to the fish period and made cetaceans. I can imagine what else it could be.

Helena Constantine · 16 February 2012

...And of course, everyone can see that you completely and utterly failed to describe a creationist "model" that is used to find fossil fuels. Thanks for demonstrating that you were just lying about that Robert.

I didn't think of it before, but you (or perhaps Byers) should read De Re metalica by Gregorius Agrippa, which is a handbook on mining from the 16th century. The author is a creationsit and he describes in great detail how you should go about finding an ore deposit to start a new mine. He doesn't cover petroleum, of course, but I don't see why it should be different. The technique he advises using is dowsing.

Gary_Hurd · 16 February 2012

As it happens, even blind pigs can find an acorn. The publication of an article is the start of the most fierce part of peer review. In this case, I will place "Dissecting Darwinism" by Joseph A. Kuhn squarely in the frame. My first two pieces are, Joseph A. Kuhn, MD. Part 1, and Joseph A. Kuhn, MD. Part 2.

I have now switched writing styles from blog to a straight-on journal article intended for BUMCP.

Paul Burnett · 16 February 2012

Helena Constantine said: ...but you (or perhaps Byers) should read De Re metalica by Gregorius Agrippa...

That's Georgius Agricola ("George the Farmer"), father of minerology - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Re_Metallica [/pedant]

Paul Burnett · 16 February 2012

Atheistoclast said: I think the Earth was created around 1.545 billion years ago. The calculations are a little too massive to be posted here.

I will hypothesize that's purest bullshit - you pulled that number out of your butt. For the sake of discussion, I will secondarily hypothesize that the earth was created 1.547 billion years ago. Prove I'm wrong. Show us how you arrived at 1.545, not 1.544 or 1.546. Your inability to do so proves my first hypothesis.

apokryltaros · 16 February 2012

Helena Constantine said:
TomS said: I'm more flexible than you. I'd just like to hear how Intelligent Design makes any attempt (better, equal, or worse) at accounting for something. As far as I know, there is no attempt at an explanation for the "tree of life" which does not involve common descent with modification. Or, for that matter, I'd just like to hear of any alternative narrative of "what happened and when", even if it doesn't get around to accounting for the things that resulted. And, by the way, I'd like to mention my appreciation for harold's bringing up point (5). I think that this opens up several interesting issues.
I always imagined that the ID explanation for the tree of life would be very like art history. Picasso had his blue period, his rose period, his cubist period, etc. Same thing with he designer. He worked in fish for a while. Got tired of that and started amphibians: the changes that look like evolution are the evolution of his artistic inspiration. When he was in his mammal phase he had a relapse to the fish period and made cetaceans. I can imagine what else it could be.

Going by the fossil record, The Intelligent Designer never got tired of fish: He got tired of some specific groups (of fish) unfortunately, but He never got tired of fish. He had a big fling with scorpion flies, judging by their heyday 260 million years ago, but got tired of them, save for a handful of genera He keeps around as souvenirs. It's a tragic shame that He wasn't as sentimental with the placoderms, acanthodians or pycnodontids.

apokryltaros · 16 February 2012

DS said: Jack, I would suggest that you start moving troll nonsense to the bathroom wall. Unless of course you want one hundred more pages of this off topic nonsense from Joe and Robert. They have proven that they are just here to be disruptive. Why let them get away with it?

Yes, please, it would be very nice to have the thread exorcised of these two trolls.

Robert Byers · 17 February 2012

Tenncrain said:
Robert Byers said: The peers are the public .Not already committed evolutionists. It actually is more demanding for evolutionary biology to show its conclusions are based on biological investigation using the scientific method or something close to it!!! I always find that they don't draw conclusions, or many, from biological examination but from geological investigation coupled with biological conclusions. Certainly in the great relationships they draw. Indeed lines of reasoning, hunches, or special cases are the substance for much in evolutionary biology. Is evolution a product of biological investigation using the scientific method??? Enquiring minds want to know!
Well Byers, despite evolution seemingly having multiple lines of independent evidence (molecular genetics, biogeography, comparative anatomy, fossil record, etc), a few dissenting scientists could still produce better scientific evidence that is then confirmed by other independent scientists. This could win over the scientific consensus despite any strong initial resistance. Far from being "committed evolutionists", the scientific consensus could toss evolution into the proverbial trash can rather quickly. Robert, we are eagerly waiting for your 'scientists' to come up with all this evidence, it's about 150 years in the making. One could imagine your 'scientists' are hard at work in the field and the laboratory. Of course, if there is high confidence in success in the lab and field station, no need to waste time trying to bypass the scientific process by doing political action in state legislatures and school boards. If scientifically successful, your scientists would likely win a Nobel Prize or two, or three. Indeed, a Nobel Prize and other rewards can make science rather self-critical, even when a current paradigm seems to have good evidence; click here for examples of mainstream scientists challenging aspects of current evolutionary theory, including by biologist William Provine (showing that even Provine, a rather outspoken atheist, is far from a total defender of everything Charles Darwin). These are more challenges of mainstream science by mainstream scientists, including the final example in which Darwin’s - and Alfred Wallace's - cornerstone idea of natural selection was shown to be incorrect.

my point here was not about us bringing evidence against evolution. I guess you mean evidence against your evidence. My point was a logical deduction that evolution, not being true, couldn't possibly have biological evidence behind it. Therefore it couldn't be the product of biological investigation with (or even without) using the scientific method. This because I'm confident and esteem the ability of modern biologists to indeed investigate biology with methodology. therefore evolutionary biology must be from non biological investigation. I find this to be true. It is largely about geological sequences and casts(or rocks) within these sequences that accounts for conclusions about evolutionary biology. In fact you make my case by your other lines of investigation. They ain't biology. Not the actual processes of biology but only atomic things or results from biological life. In retrospect the error of evolution and its persistence will be seen as the result of missing that one can not research biological process and relationships by looking at rocks. They are mere pictures. Conclusions can be drawn but not biological ones if methodology is following standard rules. Thats where they went wrong!

Dave Luckett · 17 February 2012

Byers astonishes the world by saying: My point was a logical deduction that evolution, not being true, couldn’t possibly have biological evidence behind it. Therefore it couldn’t be the product of biological investigation with (or even without) using the scientific method.

This is so pristine-perfect a piece of total inversion of rationality that it should be transcribed on to acid-free paper, plasticised and placed in a vault. It could be brought out every hundred years or so and displayed to a wondering populace. Yes, junior, it really is possible that there were people who could read and write and yet be so utterly lost to reason. I shall leave the utter demolition of it to those who wish to do it. For me, I shall only contemplate its insouciant emnity to reality with a sort of baffled awe.

unkle.hank · 17 February 2012

Dave Luckett said:
Byers astonishes the world by saying: My point was a logical deduction that evolution, not being true, couldn’t possibly have biological evidence behind it. Therefore it couldn’t be the product of biological investigation with (or even without) using the scientific method.
This is so pristine-perfect a piece of total inversion of rationality that it should be transcribed on to acid-free paper, plasticised and placed in a vault. It could be brought out every hundred years or so and displayed to a wondering populace. Yes, junior, it really is possible that there were people who could read and write and yet be so utterly lost to reason. I shall leave the utter demolition of it to those who wish to do it. For me, I shall only contemplate its insouciant emnity to reality with a sort of baffled awe.

I concur. The only thing more pointless than a demolition of that industrial-strength idiocy would be to assume that Byers would be able to understand it (much less act on its implications).

dalehusband · 17 February 2012

Robert Bigot, don't you ever get tired of lying outright about almost everything?

Robert Byers said: my point here was not about us bringing evidence against evolution. I guess you mean evidence against your evidence. My point was a logical deduction that evolution, not being true, couldn't possibly have biological evidence behind it. Therefore it couldn't be the product of biological investigation with (or even without) using the scientific method. This because I'm confident and esteem the ability of modern biologists to indeed investigate biology with methodology. therefore evolutionary biology must be from non biological investigation. I find this to be true. It is largely about geological sequences and casts(or rocks) within these sequences that accounts for conclusions about evolutionary biology. In fact you make my case by your other lines of investigation. They ain't biology. Not the actual processes of biology but only atomic things or results from biological life. In retrospect the error of evolution and its persistence will be seen as the result of missing that one can not research biological process and relationships by looking at rocks. They are mere pictures. Conclusions can be drawn but not biological ones if methodology is following standard rules. Thats where they went wrong!

TomS · 17 February 2012

John said: Intelligent Design proponents like Behe and Dembski contend that theirs does a better job in explaining what we observe in the biological sciences than does the Modern Synthesis. Okay, if that is so, THEN DEMONSTRATE IT. While I agree with you that harold's point (5) has merit, I contend that if Intelligent Design proponents are serious in claiming that their "theory" is scientific, then they must show that it is better than the Modern Synthesis in explaining the history and current composition of our planet's biodiversity. They haven't and they won't be able, period.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, and I wouldn't respond except for two reasons: One is that it is obvious that I am having a problem in making myself clear. I'd like to correct the faults in my writing. But, more importantly, the advocates of ID have a red herring that they exploit when it is pointed out that ID is not scientific, namely the problem in the philosophy of science known as the "demarkation problem". An ID advocate can point out that it is difficult to draw a sharp distinction between science and non-science. Of course, just because there is no sharp distinction between hot and cold, no boundary temperature where one degree warmer is hot and one degree colder is cold, that does not mean that there is no difference between hot and cold. But the ID advocate can confuse matters by citing the "demarkation problem". I'd suggest that we don't give them the opportunity to sow confusion when we can avoid it. For example, "falsification" is not widely accepted among philosophers of science as a mark of "true science", so why rely on that? My suggestion is that we rather point out that ID does not even rise to the standard of an expository essay, the sort of thing that would be acceptable in a secondary school class. Everybody has learned about the 6 W's as a set of guidelines for writing an expository essay. And ID has been deliberately constructed not to address the 6 W's. Yes, of course, you can get "traditional creationists" who are not shy about answering Who did it, although "official ID" explicitly says that they aren't going to get into that. And you'll get lots of creationists not of the ID kind who are eager to give their own private answer to When - some say 6000 years ago, some say 4 billion years ago, there is one person who pops up now and then telling us 60 million years ago, and so on - the more diverse answers the better, as it shows that just about anything is consistent with creationism. And when it gets to How and Why, it becomes really wild. The advocates of ID want to cover over the wild speculations by refusing to say anything positive about anything. So, while I agree with you that it is right to ask of anybody pretending to offer a scientific explanation that they should offer an explanation for certain things, and that they be able to back up that explanation in a scientific way, I'm trying to make an easier point: they should be saying something. Let it be made clear that the advocates of ID are merely engaging in advertising in a social/political movement. They are selling the sizzle.

Karen S. · 17 February 2012

Going by the fossil record, The Intelligent Designer never got tired of fish: He got tired of some specific groups (of fish) unfortunately, but He never got tired of fish. He had a big fling with scorpion flies, judging by their heyday 260 million years ago, but got tired of them, save for a handful of genera He keeps around as souvenirs. It’s a tragic shame that He wasn’t as sentimental with the placoderms, acanthodians or pycnodontids.

I thought he had an inordinate fondness for beetles.

apokryltaros · 17 February 2012

Karen S. said:
Going by the fossil record, The Intelligent Designer never got tired of fish: He got tired of some specific groups (of fish) unfortunately, but He never got tired of fish. He had a big fling with scorpion flies, judging by their heyday 260 million years ago, but got tired of them, save for a handful of genera He keeps around as souvenirs. It’s a tragic shame that He wasn’t as sentimental with the placoderms, acanthodians or pycnodontids.
I thought he had an inordinate fondness for beetles.

That's why He got tired of scorpion flies, especially when He found out that what He created weren't actually scorpions that could fly.

Frank J · 17 February 2012

...it’s an argument that evolution is unable to produce complexity, which is a personal belief of Behe (and of other proponents too).
— Jack Scanlan

Actually we don't know that either. All we know is that it's a personal belief that they desperately want their audience to have. And they will use any pseudoscientific or rhetorical trick in the book to influence that audience. Now, if they didn't all have that extreme authoritarian ideology, and if they made at least some effort to elaborate on, and test their own alternate "scientifc theories," instead of always obsessing over what "Darwinism" can or cannot do, then would probably be safe to conclude that is their personal belief as well as what they're hell-bent on selling.

cwjolley · 17 February 2012

Robert Byers said: my point here was not about us bringing evidence against evolution. I guess you mean evidence against your evidence. My point was a logical deduction that evolution, not being true, couldn't possibly have biological evidence behind it. Therefore it couldn't be the product of biological investigation with (or even without) using the scientific method. This because I'm confident and esteem the ability of modern biologists to indeed investigate biology with methodology. therefore evolutionary biology must be from non biological investigation. I find this to be true. It is largely about geological sequences and casts(or rocks) within these sequences that accounts for conclusions about evolutionary biology. In fact you make my case by your other lines of investigation. They ain't biology. Not the actual processes of biology but only atomic things or results from biological life.

Now who can argue with that? I think we're all indebted to Gabby Johnson for clearly stating what needed to be said. I'm particulary glad that these lovely children were here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.

fnxtr · 17 February 2012

Atheistoclast said: Here we go again:
1) Who is the designer? How do you know?
The Elohim. Read Genesis, first verse.
2) What did the designer do, exactly?
Created the heavens and the earth and life on it.
3) Precisely HOW did the designer do this? Give a sufficiently mechanistic model that it can be tested. Propose a scientific test that can distinguish between the designer doing it as you say, versus the same thing happening via natural processes. Propose a scientific test distinguishing between the designer doing it, versus an alternate designer, such as Allah.
We are working on this. There are many current hypotheses. We do know from our own experiments in directed evolution and artificial selection that intelligent processes can achieve things a blind process could not.
4) When did the designer do it? How do you know? Some ID proponents argue that life originated approximately 6000 years ago. State precisely whether you agree or disagree with this, and why. If you agree that mainstream science has mis-dated the origin of the universe, of the earth, and the youngest possible age of cellular life (youngest reasonable date of unequivocal cellular fossils), offer a reasonable alternate explanation for all classes of dating evidence. If you do accept scientific dating methods, state so very clearly and say directly that YEC date claims, and any theological or conclusions dependent on YEC date claims, are completely wrong.
I think the Earth was created around 1.545 billion years ago. The calculations are a little too massive to be posted here.
5) Offer an example of something that is not designed by the designer. Explain how this entity came into being without any intervention by the designer. Explain how you can distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not designed.
A cave is not designed. It is the result of natural erosion. Scientists use valid methodologies to distinguish between design and non-design in fields as diverse as palaeontology (stone tools, controlled use of fire) through to radio astronomy (SETI).

(response on BW where it belongs)

TomS · 17 February 2012

Robert Byers said: It is largely about geological sequences and casts(or rocks) within these sequences that accounts for conclusions about evolutionary biology.

I think that a lot of people (and not just creationists!) think that evolution is mostly about fossils. It is true that fossils present spectacular evidence about ancient life, and fossils like Morganucodon and Amphistium fill in details about otherwise puzzling transitions in the history of life. But it should be mentioned prominently that nobody has thought of an explanation for the "tree of life" which didn't involve common descent with modification. And that evolution has been repeatedly observed happening both in the wild and in controlled laboratory conditions. And other realms of observation, such as biogeography, are relevant to evolutionary biology.

DS · 17 February 2012

TomS said:
Robert Byers said: It is largely about geological sequences and casts(or rocks) within these sequences that accounts for conclusions about evolutionary biology.
I think that a lot of people (and not just creationists!) think that evolution is mostly about fossils. It is true that fossils present spectacular evidence about ancient life, and fossils like Morganucodon and Amphistium fill in details about otherwise puzzling transitions in the history of life. But it should be mentioned prominently that nobody has thought of an explanation for the "tree of life" which didn't involve common descent with modification. And that evolution has been repeatedly observed happening both in the wild and in controlled laboratory conditions. And other realms of observation, such as biogeography, are relevant to evolutionary biology.

Good point. Evidence for evolution comes not only from paleontology, but also from comparative anatomy, genetics and developmental biology. And of course, most persuasive thing of all is the fact that all of these independent data sets converge on the same answer. "The congruence of independent data sets, neither sought nor fabricated", is actually the best evidence of all. Now Robert is either ignorant of this or desperately wants to ignore it. What he cannot do however is explain it. Too bad, he loses.

harold · 17 February 2012

TomS said:
Robert Byers said: It is largely about geological sequences and casts(or rocks) within these sequences that accounts for conclusions about evolutionary biology.
I think that a lot of people (and not just creationists!) think that evolution is mostly about fossils. It is true that fossils present spectacular evidence about ancient life, and fossils like Morganucodon and Amphistium fill in details about otherwise puzzling transitions in the history of life. But it should be mentioned prominently that nobody has thought of an explanation for the "tree of life" which didn't involve common descent with modification. And that evolution has been repeatedly observed happening both in the wild and in controlled laboratory conditions. And other realms of observation, such as biogeography, are relevant to evolutionary biology.

If there was not a single fossil, the theory of evolution would still have come into existence, and would still be very strong. In fact, the first formulation of it was based on observations of modern life, not fossils. Biochemistry, genetics, microbiology, cell biology and molecular biology all developed somewhat independently of paleontology, and comparative anatomy and physiology could have developed without fossils. The theory of evolution explains the fossils. The incredible value and importance of paleontology is obvious, but as far as the theory of evolution goes, it is one of multiple converging lines of supporting evidence. John - I completely agree, even a coherent theory of ID would need to explain why the theory of evolution still wasn't better; my questions illustrate that there is not even a coherent theory of ID.

John · 17 February 2012

TomS said:
John said: Intelligent Design proponents like Behe and Dembski contend that theirs does a better job in explaining what we observe in the biological sciences than does the Modern Synthesis. Okay, if that is so, THEN DEMONSTRATE IT. While I agree with you that harold's point (5) has merit, I contend that if Intelligent Design proponents are serious in claiming that their "theory" is scientific, then they must show that it is better than the Modern Synthesis in explaining the history and current composition of our planet's biodiversity. They haven't and they won't be able, period.
I don't disagree with what you are saying, and I wouldn't respond except for two reasons: One is that it is obvious that I am having a problem in making myself clear. I'd like to correct the faults in my writing. But, more importantly, the advocates of ID have a red herring that they exploit when it is pointed out that ID is not scientific, namely the problem in the philosophy of science known as the "demarkation problem". An ID advocate can point out that it is difficult to draw a sharp distinction between science and non-science. Of course, just because there is no sharp distinction between hot and cold, no boundary temperature where one degree warmer is hot and one degree colder is cold, that does not mean that there is no difference between hot and cold. But the ID advocate can confuse matters by citing the "demarkation problem". I'd suggest that we don't give them the opportunity to sow confusion when we can avoid it. For example, "falsification" is not widely accepted among philosophers of science as a mark of "true science", so why rely on that? My suggestion is that we rather point out that ID does not even rise to the standard of an expository essay, the sort of thing that would be acceptable in a secondary school class. Everybody has learned about the 6 W's as a set of guidelines for writing an expository essay. And ID has been deliberately constructed not to address the 6 W's. Yes, of course, you can get "traditional creationists" who are not shy about answering Who did it, although "official ID" explicitly says that they aren't going to get into that. And you'll get lots of creationists not of the ID kind who are eager to give their own private answer to When - some say 6000 years ago, some say 4 billion years ago, there is one person who pops up now and then telling us 60 million years ago, and so on - the more diverse answers the better, as it shows that just about anything is consistent with creationism. And when it gets to How and Why, it becomes really wild. The advocates of ID want to cover over the wild speculations by refusing to say anything positive about anything. So, while I agree with you that it is right to ask of anybody pretending to offer a scientific explanation that they should offer an explanation for certain things, and that they be able to back up that explanation in a scientific way, I'm trying to make an easier point: they should be saying something. Let it be made clear that the advocates of ID are merely engaging in advertising in a social/political movement. They are selling the sizzle.

I concur that the issue with regards to demarcation to be important, but they would explain that away in much the same manner Behe admitted under oath during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial that under the more "expansive" definition of science that he, Dembski and Johnson were advocating, then astrology could be viewed as a "science". When you have the DI mendacious intellectual pornographers touting ID as the latest, "hottest", scientific theory, it's time to challenge them to explain how it does a better job than modern evolutionary theory in accounting for the current composition and past history of life on Planet Earth.

John · 17 February 2012

harold said: If there was not a single fossil, the theory of evolution would still have come into existence, and would still be very strong. In fact, the first formulation of it was based on observations of modern life, not fossils. Biochemistry, genetics, microbiology, cell biology and molecular biology all developed somewhat independently of paleontology, and comparative anatomy and physiology could have developed without fossils. The theory of evolution explains the fossils. The incredible value and importance of paleontology is obvious, but as far as the theory of evolution goes, it is one of multiple converging lines of supporting evidence. John - I completely agree, even a coherent theory of ID would need to explain why the theory of evolution still wasn't better; my questions illustrate that there is not even a coherent theory of ID.

Am in full agreement here, harold. What people should realize is that Darwin and Wallace had stumbled independently on the principle of Natural Selection via their work in collecting zoological speciments in the tropics and by reading Malthus' "Essay on Population". As for my observation regarding your point (5), I was merely reminding others that we need not get so worked up about the identify of the "Designer"; it's really more important to ask how Intelligent Design offers better explanatory power than the Modern Synthesis in explaining biological evolution.

Tenncrain · 17 February 2012

Robert Byers said: My point was a logical deduction that evolution, not being true, couldn't possibly have biological evidence behind it. Therefore it couldn't be the product of biological investigation with (or even without) using the scientific method. This because I'm confident and esteem the ability of modern biologists to indeed investigate biology with methodology. therefore evolutionary biology must be from non biological investigation. I find this to be true. It is largely about geological sequences and casts(or rocks) within these sequences that accounts for conclusions about evolutionary biology. In fact you make my case by your other lines of investigation. They ain't biology. Not the actual processes of biology but only atomic things or results from biological life. In retrospect the error of evolution and its persistence will be seen as the result of missing that one can not research biological process and relationships by looking at rocks. They are mere pictures. Conclusions can be drawn but not biological ones if methodology is following standard rules. Thats where they went wrong!

You're decades and decades out of date. What else is new? Others on PT have already given sterling replies to your misconceptions. A good introduction (non-technical, popular level book) to get a grasp on things like how pseudogenes, biogeography, paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), real evolution observed in biology labs, and other science supports evolution is Ken Miller's Only A Theory. Sheep like you may run the other way from such sources, but for others Miller's book is recommended. Although Miller has been open about his Christian faith, even atheists have given some praise to Miller's science. BTW, here are Miller's colorful but insightful thoughts about Richard Dawkins. Your reference to geology is ironic. As historian Ronald Numbers noted in his book The Creationists, leading YECs like Morris, Whitcomb and Walter Lammerts despaired about the virtual lack of YECs with training in geology, even more scarce than biology YECs. When prospective YEC geology students began their studies, the typical result was the student's beliefs in Flood Geology was so badly shaken because of the evidence for evolution, he/she either fled the field of geology altogether or dropped Flood Geology. BTW Byers, even Henry Morris gave Number's book a positive endorsement on the back cover. PS: Are you going to address the post on the other thread that you tapped danced around? You take lots of time to do new posts, surely you can find time to address the old one. As a reminder, these are the links, here and here.

Richard B. Hoppe · 17 February 2012

Helena, it was consideration of the point you make that led me to recommend using multi-discipinary teams in Multiple Designers Theory:

That suggests the utility of multi-disciplinary research teams involving not only scientists but also those trained and experienced in discerning such things as individual esthetic themes and differing creative motifs among human artists. Their insights could form the basis for hypotheses that can then be tested scientifically.

Helena Constantine said: I always imagined that the ID explanation for the tree of life would be very like art history. Picasso had his blue period, his rose period, his cubist period, etc. Same thing with he designer. He worked in fish for a while. Got tired of that and started amphibians: the changes that look like evolution are the evolution of his artistic inspiration. When he was in his mammal phase he had a relapse to the fish period and made cetaceans. I can imagine what else it could be.

Les Lane · 17 February 2012

It's worth mentioning that a Web of Science search shows slightly over a thousand papers which use the key phrase "cold fusion".

DS · 17 February 2012

My point was a logical deduction that evolution, being true, couldn’t possibly have biological evidence against it. Therefore it could be the product of biological investigation with (or even without) using the scientific method. This because I’m confident and esteem the ability of modern biologists to indeed investigate biology with methodology. therefore evolutionary biology must be from biological and non biological investigation. I find this to be true. It is largely about geological sequences and casts(or rocks) within these sequences that accounts for conclusions about evolutionary biology. In fact you make my case by your other lines of investigation. They are biology. The actual processes of biology including atomic things or results from biological life.

In retrospect the truth of evolution and its persistence will be seen as the result of determining that one can research biological process and relationships by looking at different kinds of evidence. They give congruent pictures. Conclusions can be drawn including biological ones if methodology is following standard rules. Thats where they went right!

Yea right Robert, you are the only one who really knows how to study biology. Everyone else must be a completely incompetent boob. How dare they gather evidence that proves you are totally wrong. After all, you are the only real expert, right?

Scott F · 17 February 2012

Les Lane said: It's worth mentioning that a Web of Science search shows slightly over a thousand papers which use the key phrase "cold fusion".

I'm no scientist, but from an educated layman's perspective, the people involved in that debacle were attempting to do real science; actual hands on experimentation. The results were tantalizing enough so that other scientists tried to duplicate their work, if only to prove or disprove their tentative results, hence (I presume) the number of papers. I don't know the details and don't know enough to comment on whether the concept is legitimate or not. But just because some scientific claim about the world is proven to be false, doesn't mean that it isn't science. Even "good" science can lead to negative results. Even "sloppy" science can be useful, if only as a springboard for other avenues of investigation. The problem with ID is that it isn't even "bad" science. It says nothing positive, predicts nothing, and explains nothing. No ID proponent has ever made a testable hypothesis or done an experiment. Heck, even Creation Science and Flood Geology are "better" science than ID. As pointed out on one of the recent threads, at least Flood Geology makes some concrete predictions. They've all proven to be false, but at least the proponents had the scientific guts to make such predictions, follow up with data analysis, and live by the results. Just because there aren't any Flood Geologists left any more (other than the few who never actually did any field work) doesn't mean that they weren't "doing science", even if it turned out to be pretty "bad" science in the end.

harold · 17 February 2012

Les Lane said: It's worth mentioning that a Web of Science search shows slightly over a thousand papers which use the key phrase "cold fusion".

I assume you're pointing out that cold fusion has had a more valid scientific investigation than intelligent design. That's certainly true. Cold fusion is a controversial but testable scientific idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion. The particular cold fusion claims that were most discussed in the media were not replicated. That's science. You do an experiment, you report your results, and they should be able to be replicated. Mistaken conclusions are inevitable. But science is self-correcting. (If, on the other hand, this comment was intended as some kind of [apologies in advance for language if this is not the case] weaselly creationist swipe at "evolution", then 1) only a dishonest, deluded, or extremely dull person would confuse a controversial hypothesis with a major scientific theory, 2) please reply to my questions for ID supporters from page one and 3) the papers that Casey Luskin claims as support for "ID" don't contain the term "intelligent design" at all, and do not appear is you search that term.) I think my first two paragraphs are the correct interpretation of your comment. Feel free to clarify.

John_S · 17 February 2012

Robert Byers said: My point was a logical deduction that evolution, not being true, couldn’t possibly have biological evidence behind it.

So basically you conclude in advance that evolution is false, and then use that as proof that all evidence against must be false? That's like saying "Elvis is still alive" and then saying, a priori, that all arguments to the contrary couldn't possibly be right.

dalehusband · 17 February 2012

John_S said:
Robert Byers said: My point was a logical deduction that evolution, not being true, couldn’t possibly have biological evidence behind it.
So basically you conclude in advance that evolution is false, and then use that as proof that all evidence against must be false? That's like saying "Elvis is still alive" and then saying, a priori, that all arguments to the contrary couldn't possibly be right.

Logic in science is useless without empirical data. Using "logic" to assume something must be true or false and them judging reality by that is not only illogical, it's dishonest. Rationalism fails here. Only empiricism works in reality. That is why I am not an Objectivist, that Ayn Rand school of absurd philosophy. Human reason has its limits. Attaching it to the wrong thing (or person) results in errors no matter how "logical" your conclusions appear to be.

DavidK · 17 February 2012

Luskin is trying making a point that some ID papers can be peer reviewed should they not directly mention ID, e.g., one of Axe's papers. It might propose that certain reactions are too complicated, difficult, or improbable to give the evolutionary results but go no further than that, i.e., there is no direct reference to ID. Then it's up to the scientific community to scrutinize and critique the results. And they can get into print simply because they either don't directly reference ID or the reviewers are not aware of the premise of such papers, e.g., papers in a math journal.

In such cases Luskin can claim they are ID friendly, though such papers typically turn out to be poorly ocnstructed experiments based on bad assumptions or erroneous results that prove nothing.

Likewise these ID folks publish books, e.g., Meyer, Behe, Dembski, et. al and can claim they are ID friendly, i.e., they've all been reviewed (by ID proponents). However, I think these books are often published by religious publishing houses, and they of course make no mention of that fact. None-the-less they can claim there is abundant pro-ID literature in print.

Thirdly, they can claim their Creation Institute dummy lab turns out peer reviewed research, but of course the peer reviewers are all ID peers, not the scientific community, and such papers are laden with bad science, etc.

Just a thought.

Helena Constantine · 17 February 2012

Richard B. Hoppe said: Helena, it was consideration of the point you make that led me to recommend using multi-discipinary teams in Multiple Designers Theory:
That suggests the utility of multi-disciplinary research teams involving not only scientists but also those trained and experienced in discerning such things as individual esthetic themes and differing creative motifs among human artists. Their insights could form the basis for hypotheses that can then be tested scientifically.

Helena Constantine said: I always imagined that the ID explanation for the tree of life would be very like art history. Picasso had his blue period, his rose period, his cubist period, etc. Same thing with he designer. He worked in fish for a while. Got tired of that and started amphibians: the changes that look like evolution are the evolution of his artistic inspiration. When he was in his mammal phase he had a relapse to the fish period and made cetaceans. I can imagine what else it could be.

Thanks for the link. I had missed that entirely since it was long before I discovered this site. Its a shame we're possessed of such innate virtue (is that even possible for atheists?), or else we could get jobs at the DI as critics of the designer's handiwork: 100K a year and literally nothing to do. But you might actually have to meet Luskin or Dembski. Face-to-face--in the same room. Better get at least 200K a year for that.

harold · 18 February 2012

DavidK -

It's undeniable that there is a vast abundance of "ID literature". Indeed, there are reams and reams and reams of it. No-one here is remotely disputing the existence of vast numbers of ID/creationist books.

The sole objection in this thread is to Casey Luskin falsely counting papers that do not mention the term ID at all and do not support ID as in some way "pro-ID" papers, or to his including publications that aren't really peer-reviewed with peer-reviewed papers.

There are basically three ways that he does this, in my personal observation.

One is that an author who is associated with ID in some way (perhaps even only as an informal advocate) manages to publish a paper that does NOT advance ID claims in a mainstream journal. These events are surprisingly rare, but when they do happen, they don't count as papers supporting ID.

Another method is to mis-interpret and mis-represent the conclusions of a mainstream paper, and to claim it as a "pro-ID" paper, even if doesn't mention, test, or support ID in the view of unbiased readers or the authors themselves. This is done more rarely than one might think, too, as authors tend to find out about it and express criticism.

A final mechanism is to set up "journals" with biased editorial boards, and then have DI fellows "publish" papers that are "reviewed" by an editorial board consisting of DI fellows (perhaps themselves included). You might think that this could be a prolific source of "publications", but for whatever reason, it isn't. It's harder to do even fake science than to just be verbose, apparently.

So the number of papers falsely claimed to support ID, via the logically invalid methods above, is surprisingly modest. But the claim has been made, and that is what the complaint is about here.

Les Lane · 18 February 2012

The most obvious conclusion to be drawn from cold fusion literature is that lots of publications don't necessarily translate into something worth worth discussing in public school science.

co · 18 February 2012

Les Lane said: The most obvious conclusion to be drawn from cold fusion literature is that lots of publications don't necessarily translate into something worth worth discussing in public school science.

What do you mean, Les? In particular, what _is_ worth discussion in public school science, and at what level? Are you thinking about translating discussions in technical publications to something appropriate for an elementary school, or high school, or college?

Dave Luckett · 18 February 2012

As I understand it, (and I defer here to people who actually understand subatomic physics) there have been a number of experimental results that appear to present the possibility that some fusion is occurring in specified metal matrices under electron bombardment and conditions of extreme heat, and that the heating may be achieved on a point scale by sonovibration. A small nett positive energy flow is said to be observable. This possibility has been disputed by other researchers on the grounds that the neutron emissions and energy output observed can be accounted for by background radiation and the limits of measurement, so small are they. Research continues. It's controversial. There might be something in it; maybe not. Everything that has been observed is explicable by known physical law.

Anyone who thinks that this is an analogue to the intelligent design conjecture needs his head read. For "ID", there are no experimental results. There is no coherent explanation at all, let alone one that conforms to known law. There are no findings, no data, no research, no lab, no measurements, no observations, nothing. There is only a wild-ass conjecture, not a theory, not even a hypothesis - that sometime, somewhere, an unknown intelligence did something unknown, or a whole bunch of unknown acts. Or maybe continues to do them.

Science? It's not even palmistry or astrology. At least those have supposed principles that are supposed to be applied. They're wrong, of course, and have absolutely no correlation with reality, but at least they can be fairly specifically described.

But ID? It's not even a starting point. Not only doesn't it get to first base, it hasn't swung at a pitch, walked up to the plate, or shown up at the game. It's somewhere on the other side of town wearing the uniform made by its mom and talking about how they won't let it in the big leagues on the totally unfair grounds that it has never played a game in its life.

SteveP. · 19 February 2012

harold said: Robert Byers, or any other ID advocate, feel free to answer these questions. Please keep replies civil and make a serious attempt to convince a skeptical individual. That is how science works. If you look at a scientific paper in a journal, you will never see language insulting readers. 1) Who is the designer? How do you know? 2) What did the designer do, exactly? 3) Precisely HOW did the designer do this? Give a sufficiently mechanistic model that it can be tested. Propose a scientific test that can distinguish between the designer doing it as you say, versus the same thing happening via natural processes. Propose a scientific test distinguishing between the designer doing it, versus an alternate designer, such as Allah. 4) When did the designer do it? How do you know? Some ID proponents argue that life originated approximately 6000 years ago. State precisely whether you agree or disagree with this, and why. If you agree that mainstream science has mis-dated the origin of the universe, of the earth, and the youngest possible age of cellular life (youngest reasonable date of unequivocal cellular fossils), offer a reasonable alternate explanation for all classes of dating evidence. If you do accept scientific dating methods, state so very clearly and say directly that YEC date claims, and any theological or conclusions dependent on YEC date claims, are completely wrong. 5) Offer an example of something that is not designed by the designer. Explain how this entity came into being without any intervention by the designer. Explain how you can distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not designed.

The only thing science is interested in is the what and how.

What? Design.

How? A template.

How? We know for example, that frog faces are formed 'before' physical actualization; i.e. electrical signals drive physical configuration. Now we need to know what drives the organization of electrical signals.

How? Possibly information.

How? Pending.

Dave Luckett · 19 February 2012

Steve P says:

The only thing science is interested in is the what and the how.

Foul tip, strike one. Only got a little piece of it. Science is also interested in the when, the where and by exactly what means, under what conditions.

What? Design

Strike two. No design on that ball. Just beaten for pace.

How? A template.

Ball one. No attempt at contact, but the ball was 'way off-base. Faulty analogy.

How? We know for example, that frog faces are formed ‘before’ physical actualization; i.e. electrical signals drive physical configuration. Now we need to know what drives the organization of electrical signals.

Foul tip, strike two. Got a little piece of it, but got it backwards. Yeah, there are electrical fields apparently involved. Physical signals from bioelectrical sources are not evidence for immaterial causation. To the contrary.

How? Possibly information.

Foul tip, strike two. There was information for sure, but Steve P doesn't know what "information" means. He thinks it means "intelligence". It doesn't.

How? Pending.

Strike three. Fanned at a pitch that wasn't even there. Yer out! And we haven't got out of the Little Leagues yet.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 19 February 2012

Les Lane said: It's worth mentioning that a Web of Science search shows slightly over a thousand papers which use the key phrase "cold fusion".

Then a few more papers have been added to the list since I asked Bill Dembski about that in 2006.

Frank J · 19 February 2012

I promise to keep my "feeding" to an absolute minimum, but I must note now Steve P., in his reply to Harold, conveniently omitted the "when" questions that are a key part of science, and something that is increasingly imperative to avoid in the world of pseudoscience. Steve P. once admitted accepting billions of years of common descent, while Robert Byers claims to be a YEC.

So Steve and Robert, feel free to prove me wrong by debating each other on the "when" questions and common descent. If your objections are truly about the evidence, you won't mind taking a break from your paranoid conspiracy "theories" to have friendly debate with each other.

John · 19 February 2012

Frank J said: I promise to keep my "feeding" to an absolute minimum, but I must note now Steve P., in his reply to Harold, conveniently omitted the "when" questions that are a key part of science, and something that is increasingly imperative to avoid in the world of pseudoscience. Steve P. once admitted accepting billions of years of common descent, while Robert Byers claims to be a YEC. So Steve and Robert, feel free to prove me wrong by debating each other on the "when" questions and common descent. If your objections are truly about the evidence, you won't mind taking a break from your paranoid conspiracy "theories" to have friendly debate with each other.

I strongly endorse your request, Frank J.

Robert Byers · 19 February 2012

TomS said:
Robert Byers said: It is largely about geological sequences and casts(or rocks) within these sequences that accounts for conclusions about evolutionary biology.
I think that a lot of people (and not just creationists!) think that evolution is mostly about fossils. It is true that fossils present spectacular evidence about ancient life, and fossils like Morganucodon and Amphistium fill in details about otherwise puzzling transitions in the history of life. But it should be mentioned prominently that nobody has thought of an explanation for the "tree of life" which didn't involve common descent with modification. And that evolution has been repeatedly observed happening both in the wild and in controlled laboratory conditions. And other realms of observation, such as biogeography, are relevant to evolutionary biology.

I used the word largely. There are other things yet even they are unrelated to biological investigationlike biogeography. They make a few points yet the fossils is king. The great logical flaw that is behind the flaw of evidence backing evolution enough to qualify it as a scientific theory. I understant they invoke the slogan"The fossils say so" they don't say nothing about biology.

Robert Byers · 19 February 2012

harold said:
TomS said:
Robert Byers said: It is largely about geological sequences and casts(or rocks) within these sequences that accounts for conclusions about evolutionary biology.
I think that a lot of people (and not just creationists!) think that evolution is mostly about fossils. It is true that fossils present spectacular evidence about ancient life, and fossils like Morganucodon and Amphistium fill in details about otherwise puzzling transitions in the history of life. But it should be mentioned prominently that nobody has thought of an explanation for the "tree of life" which didn't involve common descent with modification. And that evolution has been repeatedly observed happening both in the wild and in controlled laboratory conditions. And other realms of observation, such as biogeography, are relevant to evolutionary biology.
If there was not a single fossil, the theory of evolution would still have come into existence, and would still be very strong. In fact, the first formulation of it was based on observations of modern life, not fossils. Biochemistry, genetics, microbiology, cell biology and molecular biology all developed somewhat independently of paleontology, and comparative anatomy and physiology could have developed without fossils. The theory of evolution explains the fossils. The incredible value and importance of paleontology is obvious, but as far as the theory of evolution goes, it is one of multiple converging lines of supporting evidence. John - I completely agree, even a coherent theory of ID would need to explain why the theory of evolution still wasn't better; my questions illustrate that there is not even a coherent theory of ID.

Then you have raised the intellectual stakes. I say LARGELY they do invoke fossils when striving to present and persuade the public of evolution as accurate. i say they do largely use fossils for conclusions on lineages and everything almost. Evolution may/or not have come without a single fossil but this is about evidence. evolution is largely claiming to be a scientific theory based on geological presumptions behind casts/rocks with details of former living biology. However reasonable its not biological investigation and can't be allowed to claim so. These other things are largely recent or very secondary evidences. Biology is biology and not molecues really. Charles dArwin himself said that a reader of his should put his book down unless he first accepts the long ages and life within them. I say he must put down he is offering a scientific theory on biology if it rests/needs/is only based on geological presumptions. this was the great logical flaw in the investigation. It was missed as it is missed on this forum.

Robert Byers · 19 February 2012

John_S said:
Robert Byers said: My point was a logical deduction that evolution, not being true, couldn’t possibly have biological evidence behind it.
So basically you conclude in advance that evolution is false, and then use that as proof that all evidence against must be false? That's like saying "Elvis is still alive" and then saying, a priori, that all arguments to the contrary couldn't possibly be right.

Nope. I have concluded evolution is wrong for many reasons but my point is therefore it couldn't possibly be based on biological investigation by biologists. Those who do evolutionary biology are biologists and therefore I logically conclude biological investigation was not done but thought too have been done. I then strive to show why.

DS · 19 February 2012

Robert Byers said:
John_S said:
Robert Byers said: My point was a logical deduction that evolution, not being true, couldn’t possibly have biological evidence behind it.
So basically you conclude in advance that evolution is false, and then use that as proof that all evidence against must be false? That's like saying "Elvis is still alive" and then saying, a priori, that all arguments to the contrary couldn't possibly be right.
Nope. I have concluded evolution is wrong for many reasons but my point is therefore it couldn't possibly be based on biological investigation by biologists. Those who do evolutionary biology are biologists and therefore I logically conclude biological investigation was not done but thought too have been done. I then strive to show why.

Well I have concluded for many reasons that you have no idea what you are talking about. Therefore, everything you say is wrong. I don't even need any reason to declare this, all I have to do is say you are wrong any therefore you are. See how easy it is Robert. Once you make up your mind you don't have to worry about evidence or experiments or experts. You just knows yous is wrights.

co · 19 February 2012

Robert Byers said: [...] barely coherent bullshit [...] I then strive to show why.

Why do you lie so, Robert?

Tenncrain · 19 February 2012

Robert Byers said:
TomS said:
Robert Byers said:
I think that a lot of people (and not just creationists!) think that evolution is mostly about fossils. It is true that fossils present spectacular evidence about ancient life, and fossils like Morganucodon and Amphistium fill in details about otherwise puzzling transitions in the history of life. But it should be mentioned prominently that nobody has thought of an explanation for the "tree of life" which didn't involve common descent with modification. And that evolution has been repeatedly observed happening both in the wild and in controlled laboratory conditions. And other realms of observation, such as biogeography, are relevant to evolutionary biology.
I used the word largely. There are other things yet even they are unrelated to biological investigationlike biogeography. They make a few points yet the fossils is king.

Tell this to biologists studying live specimens from N.America/S.America and specimens from Africa/Europe. Tell these biologists that their conclusions why these two different groups are so similar are not based on biology. Indeed, even before geologists more fully accepted continental drift in the 1960s, some biologists suspected Africa/Europe and N.America/S.America might had been better connected in one way or the other due to similarity in species. Also, do you even know about the revolutionary field of evolutionary developmental biology? Where are the flood of fossils used in evo-devo? Of course, evo-devo is relatively new, but since you're stuck in the 1950s, you're out of the loop.

The great logical flaw that is behind the flaw of evidence backing evolution enough to qualify it as a scientific theory.

I'll let Harold's earlier post on this thread speak for itself: harold said: If there was not a single fossil, the theory of evolution would still have come into existence, and would still be very strong. In fact, the first formulation of it was based on observations of modern life, not fossils. Biochemistry, genetics, microbiology, cell biology and molecular biology all developed somewhat independently of paleontology, and comparative anatomy and physiology could have developed without fossils. The theory of evolution explains the fossils.

I understant they invoke the slogan"The fossils say so"

Well, that might have been the book by Duane 'Galloping' Gish!

they don't say nothing about biology.

Have you ever stopped to think about what the "bio" in front of biogeography really means? What about the third word in 'evolutionary developmental biology'?

apokryltaros · 19 February 2012

co said:
Robert Byers said: [...] barely coherent bullshit [...] I then strive to show why.
Why do you lie so, Robert?

Because he is a brain damaged Idiot Liar For Jesus. Robert Byers a moron who deludes himself into thinking that he can wow us with his Brainpower For Jesus by wagging his finger while going "t'ain't so" over and over and over. Not once has he shown us a remotely logical refutation of Evolution, nor has he bothered to ever show us how Creationism/Intelligent Designism is supposed to be science, let alone a magically superior science to Biology. All he's shown us are Jesus-flavored nonsense, and anti-science babbling.

apokryltaros · 19 February 2012

Tenncrain said:
they don't say nothing about biology.
Have you ever stopped to think about what the "bio" in front of biogeography really means? What about the third word in 'evolutionary developmental biology'?

No, Robert Byers didn't stop to think, because he doesn't think, period. Thinking is anathema to creationists like himself.

John_S · 19 February 2012

Robert Byers said:
John_S said:
Robert Byers said: My point was a logical deduction that evolution, not being true, couldn’t possibly have biological evidence behind it.
So basically you conclude in advance that evolution is false, and then use that as proof that all evidence against must be false? That's like saying "Elvis is still alive" and then saying, a priori, that all arguments to the contrary couldn't possibly be right.
Nope. I have concluded evolution is wrong for many reasons but my point is therefore it couldn't possibly be based on biological investigation by biologists. Those who do evolutionary biology are biologists and therefore I logically conclude biological investigation was not done but thought too have been done. I then strive to show why.

But that's not what you said. You said "evolution, not being true, couldn’t possibly have biological evidence behind it." Now you've turned that around and said essentially that "biological evidence, not being true, couldn’t possibly support evolution." That's a logically valid statement (which your first one was not), which would be true provided you can prove the first premise (biological evidence isn't true). That's going to be a tough row to hoe, considering your argument seems to be based on some sort of "evolutionist" conspiracy theory.

harold · 19 February 2012

Robert Byers -

Then you have raised the intellectual stakes. I say LARGELY they do invoke fossils when striving to present and persuade the public of evolution as accurate. i say they do largely use fossils for conclusions on lineages and everything almost.

That is incorrect. The theory of evolution explains the fossils. The theory of evolution was quite well established long before the vast majority of fossils were found.

Evolution may/or not have come without a single fossil but this is about evidence.

Biochemistry, physiology, classical genetics, population genetics, light microscopic histology, electron microscopy, modern cell biology, and molecular genetics all provide strong converging evidence for evolution.

evolution is largely claiming to be a scientific theory based on geological presumptions behind casts/rocks with details of former living biology.

This most certainly is not the case; however, those casts are very interesting and the theory of evolution provides a framework for understanding them.

These other things are largely recent or very secondary evidences. Biology is biology and not molecues really.

This statement is simply wrong.

Charles dArwin himself said that a reader of his should put his book down unless he first accepts the long ages and life within them.

Biological evolution is actually one type of evidence for a relatively "old" earth, compared to seventeenth century folklore based estimates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Usher Needless to say, if Bishop Usher were alive today, he'd probably accept the scientific consensus, which he simply had no way of knowing during his times. He did an admirable job with the tools he had, but we have better tools.

I say he must put down he is offering a scientific theory on biology if it rests/needs/is only based on geological presumptions.

If biology and geology led to different conclusions about the age of the earth, then one of them would be wrong. However, they lead to the same conclusion about the age of the earth. They are two converging lines of independent evidence.

this was the great logical flaw in the investigation. It was missed as it is missed on this forum

There is no logical flaw. If geology supported a 6000 year old earth, we'd have to reconsider the theory of evolution, but cosmology, astrophysics, astronomy, and the various branches of geology support a relatively "old" earth. Although you take a lot of abuse here, and although I have no doubt that I would find many of your views on other things disturbing, I am inclined to think that you actually are sincerely trying to reconcile your spiritual beliefs with science. You won't be able to do that if you insist on tying your worldview to YEC.

harold · 19 February 2012

Robert Byers and Steve P. -

But why am I talking?

You guys are the ones who advocate ID.

What's the consensus ID view on the age of the earth?

Discuss among yourselves, please.

prongs · 19 February 2012

Every fossil in every museum drawer, and every fossil still encased in sedimentary rock is a fact of evolution that the theory of evolution seeks to explain. And that explanation is descent with modification through natural selection. And no better explanation has ever been found.

apokryltaros · 19 February 2012

prongs said: Every fossil in every museum drawer, and every fossil still encased in sedimentary rock is a fact of evolution that the theory of evolution seeks to explain. And that explanation is descent with modification through natural selection. And no better explanation has ever been found.

In fact, every domesticated plant and domesticated animal is a fact of evolution that has been explained by the theory of evolution.

TomS · 20 February 2012

harold said: Robert Byers and Steve P. - But why am I talking? You guys are the ones who advocate ID. What's the consensus ID view on the age of the earth? Discuss among yourselves, please.

Myself, I prefer not to get into personalities. What I'm interested in is where in all of the literature on "intelligent design" there is a description of what sort of thing happens and when (etc.), and what (etc.) is either more or less likely (or doesn't happen at all). Where is the discussion of the age of life on Earth (or about the sorts of things that happen and those that don't) where we can get some idea of how investigation of "intelligent design" takes place?

harold · 20 February 2012

TomS said:
harold said: Robert Byers and Steve P. - But why am I talking? You guys are the ones who advocate ID. What's the consensus ID view on the age of the earth? Discuss among yourselves, please.
Myself, I prefer not to get into personalities. What I'm interested in is where in all of the literature on "intelligent design" there is a description of what sort of thing happens and when (etc.), and what (etc.) is either more or less likely (or doesn't happen at all). Where is the discussion of the age of life on Earth (or about the sorts of things that happen and those that don't) where we can get some idea of how investigation of "intelligent design" takes place?

My comment does not make any reference to anyone's personality. Science-supporting commenters often explain and summarize the science, see my comment above. I totally agree that I would like to see exactly what you ask for. We have to individuals here who each claim to be advocates of intelligent design, so they can summarize the consensus ID position on the age of the universe, the earth, and life on earth for us. Naturally, citations will be welcome.

TomS · 20 February 2012

"University professor brings anti-evolution discussion to campus"

University of Kansas "Daily Kansan"

http://www.kansan.com/news/2012/feb/19/anti-evolution

"While an emphasis on creationism has waned, intelligent design seems to be the latest fad. However, between zero and two scientific papers that support intelligent design have ever been published, Moran said."

Moran, btw, is the author of this recent book:
Jeffrey P. Moran
American Genesis: The Evolution Controversies from Scopes to Creation Science
Oxford U. Press, 2012

Paul Burnett · 20 February 2012

TomS said: Moran, btw, is the author of this recent book: Jeffrey P. Moran American Genesis: The Evolution Controversies from Scopes to Creation Science Oxford U. Press, 2012

$29.95 at Amazon, and no Kindle edition (yet). I'll pass.

Robert Byers · 21 February 2012

John_S said:
Robert Byers said:
John_S said:
Robert Byers said: My point was a logical deduction that evolution, not being true, couldn’t possibly have biological evidence behind it.
So basically you conclude in advance that evolution is false, and then use that as proof that all evidence against must be false? That's like saying "Elvis is still alive" and then saying, a priori, that all arguments to the contrary couldn't possibly be right.
Nope. I have concluded evolution is wrong for many reasons but my point is therefore it couldn't possibly be based on biological investigation by biologists. Those who do evolutionary biology are biologists and therefore I logically conclude biological investigation was not done but thought too have been done. I then strive to show why.
But that's not what you said. You said "evolution, not being true, couldn’t possibly have biological evidence behind it." Now you've turned that around and said essentially that "biological evidence, not being true, couldn’t possibly support evolution." That's a logically valid statement (which your first one was not), which would be true provided you can prove the first premise (biological evidence isn't true). That's going to be a tough row to hoe, considering your argument seems to be based on some sort of "evolutionist" conspiracy theory.

No conspiracy is being here accused. I'm making a close analysis. I'm saying as a starting hypothesis that if evolution is not true it couldn't possibly have biological evidence from the scientific method to back it up. Then i strive to show the claimed biology in fact is geology presumptions from which mere biological concxlusions are drawn. Without the geology there would be no biology conclusion and this is impossible if it was a biological investigation.! These investigators truly mislead themselves in thinking they are doing biological research. in fact a deadly and subtle error is made. ID folk do the same error when they rely on the cambrian explosion stuff as a major criticism. In fact evolutionists sometimes say SHOW us a rabbit in this or that strata! Yet this very point makes the point is not about biology but geology with biological speculations. yET no biology of living life is going on! A biological theory is not falsifiable if one must falsify a unrelated subject to it to falsify. So evolution, from its biological claims, is not a scientific theory and never was. Which is why its hard to dismiss easily as its hard to get ones hands on it. Slippery slabs.

Robert Byers · 21 February 2012

harold said: Robert Byers -
Then you have raised the intellectual stakes. I say LARGELY they do invoke fossils when striving to present and persuade the public of evolution as accurate. i say they do largely use fossils for conclusions on lineages and everything almost.
That is incorrect. The theory of evolution explains the fossils. The theory of evolution was quite well established long before the vast majority of fossils were found.
Evolution may/or not have come without a single fossil but this is about evidence.
Biochemistry, physiology, classical genetics, population genetics, light microscopic histology, electron microscopy, modern cell biology, and molecular genetics all provide strong converging evidence for evolution.
evolution is largely claiming to be a scientific theory based on geological presumptions behind casts/rocks with details of former living biology.
This most certainly is not the case; however, those casts are very interesting and the theory of evolution provides a framework for understanding them.
These other things are largely recent or very secondary evidences. Biology is biology and not molecues really.
This statement is simply wrong.
Charles dArwin himself said that a reader of his should put his book down unless he first accepts the long ages and life within them.
Biological evolution is actually one type of evidence for a relatively "old" earth, compared to seventeenth century folklore based estimates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Usher Needless to say, if Bishop Usher were alive today, he'd probably accept the scientific consensus, which he simply had no way of knowing during his times. He did an admirable job with the tools he had, but we have better tools.
I say he must put down he is offering a scientific theory on biology if it rests/needs/is only based on geological presumptions.
If biology and geology led to different conclusions about the age of the earth, then one of them would be wrong. However, they lead to the same conclusion about the age of the earth. They are two converging lines of independent evidence.
this was the great logical flaw in the investigation. It was missed as it is missed on this forum
There is no logical flaw. If geology supported a 6000 year old earth, we'd have to reconsider the theory of evolution, but cosmology, astrophysics, astronomy, and the various branches of geology support a relatively "old" earth. Although you take a lot of abuse here, and although I have no doubt that I would find many of your views on other things disturbing, I am inclined to think that you actually are sincerely trying to reconcile your spiritual beliefs with science. You won't be able to do that if you insist on tying your worldview to YEC.

Convergent lines of reasoning ain't biology unless they are. A biological theory must be made on biology and evolution is claimed to be on biological research first and formost. Thats my target here. i say there is no biological research on actual biology although they go atomic on some things that also I se as different from biology. toE explains the fossils you say. Oh yes they do strive to teach the public evolution is explained/proved by the fossils. The fossils only have biological relevance after strata they are found in is accepted. Thought exercise would be IF the fossils showing evolution were in the same strata and not in others would still the same BIOLOGICAL conclusion of their evolution be concluded? NO!. Therefore the biological conclusion is unrelated to biological investigation but related to only geological presumptions. Just like with seals today. There are some with more flexible legs/feet then other species yet they live within hailing distance of each other. YET if they were would in segregated strata it would be insisted that they are in a series of stages of evolution and this claimed from biological investigation. Yet in reality they lived together and this is not evidence of biological evolution. A example I make here to show many of the top ideas claimed for evidence in evolutionary biology are in fact unrelated to biological research even if it was still true about the conclusions. my target is to split the atom here of where a great error of logic entered the whole subject.

dalehusband · 21 February 2012

Robert Byers said: No conspiracy is being here accused. I'm making a close analysis. I'm saying as a starting hypothesis that if evolution is not true it couldn't possibly have biological evidence from the scientific method to back it up. Then i strive to show the claimed biology in fact is geology presumptions from which mere biological concxlusions are drawn. Without the geology there would be no biology conclusion and this is impossible if it was a biological investigation.! These investigators truly mislead themselves in thinking they are doing biological research. in fact a deadly and subtle error is made. ID folk do the same error when they rely on the cambrian explosion stuff as a major criticism. In fact evolutionists sometimes say SHOW us a rabbit in this or that strata! Yet this very point makes the point is not about biology but geology with biological speculations. yET no biology of living life is going on! A biological theory is not falsifiable if one must falsify a unrelated subject to it to falsify. So evolution, from its biological claims, is not a scientific theory and never was. Which is why its hard to dismiss easily as its hard to get ones hands on it. Slippery slabs. Convergent lines of reasoning ain’t biology unless they are. A biological theory must be made on biology and evolution is claimed to be on biological research first and formost. Thats my target here. i say there is no biological research on actual biology although they go atomic on some things that also I se as different from biology. toE explains the fossils you say. Oh yes they do strive to teach the public evolution is explained/proved by the fossils. The fossils only have biological relevance after strata they are found in is accepted. Thought exercise would be IF the fossils showing evolution were in the same strata and not in others would still the same BIOLOGICAL conclusion of their evolution be concluded? NO!. Therefore the biological conclusion is unrelated to biological investigation but related to only geological presumptions. Just like with seals today. There are some with more flexible legs/feet then other species yet they live within hailing distance of each other. YET if they were would in segregated strata it would be insisted that they are in a series of stages of evolution and this claimed from biological investigation. Yet in reality they lived together and this is not evidence of biological evolution. A example I make here to show many of the top ideas claimed for evidence in evolutionary biology are in fact unrelated to biological research even if it was still true about the conclusions. my target is to split the atom here of where a great error of logic entered the whole subject.

You have an incredible knack for ignoring a lot of what people tell you and focusing on one thing and not thinking about anything else. That kind of selective tunnel vision is only because you cannot give a straight answer to the real issues.

harold said: Biochemistry, physiology, classical genetics, population genetics, light microscopic histology, electron microscopy, modern cell biology, and molecular genetics all provide strong converging evidence for evolution.

So you are simply a liar, Byers. Always have been, like nearly all other creationist bigots who come here with their idiotic attitudes.

Dave Lovell · 21 February 2012

Robert Byers said: Just like with seals today. There are some with more flexible legs/feet then other species yet they live within hailing distance of each other. YET if they were would in segregated strata it would be insisted that they are in a series of stages of evolution and this claimed from biological investigation. Yet in reality they lived together and this is not evidence of biological evolution.

There are many many more differences in these animals than the flexibility of their legs/feet, and a biologist specialising in them would be able to distinguish between the two species on maybe a single bone or tooth. If their fossils were found in "segregated strata", (segregated by either time or distance or both) the assumption would not be that one was evolving into the other, but that both were evolving (as every species always is) and the similarities in their anatomies, coupled with the subtle differences between them, would point to their common ancestor and the time since they diverged from it.

apokryltaros · 21 February 2012

And yet, the Moron For Jesus, Robert Byers, still refuses to explain how Creationism/Intelligent Design is supposed to be a superior science to Evolutionary Biology.

DS · 21 February 2012

Robert,

You claim that evolution is not based on biology. You are wrong. Genetics is biology, developmental biology is biology, bIogeography is biology, phylogenetics is biology, comparative anatomy is biology, cytogenetics is biology. Guess what Robert, evidence from all of these fields is used to test the theory of evolution. Your ignorance is not evidence of anything but your ignorance. Quit obsessing over paleontology, it is only one of the fields that supports the modern theory of evolution. Quit trying to split the atom, you are aiming at the wrong target. Quit trying to redefine every field of biology as not being biology just to maintain your illusions, you ain't foolin no one no how.

Now if you want to talk about no evidence and no biology, that's YEC man. Get a clue.

apokryltaros · 21 February 2012

DS said: Robert, You claim that evolution is not based on biology. You are wrong. Genetics is biology, developmental biology is biology, bIogeography is biology, phylogenetics is biology, comparative anatomy is biology, cytogenetics is biology. Guess what Robert, evidence from all of these fields is used to test the theory of evolution. Your ignorance is not evidence of anything but your ignorance. Quit obsessing over paleontology, it is only one of the fields that supports the modern theory of evolution. Quit trying to split the atom, you are aiming at the wrong target. Quit trying to redefine every field of biology as not being biology just to maintain your illusions, you ain't foolin no one no how.

Really, you have begrudgingly admire the gall of this moron trying to redefine all the fields of Biology to actual biologists and students of Biology. Then again, his schtick got old a long, long time ago.

Now if you want to talk about no evidence and no biology, that's YEC man. Get a clue.

Yeah, and Robert Byers wants us to believe that modern animals magically hyperevolved from mysterious, magical refugees from the Ark, yet, he also tries to convince us that "evolution" as defined by Biology is totally, magically impossible. Is there a word in the English language to describe someone who's too (deliberately) stupid to realize his/her own illogical hypocrisy?

TomS · 21 February 2012

apokryltaros said: Is there a word in the English language to describe someone who's too (deliberately) stupid to realize his/her own illogical hypocrisy?

Dunning-Kruger effect

harold · 21 February 2012

Really, you have begrudgingly admire the gall of this moron trying to redefine all the fields of Biology to actual biologists and students of Biology

I'm impressed by the level of gall, indeed, but I reserve the right not to "admire" it :).

rossum · 21 February 2012

Robert Byers said: I'm making a close analysis. I'm saying as a starting hypothesis that if evolution is not true it couldn't possibly have biological evidence from the scientific method to back it up. Then i strive to show the claimed biology in fact is geology presumptions from which mere biological concxlusions are drawn.

This is faulty logic. Define E = "evolution is not true". Define B = "there is no biological evidence for evolution". You start with a logical implication (an if ... then) E => B You then try to establish the truth of B. However that does not help you at all. It merely shows that you weren't paying attention during lessons in symbolic logic. Starting from E => B, then B will not get you as far as you think it will. In order to show E, which is what you want, you also have to show that there is no C, such that C != E and C => B. That is, that there is only one possible reason for the biological evidence not to exist. If any such C exists, then you have failed. Your error is not uncommon, it is called "Affirming the consequent". An example: R => D : "IF Robert Byers murders someone THEN that person is dead." D : "George Washington is dead." Therefore (affirming the consequent) R : "Robert Byers murdered George Washington." The error is that there are more possible causes of death (my C above) than murder by Robert Byers. It is quite obvious that George Washington was, in fact, murdered by King Charles II: C => D rossum

Scott F · 21 February 2012

Dave Luckett said: But ID? It's not even a starting point. Not only doesn't it get to first base, it hasn't swung at a pitch, walked up to the plate, or shown up at the game. It's somewhere on the other side of town wearing the uniform made by its mom and talking about how they won't let it in the big leagues on the totally unfair grounds that it has never played a game in its life.

You, sir, are a poet. :-)

harold · 21 February 2012

Rossum - Good point; because your point may seem subtle to some, I will note a couple of things, to prevent confusion. 1) As it happens there is plenty of biological evidence for evolution, and the theory of evolution is "true" by the same standards of evidence based reasoning that any other major scientific theory is true. Strictly speaking, this is not relevant to the point that Rossum made, but I point it out to prevent confusion. 2) As it happens, Byers is desperately backpedaling because he made a statement that was too honest and caused him discomfort. He stated...

My point was a logical deduction that evolution, not being true, couldn’t possibly have biological evidence behind it. Therefore it couldn’t be the product of biological investigation with (or even without) using the scientific method

This is a perfectly accurate statement of Byers' actual view, with the caveat that the word "biological" isn't needed. Byers makes the a priori assumption that the theory of evolution isn't true. No evidence can convince him otherwise. Byers quickly backed away from this, probably because he recognized that this looks like the type of honest argumentation that got "creation science" in trouble in courts, but it's actually an accurate statement of his position. What's ironic is that in this initial statement was, although factually wrong, logically coherent. Suppose we somehow absolutely know in advance that "A" isn't true and that no fully informed line of logical deduction can lead to conclusion "A". Then we can indeed conclude that any line of logic that ostensibly leads to the conclusion "A" must be incorrect. This is an artificial situation, of course, but if we could know with certainty that A could not possibly be true, the logic would work. Byers actually went from faulty assumption, but logic consistent with that assumption, to faulty assumption and bad logic.

DS · 21 February 2012

"Byers actually went from faulty assumption, but logic consistent with that assumption, to faulty assumption and bad logic."

And all the while ignoring all the rules for grammar and spelling. The trifecta!

How do guys like this ever hope to convince anyone of anything but the fact that they are completely clueless? Oh well, I guess that's why they let him post here in the first place. Ironically, this statement is actually correct and logical:

My point was a logical deduction that creationism, not being true, couldn’t possibly have biological evidence behind it. Therefore it couldn’t be the product of biological investigation with (or even without) using the scientific method.

And indeed, it is not, as creationists have demonstrated for every minute of every day for the last one hundred and fifty years.

rossum · 21 February 2012

Scott F said:
Dave Luckett said: But ID? It's not even a starting point. Not only doesn't it get to first base, it hasn't swung at a pitch, walked up to the plate, or shown up at the game. It's somewhere on the other side of town wearing the uniform made by its mom and talking about how they won't let it in the big leagues on the totally unfair grounds that it has never played a game in its life.
You, sir, are a poet. :-)

Tat brings to mind, Shakespearean Baseball: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhQ9aeCE8Oo

Tenncrain · 21 February 2012

Robert Byers said: Without the geology there would be no biology conclusion and this is impossible if it was a biological investigation.!

Once again, show us in detail where all the fossils are in evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo). How is geology a direct foundation of evo-devo? But since you're on such a geology fetish, also tell us why there were literally no YECs in geology/paleontology until relatively recently. Inform us why the rare token YEC geologists like Kurt Wise, Steve Austin (no, not the Six Million Dollar Man), Marcus Ross are so hard to find in mainstream geology peer review journals and at mainstream geology meetings/seminars. Keep in mind you were also provided these Gordon Glover and Glenn Morton links so you could respond in due time with specific rebuttals.

Henry J · 21 February 2012

I’m saying as a starting hypothesis that if evolution is not true it couldn’t possibly have biological evidence from the scientific method to back it up.

Two points here: 1) Since there is plenty of evidence, the proposed implication is irrelevant. 2) A theory doesn't have to be "true" as such to be a useful approximation; consider Newton's laws of motion as case in point. Henry

Robert Byers · 23 February 2012

Dave Lovell said:
Robert Byers said: Just like with seals today. There are some with more flexible legs/feet then other species yet they live within hailing distance of each other. YET if they were would in segregated strata it would be insisted that they are in a series of stages of evolution and this claimed from biological investigation. Yet in reality they lived together and this is not evidence of biological evolution.
There are many many more differences in these animals than the flexibility of their legs/feet, and a biologist specialising in them would be able to distinguish between the two species on maybe a single bone or tooth. If their fossils were found in "segregated strata", (segregated by either time or distance or both) the assumption would not be that one was evolving into the other, but that both were evolving (as every species always is) and the similarities in their anatomies, coupled with the subtle differences between them, would point to their common ancestor and the time since they diverged from it.

Its an option they would say one led to the other. if there was not other details but just the feet etc they would say this just because of the segregated strata. Anyways it all still would not be on biology but on geology that conclusions about biology would be made. I think they would and they would think its reasonable and yet be wrong.

Robert Byers · 23 February 2012

rossum said:
Robert Byers said: I'm making a close analysis. I'm saying as a starting hypothesis that if evolution is not true it couldn't possibly have biological evidence from the scientific method to back it up. Then i strive to show the claimed biology in fact is geology presumptions from which mere biological concxlusions are drawn.
This is faulty logic. Define E = "evolution is not true". Define B = "there is no biological evidence for evolution". You start with a logical implication (an if ... then) E => B You then try to establish the truth of B. However that does not help you at all. It merely shows that you weren't paying attention during lessons in symbolic logic. Starting from E => B, then B will not get you as far as you think it will. In order to show E, which is what you want, you also have to show that there is no C, such that C != E and C => B. That is, that there is only one possible reason for the biological evidence not to exist. If any such C exists, then you have failed. Your error is not uncommon, it is called "Affirming the consequent". An example: R => D : "IF Robert Byers murders someone THEN that person is dead." D : "George Washington is dead." Therefore (affirming the consequent) R : "Robert Byers murdered George Washington." The error is that there are more possible causes of death (my C above) than murder by Robert Byers. It is quite obvious that George Washington was, in fact, murdered by King Charles II: C => D rossum

i'm not establishing B. i'm making a closer point. I'm saying there is NO biological investigation behind the evidence. i'm not dealing with biological evidence but only the investigation claim. I'm not saying there is not other reasons for the evidence to be missing but again its not about the evidence. its about the investigation.

Robert Byers · 23 February 2012

harold said: Rossum - Good point; because your point may seem subtle to some, I will note a couple of things, to prevent confusion. 1) As it happens there is plenty of biological evidence for evolution, and the theory of evolution is "true" by the same standards of evidence based reasoning that any other major scientific theory is true. Strictly speaking, this is not relevant to the point that Rossum made, but I point it out to prevent confusion. 2) As it happens, Byers is desperately backpedaling because he made a statement that was too honest and caused him discomfort. He stated...
My point was a logical deduction that evolution, not being true, couldn’t possibly have biological evidence behind it. Therefore it couldn’t be the product of biological investigation with (or even without) using the scientific method
This is a perfectly accurate statement of Byers' actual view, with the caveat that the word "biological" isn't needed. Byers makes the a priori assumption that the theory of evolution isn't true. No evidence can convince him otherwise. Byers quickly backed away from this, probably because he recognized that this looks like the type of honest argumentation that got "creation science" in trouble in courts, but it's actually an accurate statement of his position. What's ironic is that in this initial statement was, although factually wrong, logically coherent. Suppose we somehow absolutely know in advance that "A" isn't true and that no fully informed line of logical deduction can lead to conclusion "A". Then we can indeed conclude that any line of logic that ostensibly leads to the conclusion "A" must be incorrect. This is an artificial situation, of course, but if we could know with certainty that A could not possibly be true, the logic would work. Byers actually went from faulty assumption, but logic consistent with that assumption, to faulty assumption and bad logic.

NO backpedaling! I only was making a close point. I said if evolution is not true then there couldn't be biological evidence behind it. Therefore there couldn't of been a biological investigation using the scientific method. Then i strive to point out why INDEED their is no biological investigation going on. I strive to show its really a geological investigation with biological conclusions. A fatal flaw in historic evolutionary biology. My logic and case here is to tease out and point out whether the main or historic points about EVIDENCE for evolution have all along had nothing to do with biological research regarding the evidence. There was nothing wrong with the biologists but they were not aware they were drawing conclusions for important matters about biology without doing biology. They were doing lines of reasoning and geology or very secondary subjects. they do press home about fossils. Which are mere stamps of former biology and mostly just bones and teeth. Things not that alive themselves when in a living being. My logic is good here from my assumption and my purpose. To prove me wrong one would have to show how fossils get biological research on them that links them in a evolutionary process way with other fossils. not just mere strata levels. lots of creationist criticisms can be made like this although I don't see it much. tHey try to debunk the presented evidence before demanding first if the evidence is scientific.

rossum · 23 February 2012

Robert Byers said: i'm not establishing B. i'm making a closer point. I'm saying there is NO biological investigation behind the evidence. i'm not dealing with biological evidence but only the investigation claim. I'm not saying there is not other reasons for the evidence to be missing but again its not about the evidence. its about the investigation.

You are wrong about the biological evidence for evolution. Chromosome fusion is biological evidence. Antibiotic resistance is biological evidence. DNA sequencing is biological evidence. The twin nested hierarchy is biological evidence. Chromosome fusion was discovered by investigation. You are wrong about that. Antibiotic resistance was discovered by investigation. You are wrong about that. DNA sequencing was discovered by investigation. You are wrong about that. The twin nested hierarchy was discovered by investigation. You are wrong about that.

apokryltaros · 23 February 2012

Robert Byers said: *anti-science babbling snipped*

Robert Byers, you're a babbling idiot. Of course fossils have everything to do with Biology: they are the remains of living organisms. If there was any sort of "fatal flaw" in studying them scientifically, scientists would have found that out, not a blind moron like you.

apokryltaros · 23 February 2012

rossum said:
Robert Byers said: i'm not establishing B. i'm making a closer point. I'm saying there is NO biological investigation behind the evidence. i'm not dealing with biological evidence but only the investigation claim. I'm not saying there is not other reasons for the evidence to be missing but again its not about the evidence. its about the investigation.
You are wrong about the biological evidence for evolution. Chromosome fusion is biological evidence. Antibiotic resistance is biological evidence. DNA sequencing is biological evidence. The twin nested hierarchy is biological evidence. Chromosome fusion was discovered by investigation. You are wrong about that. Antibiotic resistance was discovered by investigation. You are wrong about that. DNA sequencing was discovered by investigation. You are wrong about that. The twin nested hierarchy was discovered by investigation. You are wrong about that.

Of course Robert Byers will say that there is no evidence for Evolution: he's a blind moron who denies evidence For Jesus.

DS · 23 February 2012

Robert Byers said: i'm not establishing B. i'm making a closer point. I'm saying there is NO biological investigation behind the evidence. i'm not dealing with biological evidence but only the investigation claim. I'm not saying there is not other reasons for the evidence to be missing but again its not about the evidence. its about the investigation.

Right. Well when you are ready to deal with the evidence, instead of just denigrating the experts who did the work, let us know. You'l be in for a real shock. It is about the evidence Robert. You are just making up crap to cover the fact that evidence is 100% against you. Deal with it. Your "logic" is worthless because you start from a false premise. After that it's all down hill. Cut the crap and deal with the evidence. As rossum pointed out, the evidence for chromosomal fusion clearly demonstrates that humans have two fused chimp chromosomes. How do you explain this? A) It isn't really biology B) It isn't really science C) No one actually saw it happen so it didn't D) All scientists are lying and just out to get me E) Evolution is true and humans shared a common ancestor with chimps Pick one and STFU already.

co · 23 February 2012

Byers, are you aware (always a risky question here) that people are allowed to look *across* disciplines to learn about the world? Would you be having your same objection if the study of nature were called "Natural Philosophy" and not divided into "geology" and "biology" and the like?

Tenncrain · 23 February 2012

Tenncrain said:
Robert Byers said: Without the geology there would be no biology conclusion and this is impossible if it was a biological investigation.!
Once again, show us in detail where all the fossils are in evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo). How is geology a direct foundation of evo-devo? But since you're on such a geology fetish, also tell us why there were literally no YECs in geology/paleontology until relatively recently. Inform us why the rare token YEC geologists like Kurt Wise, Steve Austin (no, not the Six Million Dollar Man), Marcus Ross are so hard to find in mainstream geology peer review journals and at mainstream geology meetings/seminars. Keep in mind you were also provided these Gordon Glover and Glenn Morton links so you could respond in due time with specific rebuttals.

Still no answers, Byers? Not even one? Reminds us of Judge John Jones directly questioning defendant witness Alan Bonsell (the ever truthful Dover PA school board member and YEC). Even after looking at the court transcripts, you lose count how many times Jones said to Bonsell, "I'm still waiting for an answer"

fnxtr · 23 February 2012

rossum said:
Scott F said:
Dave Luckett said: But ID? It's not even a starting point. Not only doesn't it get to first base, it hasn't swung at a pitch, walked up to the plate, or shown up at the game. It's somewhere on the other side of town wearing the uniform made by its mom and talking about how they won't let it in the big leagues on the totally unfair grounds that it has never played a game in its life.
You, sir, are a poet. :-)
Tat brings to mind, Shakespearean Baseball: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhQ9aeCE8Oo

Wow they actually did something funny. :-) Tat brings to mind Shakespearean tennis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Sx4W2cKlU

Robert Byers · 24 February 2012

rossum said:
Robert Byers said: i'm not establishing B. i'm making a closer point. I'm saying there is NO biological investigation behind the evidence. i'm not dealing with biological evidence but only the investigation claim. I'm not saying there is not other reasons for the evidence to be missing but again its not about the evidence. its about the investigation.
You are wrong about the biological evidence for evolution. Chromosome fusion is biological evidence. Antibiotic resistance is biological evidence. DNA sequencing is biological evidence. The twin nested hierarchy is biological evidence. Chromosome fusion was discovered by investigation. You are wrong about that. Antibiotic resistance was discovered by investigation. You are wrong about that. DNA sequencing was discovered by investigation. You are wrong about that. The twin nested hierarchy was discovered by investigation. You are wrong about that.

This list is fine for results from scientific investigation. Yet evolutionary biology is largely unrelated to atomic matter but claims to deal with flesh and blood real life. this is what is not investigated with science but rather lines of reasoning and geology. Darwins stuff.

Robert Byers · 24 February 2012

co said: Byers, are you aware (always a risky question here) that people are allowed to look *across* disciplines to learn about the world? Would you be having your same objection if the study of nature were called "Natural Philosophy" and not divided into "geology" and "biology" and the like?

Look away!! Yet don't claim evolutionary biology in its great points is based on biological evidence. It ain't. It couldn't be since its not true. First things first.

rossum · 24 February 2012

Robert Byers said: This list is fine for results from scientific investigation. Yet evolutionary biology is largely unrelated to atomic matter but claims to deal with flesh and blood real life. this is what is not investigated with science but rather lines of reasoning and geology. Darwins stuff.

Bwahahahaha! Everything studied in biology is made of "atomic matter". DNA is made from atoms. RNA is made from atoms. Proteins are made from atoms. All biological organisms from the smallest virus to the largest blue whale are made from atoms. You aren't referring to some sort of Vitalist position, are you? Your lack of knowledge of science does make me wonder. Your attempt to dismiss evidence by re-engineering it on the name level is transparently ridiculous. How about: The Bible is not "spiritual evidence" because the Bible is made from atoms and atoms are not spiritual, but material. You are looking for excuses to avoid the evidence. That tells me that you have no real answer to the evidence. rossum

apokryltaros · 24 February 2012

Robert Byers said:
co said: Byers, are you aware (always a risky question here) that people are allowed to look *across* disciplines to learn about the world? Would you be having your same objection if the study of nature were called "Natural Philosophy" and not divided into "geology" and "biology" and the like?
Look away!! Yet don't claim evolutionary biology in its great points is based on biological evidence. It ain't. It couldn't be since its not true. First things first.

So what evidence is there for Young Earth Creationism? Oh, wait, there is none. You keep saying there is, yet, you never ever ever bother to show us what evidence there is for Young Earth Creationism. Why? Hell, you won't even explain to us how Young Earth Creationism is supposed to be science, despite your incessant claims that it is. Is it because you're just repeating your brainwashing?

DS · 24 February 2012

Robert Byers said: This list is fine for results from scientific investigation. Yet evolutionary biology is largely unrelated to atomic matter but claims to deal with flesh and blood real life. this is what is not investigated with science but rather lines of reasoning and geology. Darwins stuff.

Actually Robert, as has ben pointed out to you numerous times, this is completely wrong. Creationism, on the other hand, is largely unrelated to science in general, as well as biology, atomic matter, geology, or anything else in reality. Deal with it and stop making stupid and ignorant statements. You are not fooling anyone.

Robert Byers · 24 February 2012

rossum said:
Robert Byers said: This list is fine for results from scientific investigation. Yet evolutionary biology is largely unrelated to atomic matter but claims to deal with flesh and blood real life. this is what is not investigated with science but rather lines of reasoning and geology. Darwins stuff.
Bwahahahaha! Everything studied in biology is made of "atomic matter". DNA is made from atoms. RNA is made from atoms. Proteins are made from atoms. All biological organisms from the smallest virus to the largest blue whale are made from atoms. You aren't referring to some sort of Vitalist position, are you? Your lack of knowledge of science does make me wonder. Your attempt to dismiss evidence by re-engineering it on the name level is transparently ridiculous. How about: The Bible is not "spiritual evidence" because the Bible is made from atoms and atoms are not spiritual, but material. You are looking for excuses to avoid the evidence. That tells me that you have no real answer to the evidence. rossum

Nope. Physics is not biology. Biological life and process is only a special case of atoms at work. It is different then speculations on DNA. Concepts do matter here. This is why the error of evolution stuck around so long. They sincerely misunderstood evolutionary biology was based on biological research. I see this all the time. Even on pandas thumb contributors always stress the fossil record as the evidence for evolution progression. Yet this is not biological evidence even if true. Such great conclusions about biological heritage and processes demands biological investigation and not mere fossil sorting in strata . A logical flaw which in the future will be claimed as the reason evolution stuck around longer then its due.

rossum · 24 February 2012

Robert Byers said: Nope. Physics is not biology. Biological life and process is only a special case of atoms at work. It is different then speculations on DNA. Concepts do matter here. This is why the error of evolution stuck around so long. They sincerely misunderstood evolutionary biology was based on biological research. I see this all the time. Even on pandas thumb contributors always stress the fossil record as the evidence for evolution progression. Yet this is not biological evidence even if true. Such great conclusions about biological heritage and processes demands biological investigation and not mere fossil sorting in strata . A logical flaw which in the future will be claimed as the reason evolution stuck around longer then its due.

The Bible is not a spiritual book, it is only a special case of atoms stuck together. It is different than speculations on theology. Concepts do matter here. This is why the error of the Bible stuck around so long. They sincerely misunderstood spirituality was based on Biblical research. I see this all the time. Even on pandas thumb YECs always stress the Biblical record as the evidence for spirituality. Yet this is not spiritual evidence even if true. Such great conclusions about spiritual heritage and processes demands spiritual investigation and not mere Bible studies. A logical flaw which in the future will be claimed as the reason Bible studies stuck around longer then its due. So, Robert, you are telling us that it is useless to study the Bible because it is made of atoms, and so cannot tell us anything about spirituality. Hmmm... Let me get back to you on that. rossum

DS · 24 February 2012

Robert Byers said:
rossum said:
Robert Byers said: This list is fine for results from scientific investigation. Yet evolutionary biology is largely unrelated to atomic matter but claims to deal with flesh and blood real life. this is what is not investigated with science but rather lines of reasoning and geology. Darwins stuff.
Bwahahahaha! Everything studied in biology is made of "atomic matter". DNA is made from atoms. RNA is made from atoms. Proteins are made from atoms. All biological organisms from the smallest virus to the largest blue whale are made from atoms. You aren't referring to some sort of Vitalist position, are you? Your lack of knowledge of science does make me wonder. Your attempt to dismiss evidence by re-engineering it on the name level is transparently ridiculous. How about: The Bible is not "spiritual evidence" because the Bible is made from atoms and atoms are not spiritual, but material. You are looking for excuses to avoid the evidence. That tells me that you have no real answer to the evidence. rossum
Nope. Physics is not biology. Biological life and process is only a special case of atoms at work. It is different then speculations on DNA. Concepts do matter here. This is why the error of evolution stuck around so long. They sincerely misunderstood evolutionary biology was based on biological research. I see this all the time. Even on pandas thumb contributors always stress the fossil record as the evidence for evolution progression. Yet this is not biological evidence even if true. Such great conclusions about biological heritage and processes demands biological investigation and not mere fossil sorting in strata . A logical flaw which in the future will be claimed as the reason evolution stuck around longer then its due.

Not even close. Try again.

Henry J · 25 February 2012

Physics describes the matter that we and the stuff around us is made out of.

Chemistry describes the 118 or so elements made out of that matter, and their compounds.

Biology describes self replicating structures made from those elements and compounds.

Geology deals with the matter of which this planet is made, including parts of it that happen to be biological.

Astronomy deals with very large structures made of that same kind of matter, some held together primarily by gravity.

They each focus on various aspects of the same universe.

Each of them also deals with how its primary subject affects the other areas.

Often there isn't a sharp dividing line between these categories, kind of like the frequent lack of sharp boundary between closely related species. (Heck, just think of all those other categories of science for which the name is a compound word of two or three of the above!)

Henry

Niltava · 25 February 2012

I think Byers problem really is a Vitalistic one. He thinks Biology isn't just about Chemistry and Physics, hence these fields cannot prove anything in the field of Biology. Faulty logic of course.

Hey Byers, even if YOU do not believe so, the science of biology is all based on chemistry and physics. Yep, biology is all molecules, REALLY. Even if, by your twisted logic, there were no "biological investigation" it would not matter. Physics and chemistry is enough.

What your saying is somewhat along the lines: radiation therapy cannot cure cancer because radiation is really just physics and not medicine. So I take it you will refuse any oncologist's advice and just eat garlic, should you get cancer in the future?

Robert Byers · 28 February 2012

Niltava said: I think Byers problem really is a Vitalistic one. He thinks Biology isn't just about Chemistry and Physics, hence these fields cannot prove anything in the field of Biology. Faulty logic of course. Hey Byers, even if YOU do not believe so, the science of biology is all based on chemistry and physics. Yep, biology is all molecules, REALLY. Even if, by your twisted logic, there were no "biological investigation" it would not matter. Physics and chemistry is enough. What your saying is somewhat along the lines: radiation therapy cannot cure cancer because radiation is really just physics and not medicine. So I take it you will refuse any oncologist's advice and just eat garlic, should you get cancer in the future?

No. Not a accurate analogy. Radiation does a affect upon biological organs. Yet radiation is NOT a biological subject. Biology is about living/ interacting, life. To accomplish achievement in it requires the study and discovery of it. Other subjects dealing with atoms or sediment that piggyback on it are still other subjects and not conclusions thereof are not biological ones as a result of biological research. Something other. A historic logic flaw within a wrong idea/hypothesis in nature.

Dave Luckett · 28 February 2012

Byers actually thinks he's on to something with that. He's that stupid.

Radiation affects biological organs, but chemistry and physics and geology don't? Byers, follow your own precepts: swallow some cyanide, (a chemical), and go jump off a cliff. That'll soon tell you if chemistry, physics and geology have an effect on your organs.

apokryltaros · 28 February 2012

Dave Luckett said: Byers actually thinks he's on to something with that. He's that stupid. Radiation affects biological organs, but chemistry and physics and geology don't? Byers, follow your own precepts: swallow some cyanide, (a chemical), and go jump off a cliff. That'll soon tell you if chemistry, physics and geology have an effect on your organs.

Or better yet, Robert Byers should see what happens when you point a dentist's X-ray gun at his internal organs without the courtesy of a lead-lined bib. Then again, he wouldn't care, as he always just pulls out stupid inanity after stupid inanity out of his ass to somehow justify that Biology/Evolution is not science, but Creationism is, even though he steadfast refuses to explain to us how Creationism is supposed to be science, let alone refuse to explain to us how Creationism is supposed to be a superior science (besides claiming that he says the Bible said so)

DS · 28 February 2012

Dave Luckett said: Byers actually thinks he's on to something with that. He's that stupid. Radiation affects biological organs, but chemistry and physics and geology don't? Byers, follow your own precepts: swallow some cyanide, (a chemical), and go jump off a cliff. That'll soon tell you if chemistry, physics and geology have an effect on your organs.

I think he already did that, hence the mental problems. Apparently Robert has never heard of radiobiology, a field that has been around for over one hundred years. I took a course with this title in undergrad. But then again, by just redefining any area of science as being "not biology" He has an excuse to ignore all of the evidence. Funny how he never answered when asked if genetics, population genetics, developmental biology and evolutionary development were real biology. I guess it's all just words games and nonsense from a myopic YEC. Anyway, all of this nonsense if way off topic. Time for another dump to the bathroom wall.