Jan 262007
 

Question: What do you call a person who hypothesizes an unseen intelligent being and searches outer space for confirming material evidence?

Answer: A scientist.

Question: What do you call a person who hypothesizes an unseen intelligent being and searches inner space for confirming material evidence?

Answer: A religious nut.

  106 Responses to “Double Standard”

  1. Question: What do you call a person who hypothesizes a human-like extraterrestrial intelligent being who want to communicate with us, speculates as to how that communication might be achieved, then sets up a research program to search outer space for confirming material evidence? And does not claim his hypothesis is science – at least until that evidence is found.
    Answer: A scientist.
    Question: What do you call a person who hypothesizes an unseen intelligent being, but refuses to speculate about the nature of this unseen intelligent being because it is presumptuous to think mere hmans can ponder God, searches the literture for quotes that can be taken out of context to support the hypothesis, rather than doing any sort of original research? And that uses politics to get the hypothesis taught as science in schools.
    Answer: A religious nut.

  2. there is a thin line between humor and sarcasm

  3. What do you call a person who hypothesizes an unseen intelligent being, but refuses to speculate about the nature of this unseen intelligent being because it is presumptuous to think mere hmans can ponder God,

    This is a cliche critique. IDers talk about the nature of a creator/designer all the time. They just make a distinction between what can be established empirically and what is contingent on other forms of evidence.

  4. Inunison

    Sarcasm is a type of humour. Let me guess… You think my post was sarcastic, and yours was not. I suspect the reasoning goes something like this: When you say it it is humour, when your opponents say it it is sarcasm. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe you have an objective rationale for making the determination.

    Bradford

    Of course it is a a cliche. That does not make it wrong. I have been accused of being presumptuous a few times on this blog for daring to consider how the design might go about the design process. I think the reality is that IDists like the luxury of being able to discuss the nature of the design when it suits them, and making the discussion taboo when non-IDists gets too close to calling Him God.

    That is a generalisation, I appreciate. Actually, I would be interested to see any web pages when IDists discuss the nature of the designer and the design process. They are out there, Mike Gene at TelicThoughts, for example, is positing a human-like intelligence front-loading information in at the creation of first life. I have not come across any others.

  5. I think the reality is that IDists like the luxury of being able to discuss the nature of the design when it suits them, and making the discussion taboo when non-IDists gets too close to calling Him God.

    No, The Pixie, problem is not in discussing God being designer. Problem is using theological arguments to support your “scientific” theory.

    Links that you asked for and some additional material:

    http://www.werner-gitt.de/down_eng.html

    http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/natureofdesigner.htm

    http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Design-Science-Natural-Philosophy/dp/0791448940 (this is a book)

    http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1147

    However you will not find many IDist’s sites that discuss this as it is not part of ID proposals. Most if not all Creationist sites will be happy to oblige you.

  6. sar·casm

    1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
    2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm

    Hi The Pixie, please let me know how did I derogatory described SETI researchers. Unlike your sense of humor there was not a trace of offense in my post nor any kind of accusations.

  7. Unlike your sense of humor there was not a trace of offense in my post nor any kind of accusations.

    It sure sounded like an accusation of double standards to me.

    You know, like giving the thread the title “Double standard”. Maybe I am missing something here?

  8. I would be interested to see any web pages when IDists discuss the nature of the designer and the design process.

    There are plenty of sites willing to discuss the nature of God. There are plenty of sites willing to discuss the nature of physical evidence. The contention that a designer must be IDeed before one can make a design inference is a canard. BTW, let me know when you identify the blind watchmaker who utilized a selection pathway to the first cell.

  9. Inunison

    Thanks for the links. The first of these was not what I would call ID, but rather was a collection of essays that were creationism or Christian apologetics or just philosophy, and of course these have a fine tradition of considering the nature of God (and you noted this too). I was thinking more about specifically ID. I did not read the book either.

    The second link was called “Information Theory and DNA – Nature of the Designer”. This seemed more hopeful, but the auther calls the designer the “uncaused coder” and a “supernatural force”. Interestingly, he also say “My claim is that God is immaterial, not material”, so is this really ID if the say the G. word? Hmm, maybe I am thinking that if they start describing God then – by definition – it is not ID. The author also says we cannot determine much about the designer “The supposed complexity or details of God cannot be determined from my syllogism, nor is there any need for my syllogism to make such determinations.”

    The IDEA web page would seem to agree with me! “One need not fully understand the origin or identity of the designer to determine that an object was designed. Thus, this question is essentially irrelevant to intelligent design theory, which merely seeks to detect if an object was designed.”

    Bradford

    The contention that a designer must be IDeed before one can make a design inference is a canard.

    But this is my point! ID has done its very best to try to convince everyone that you can detect design, without knowing and without determining anything about the designer. It is like supposing that an archaeologist could unearth an artefact and declare that it was designed, and somehow he managed to determine that without finding anything out about the culture the produced the artefact. Just finding a piece of pottery tells him the culture could make pots, just finding an arrow head tells him the culture used arrows. It is like a forensic scientist determining that the deceased was murdered, without noticing that he had been shot! I cannot imagine how a forensic science could determine “design” without also determining how it was done.

    ID is different, I know. Specifically, ID is different because the usual arguments rely of elimination, and claiming the default position. Indeed, we can see that in your comment “BTW, let me know when you identify the blind watchmaker who utilized a selection pathway to the first cell”, which seems to say we should accept ID because the naturalistic explanation is lacking. I guess this is like a forensic scientist going through a checklist; not heart attack, not brain tumour… and so on, eliminating all the known natural causes. Once he has done that he can be sure it must be “design”. Or an unknown natural cause.

  10. Going back to the thread topic, and leaving aside accusations of accusation making…

    The message from the OP seems to be:

    SETI is considered science
    SETI is searching for signs of intelligence
    ID is searching for signs of intelligence
    Therefore ID should be considered science

    Personally, I think that reasoning is spurious. Consider this:

    Bananas are considered fruit
    Bananas are yellow
    Custard is yellow
    Therefore custard should be considered fruit

    Pretty clearly this is nonsense. The reason it is nonsense is that there are certain criteria we use to determine if something is a fruit. And being yellow is not one of them. Just because something is yellow, that does not make it fruit. It is the same for science. There are certain criteria for deciding if something is science or not, and a search for intelligence is not one of them.

    The thing about science is not so much what it is searching for, but how. This is why we have a thing called the scientific method. The scientific method is how to search, if you want to be called a scientist, and not a religious nutter.

    Of course, this thread was posted under the “Homur” category, so perhaps the author was fully aware of this, but wanted to post his fallacious argument anyway.

  11. But this is my point! ID has done its very best to try to convince everyone that you can detect design, without knowing and without determining anything about the designer. It is like supposing that an archaeologist could unearth an artefact and declare that it was designed, and somehow he managed to determine that without finding anything out about the culture the produced the artefact. Just finding a piece of pottery tells him the culture could make pots, just finding an arrow head tells him the culture used arrows.

    This example illustrates why the immediate inference of not simply design, but intelligent design, is justified before further information is acquired. Future space travellers would immediately make that supposition upon finding an artefact on a previously unvisited planet, even if no intelligent life were otherwise evident. The better question is why someone would assume an incremental, unguided, unobserved and larely unspecified process would be a more plausible explanation.

  12. Bradford

    This example illustrates why the immediate inference of not simply design, but intelligent design, is justified before further information is acquired.

    What is the difference between simple design and intelligent design?

    Future space travellers would immediately make that supposition upon finding an artefact on a previously unvisited planet, even if no intelligent life were otherwise evident.

    Okay, no problem. But that artefact would immediately lead to conjectures about the sort of intelligence that created it. They would not spend years looking at numerous artefact and eventually conclude design, and then move on to stage two, assessing what the intelligence was like. The two processes naturally go hand in hand. As they discover each possible artefact, they will consider whether it was designed at the same as they consider how it was made, what its purpose was and so on. Sometimes they may not be able to answer those questions, but no serious, scientific investigation starts off by saying the questions are irrelevant.

  13. But that artefact would immediately lead to conjectures about the sort of intelligence that created it. They would not spend years looking at numerous artefact and eventually conclude design, and then move on to stage two, assessing what the intelligence was like. The two processes naturally go hand in hand. As they discover each possible artefact, they will consider whether it was designed

    That question is already answered. Any fool who sees inscribed symbols on an object found on another planet and has to think it might not be designed because natural forces might have caused the symbols and their sequential order qualifies as an atheist.

    at the same as they consider how it was made, what its purpose was and so on. Sometimes they may not be able to answer those questions, but no serious, scientific investigation starts off by saying the questions are irrelevant.

    The nature of the designer can be inferred from the nature of the data itself. It is secondary to making a design inference. If we are all agreed that DNA is designed then we can explore reasonable inferences based on the genetic code, nucleic acid function, DNA repair mechanisms…

  14. Hi The Pixie,

    Once he has done that he can be sure it must be “design” . Or an unknown natural cause.

    I agree fully with you. However we have to ask ourselves the question which hypotheses fit data better based on the things that we know now. That also means that ID might be proven or shown to be wrong.

  15. ID is different, I know. Specifically, ID is different because the usual arguments rely of elimination, and claiming the default position.

    Wrong. Test hypotheses against the same natural selection paradigm. The only thing eliminated would be the faulty concept of a sifter.

    Indeed, we can see that in your comment “BTW, let me know when you identify the blind watchmaker who utilized a selection pathway to the first cell” , which seems to say we should accept ID because the naturalistic explanation is lacking.

    You missed my point which was that your own blind designer remains unidentified. If questions about the designer are legit then the BTW question is right on target.

  16. Bradford

    The nature of the designer can be inferred from the nature of the data itself.

    That is pretty much my point. There is no scientific reason (as opposed to political reason) to divorce determining the existence of the designer to determining the nature of the designer. The same data are used for both.

    Pix: ID is different, I know. Specifically, ID is different because the usual arguments rely of elimination, and claiming the default position.
    Bradford: Wrong. Test hypotheses against the same natural selection paradigm. The only thing eliminated would be the faulty concept of a sifter.

    Are you saying my claim is wrong because, while ID arguments rely on elimination, this is no different to other hypotheses?

    You missed my point which was that your own blind designer remains unidentified. If questions about the designer are legit then the BTW question is right on target.

    Presumaby you appreciate that the blind designer is just a metaphor, and what you want is the mechanism that produces the diversity of life seen today? That would be the processes of inheritance, variation and selection. They are actually pretty well identified.

  17. Inunison

    I agree fully with you. However we have to ask ourselves the question which hypotheses fit data better based on the things that we know now. That also means that ID might be proven or shown to be wrong.

    That is how it should be done, yes. But the classic ID arguments – the EF, IC structures and CSI come to mind – make no attempt at an ID hypothesis, no attempt to fit data to a hypothesis. All they do is claim Darwinian evolution could not do it, then insert ID as the default. And such arguments do not allow ID to be proven wrong. If it can be shown that Darwinian-type evolution can produce CSI, it would still be possible that ID was true.

  18. Are you saying my claim is wrong because, while ID arguments rely on elimination, this is no different to other hypotheses?

    They don’t rely on elimination. There is nothing to eliminate when a theory rests on illusory evidence (see below).

    You missed my point which was that your own blind designer remains unidentified. If questions about the designer are legit then the BTW question is right on target.

    Presumaby you appreciate that the blind designer is just a metaphor, and what you want is the mechanism that produces the diversity of life seen today? That would be the processes of inheritance, variation and selection. They are actually pretty well identified.

    Sorry, but that does not cut it. There is none of the above until life first exists. Pathways to life invoking the above are non-existent. There is nothing to eliminate. Paley’s argument was never dealt with directly. The argument against Paley has been: “Assume that a watch already exists which can be adjusted and modified in the following ways. As to how the watch got there, we’ll issue a promissory note on that one. Get back to us if we find the answer.”

  19. The difference between ID and science is that sience is actually looking for the answer – there are a of of scientists working on abiogenesis right now – while ID declares the questions on the nature of the designer and the design process to be irrelevant. Science offers the promissory note, and does the work to attempt to fulfil the promise. ID makes excuses for why it does not have to.

  20. The difference between ID and science is that sience is actually looking for the answer – there are a of of scientists working on abiogenesis right now –

    Wrong. The difference between “scientific” ideologues and those who favor a truthful answer, no matter where it leads, is the former group restricts a range of acceptable conclusions in advance of testing. The amount of scientists working with a concept has nothing to do with the viability of it.

    while ID declares the questions on the nature of the designer and the design process to be irrelevant.

    I said they were relevant once design has been inferred. You don’t start looking for the one who designed a murder without a murder. If you are ready to acknowledge the reality of design, we can discuss what conclusions can be drawn as to the designer’s nature based on the data. If you wish to harp on false objections, then keep repeating the above mantra.

  21. inunison, bradford and other posters, you must not take Pixie seriously and try to reason with him. He is not interested in logic or sincere debates like others who have visited this blog. Pixie is only interested in obfuscating a thread until the readers lose interest. Therefore it is important to expose Pixie for what he is doing. From now on I will only respond to Pixie by pointing out his tactics with this information page .

  22. Bradford

    Wrong. The difference between “scientific” ideologues and those who favor a truthful answer, no matter where it leads, is the former group restricts a range of acceptable conclusions in advance of testing. The amount of scientists working with a concept has nothing to do with the viability of it.

    If there are a load of scientists – or even just one – researching a concept using the scientific method, then that is scientific research. Sure, that does not of itself make the concept any more true.

    Scientists have some idea of how abiogenesis happened, and have done science to support that, but it would be fair to say that at the moments there are some holes in that knowledge. One of the interesting things about abiogenesis is that it is based on things we know – the interaction of atoms and molecules, under the laws of nature, and I suspect that does give it an edge over the ID claim.

    I said they were relevant once design has been inferred. You don’t start looking for the one who designed a murder without a murder.

    How would you decide it was a murder without at the same time determining something about how the murder was done?

  23. inunison, bradford and other posters, you must not take Pixie seriously and try to reason with him. He is not interested in logic or sincere debates like others who have visited this blog. Pixie is only interested in obfuscating a thread until the readers lose interest. Therefore it is important to expose Pixie for what he is doing. From now on I will only respond to Pixie by pointing out his tactics with this information page .

    Ah, nice. A whole post dedicated to my character assassination. Poisoning the well, and ad hom. too. Ooh, and no chance for me to defend myself. How very Christian. I guess that is what I get for asking Tel to support his laughable claim that creationists are “Creationists are strict empirical evidentialists” (Post 15). So much easier to make false accusations on a closed thread, than find a creationist who is a strict empirical evidentialist!

  24. One of the interesting things about abiogenesis is that it is based on things we know – the interaction of atoms and molecules, under the laws of nature, and I suspect that does give it an edge over the ID claim.

    ID is based on “the interaction of atoms and molecules, under the laws of nature.” That’s how inferences are made.

    How would you decide it was a murder without at the same time determining something about how the murder was done?

    Irrelevant to my point that establishing the designed event preceeds speculation as to whodunnit. Prove Teleologist wrong by acknowledging the design and I’ll gladly proceed to the next step. If you’re trolling you are a waste of time and I’m surprised these bloggers put up with that. Pixie is a he?

  25. If you’re trolling you are a waste of time and I’m surprised these bloggers put up with that. Pixie is a he?

    To borrow a phrase that my friend Salvador likes to use — Pixie is good for “batting practice” , but it does get old. 😀

  26. Bradford

    ID is based on “the interaction of atoms and molecules, under the laws of nature.” That’s how inferences are made.

    That is not too accurate, is it? Abiogenesis is based solely on the interaction of atoms and molecules, under the laws of nature, while ID invokes an unknown intelligence as well. Surely the latter is a significant part of ID?

    Or are you referring to the eliminative arguments? ID is based on the interaction of atoms and molecules, under the laws of nature, and from these the inference is made that natural processes could not have done it… Therefore it must have been God? You must believe mankind has an incredible knowledge of the interaction of atoms and molecules to be able to make that determination. We do not. Consider Dembski’s probability calculation for the bacterial flagellum for how very far we have to go (his calculation ignored evolution for one thing).

    B: I said they were relevant once design has been inferred. You don’t start looking for the one who designed a murder without a murder.
    P: How would you decide it was a murder without at the same time determining something about how the murder was done?
    B: Irrelevant to my point that establishing the designed event preceeds speculation as to whodunnit. Prove Teleologist wrong by acknowledging the design and I’ll gladly proceed to the next step.

    You do not look for the murderer in step one, no, but you inevitably collect information about him even while you determine it was murder. If you observe a gunshot wound on the corpse, you infer design, but the evidence that allowed you to determine design has already told you something about the design process, i.e., shot by a gun, and thus something about the designer, he shot a gun at the victim. Sure, that is not much about the designer, but it is a start. ID denies that, and declares it irrelevant.

    And as soon as you have one bit of evidence, you look further for what that evidence tells you about the designer. What sort of gun, where was it fired from, and so on. Is there any evidence for ID? If so, why has no one followed up on it to see what it tells you about the designer? Because ID has declared that question to be off-limits.

    These are tricky issues, so you will probably want to join the crowd and call me a troll, rather than have to deal with them – I understand that.

  27. Teleologist, I guess what you are saying is either I agree I was naughty, or get banned. Sounds like blackmail to me, and as a point of principle I do not submit to blackmail. Besides which, I disagree; I stand by all my posts. But you did not expact me to comply, did you? This is an excuse to get me banned.

    Interesting that top of the list of misdemeanors on that page (the one I am not allowed to defend my character on) is the quoting-mining accusation. Hopefully anyone reading the linked thread will notice that you had to change the details of the accusation as it became apparent you had misread what I meant. Of course, in your head it still had to be quote-mining however I represented Behe, eh?

    And how does this compare to your laughable claim that “Creationists are strict empirical evidentialists”? You know the one, the claim you have so failed to suppport that your only choice is to ban me? Ooh, and there is the claim by Inunison that common descent can produce something other than a nested hierarchy, and yet when he is challenged, he cannot produce a single example. And his bizarre claim that in the OP to this thread “there was not a trace of offense in my post nor any kind of accusations“, for a thread entitled “Double standard”; that sure sounds like an accusation to me. I cannot help think that you want to ban me because I ask too many embarassing questions.

    Oh, and thanks to Salvador for the comment, I would expect no more from a guy who used to quietly delete threads at ARN if he was losing an argument, and when that got stopped he invented a rule to stop his opponents even posting on his threads.

    So I guess you guys can go back to your self-congratulatory back-slapping, without fear of being asked to support your claims. Just please do not delude yourselves that what you discuss here is anything to do with science.

    Ironic this happened on a thread called “Double Standard”.

  28. ID is based on “the interaction of atoms and molecules, under the laws of nature.” That’s how inferences are made.

    That is not too accurate, is it? Abiogenesis is based solely on the interaction of atoms and molecules, under the laws of nature, while ID invokes an unknown intelligence as well. Surely the latter is a significant part of ID?

    Intelligence is invoked presicely because laws of nature alone to not generate encoding conventions and information ex nihilo.

  29. Bradford, see my second paragraph in my previous post to you. “Or are you referring to…”

    Also, how do we know that the laws of nature alone do not generate encoding conventions and information ex nihilo? Indeed, does anyone claim the laws of nature generated an encoding convention (decoding, perhaps, but not encoding)? And what do you mean by information, anyway? I guess you realise there are numerous definitions, some requiring an intelligent agent and some not, so this is not a trivial question. Is this Shannon information, or complexity or what? I think the laws of nature do generate information according to some definitions.

    I have started a thread at ARN that is mildly related to what we were talking about earlier, by the way.

  30. I think the laws of nature do generate information according to some definitions.

    Thanks for your opinion. This is testable. Information has to be retained before it can accumulate. An ID hypothesis holds that this does not occur in the absence of genomic repair mechanisms. This would hold in a precellular world as well. The evidence is overwhelming on a cellular level.

  31. Thanks for your opinion. This is testable. Information has to be retained before it can accumulate. An ID hypothesis holds that this does not occur in the absence of genomic repair mechanisms. This would hold in a precellular world as well. The evidence is overwhelming on a cellular level.

    I assume you are talking specifically about genetic information? It might have been useful to state that. People around here have a nasty habit of, on the one hand, accusing me of misrepresentation, while, on the other hand, being rather vague about what they are talking about. But if you are talking about genetic information, what does this mean in a precellular world?

    Clearly the world is far more complex today than 4 billion years ago. How big a genome are you thinking about back then? What is the probability of error for a short genome? If it is 70% for each cell divide, is that going to be show-stopper? I do not think so. Sure, just my opinion. I would be interested to hear where you think differently.

  32. But if you are talking about genetic information, what does this mean in a precellular world?

    What do you think it means? Any configuration of nucleotides that enhances reproductive capacity would qualify. The difficulty is experimental results do not show a natural acquisition of such properties in self-replicators. So working with already designed RNA would have to suffice. Decay is the prediction. It is observed in cells whose repair mechanisms are disabled. It should appear in extra-cellular nucleic acids as well.

  33. Bradford

    What do you think it means? Any configuration of nucleotides that enhances reproductive capacity would qualify.

    Okay, so you are still talking about genetic information, just not in DNA. I am not sure why you could not spell that out, instead of using the term “precellar” as though that somehow tells me something.

    The difficulty is experimental results do not show a natural acquisition of such properties in self-replicators.

    Sounds like interesting research, do you have a link?

    So working with already designed RNA would have to suffice. Decay is the prediction. It is observed in cells whose repair mechanisms are disabled. It should appear in extra-cellular nucleic acids as well.

    But if the rate of decay is slow enough, that does not matter. If each cell has a 30% change of a fatal mutation before reproducing, then life will continue, because cells reproduce faster than they mutate. And that sort of rapid mutation is going to hit upon more stable options sooner rather than later, so you will quickly get better and better replicators.

    Suppose in the pre-biotic world the formation of replicators is a likely event (that is, the chances of the right precursors coming together is billions to one, but the huge number of precursor molecules in a teaspoon of prebiotic soup is immense, and you have millions of years for this to happen, so at the macroscopic scale, it happens innumerable times). Some replicators mutate a lot, and die early. Some mutate slower, and survive. Hey, maybe it is just that one replicator was lucky and hit upon a couple of vital mutations, before the fatal ones got too frequent.

    The answer is that we do not know what might or might not have happened back then. Some people are doing scientific research to learn more. Other people are doing probability calculations based on assumptions of events we know next to nothing about, deciding the probability is extremely low for the scenario they do not like, and without doing the calculation for the probability of their preferred scenario, declare that scenario to be the alternative by default. Check the OP to see how we label those two groups of people…

  34. But if the rate of decay is slow enough, that does not matter. If each cell has a 30% change of a fatal mutation before reproducing, then life will continue, because cells reproduce faster than they mutate.

    This is a common misconception. Before replication, cells undergo an extensive checklist of to do tasks that include genomic integrity checks and corrections. If DNA damage is too extensive apoptosis or cellular suicide is opted for. Even if damage is repairable the cell division process is halted until repairs can be made. Most people do not realize how constant is the attacks on our DNA and how critical it is to maintain existing information. We cannot replicate our way out of genomic damage. The replication process itself engenders errors that need correcting.

    Suppose in the pre-biotic world the formation of replicators is a likely event (that is, the chances of the right precursors coming together is billions to one, but the huge number of precursor molecules in a teaspoon of prebiotic soup is immense, and you have millions of years for this to happen, so at the macroscopic scale, it happens innumerable times).

    Precursor molecules to DNA are limited to other nucleic acids and there is not good evidence for a prebiotic soup.

    Some replicators mutate a lot, and die early. Some mutate slower, and survive. Hey, maybe it is just that one replicator was lucky and hit upon a couple of vital mutations, before the fatal ones got too frequent.

    This sounds OK until you examine how repairs are actually made. There is an extensive array of enzymes needed to detect and repair damage. This clues us in on what a minimal amount of information is and how to set up an experiment. What is looked at is a directional arrow. Information must increase with time to mimick the standardized versions of natural history. Short circuits traced to genomic damage call for remedial intelligent input.

  35. Bradford

    This is a common misconception. Before replication, cells undergo an extensive checklist of to do tasks that include genomic integrity checks and corrections. If DNA damage is too extensive apoptosis or cellular suicide is opted for. Even if damage is repairable the cell division process is halted until repairs can be made. Most people do not realize how constant is the attacks on our DNA and how critical it is to maintain existing information. We cannot replicate our way out of genomic damage. The replication process itself engenders errors that need correcting.

    Okay, but what are the numbers? How probable is the attack? What is a good estimate for the probability of such an attack in abiogenic conditions? What is the estimate based on? Do you actually have any figures, or is this just wishful thinking? Here is a good place to start. Research is going on to try to discover a solution, for example here and here, by the way.

    Precursor molecules to DNA are limited to other nucleic acids and there is not good evidence for a prebiotic soup.

    I know. That is why I was talking about precursors to replicators, and not specifically precursors to DNA.

    This sounds OK until you examine how repairs are actually made. There is an extensive array of enzymes needed to detect and repair damage. This clues us in on what a minimal amount of information is and how to set up an experiment. What is looked at is a directional arrow. Information must increase with time to mimick the standardized versions of natural history. Short circuits traced to genomic damage call for remedial intelligent input.

    Some scientists believe crystal growth is a simple way for early replicators to error correct. At the end of the day we do not know.

  36. Okay, but what are the numbers? How probable is the attack? What is a good estimate for the probability of such an attack in abiogenic conditions? What is the estimate based on? Do you actually have any figures, or is this just wishful thinking? Here is a good place to start. Research is going on to try to discover a solution, for example here and here, by the way.

    Research is turning up more problems as I indicated at my blog this morning. The directional arrow for information change is headed in the wrong direction. But we all know that nothing can falsify the belief that life emerged in the absence of intelligent or telic influences. At least that is the faith of those who believe in abiogenesis despite evidence to the contrary. It is not science as envisioned by Popper.

  37. Do you actually have any figures, or is this just wishful thinking?

    The wishful thinking is coming from your side. From the link you supplied:

    Stochastic corrector model (Szathmory & Smith, 1995). In this proposed solution, a number of primitive molecules of say, two different types, are associated with each other in some way, perhaps by a capsule or “cell wall”.

    LOL. The solution is a cell wall. Can you at least show how self-replicators arise first- not the intelligently designed ones used in labs.

    If their reproductive success is enhanced by having, say, equal numbers in each cell, and reproduction occurs by division in which each of various types of molecules are randomly distributed among the “children”, the process of selection will promote such equal representation in the cells, even though one of the molecules may have a selective advantage over the other.

    A conditional statement is phrased around the imagined cell wall- which came from where? What selection advantage might that be? This is why many scientists outside the OOL field do not take this all that seriously. There is an absence of rigor to supporting evidence.

    Relaxed error threshold (Kun et. al., 2005) – Studies of actual ribozymes indicate that the mutation rate can be substantially less than first expected – on the order of 0.001 per base pair per replication. This may allow sequence lengths of the order of 7-8 thousand base pairs, sufficient to incorporate rudimentary error correction enzymes.

    Before they are incorporated they must first come into existence. These enzymes are identifiable and they have amino acid components. The assumption that catalytic RNA fills this role is the real wishful thinking.

  38. Bradford

    Research is turning up more problems as I indicated at my blog this morning.

    Your posts are liberally sprinkled with unsupported assertions, with never a link to back them up. Even when you mention your own blog, there is no link. Does it really exist? Can you think of a good reason I should believe you?

    The directional arrow for information change is headed in the wrong direction.

    Prove it! Oh, and be sure to define information. Did I mention there are numerous definitions out there?

    But we all know that nothing can falsify the belief that life emerged in the absence of intelligent or telic influences. At least that is the faith of those who believe in abiogenesis despite evidence to the contrary. It is not science as envisioned by Popper.

    It is not, no. It is a field of science, not a theory. You cannot falsify organic chemistry, because a field of science, not a theory. What you hope are falsifiable are the theories within the field. And even then, all the abiogenesis theories can do is say how it might have happened. That is the nature of the problem, and hardly evidence that it is wrong.

    LOL. The solution is a cell wall. Can you at least show how self-replicators arise first- not the intelligently designed ones used in labs.

    I cannot. But scientists are working on it. Doing real science, proposing hypothesis, testing those hypotheses.

    What is ID doing? As far as I can see ID is making a very dubious probability calculation for abiogenesis, but for reason ID gets a by.

    A conditional statement is phrased around the imagined cell wall- which came from where? What selection advantage might that be? This is why many scientists outside the OOL field do not take this all that seriously. There is an absence of rigor to supporting evidence.

    How does it compare to the evidence for ID? You seem incapable of defining information, though you invoke it often enough, then you complain of a lack of rigour?

  39. It is not, no. It is a field of science, not a theory. You cannot falsify organic chemistry

    It is not a field of science. It is a faith. Organic chemistry presupposes what everyone knows exists- organic molecules. It does not certify theoretical outcomes in advance as does abiogenesis. The reason abiogenesis is not scientific is it does not allow for the only possibility that can falsify it – an intelligent inference. As such it is not suitable to assess all possible causal pathways.

  40. How does it compare to the evidence for ID? You seem incapable of defining information, though you invoke it often enough, then you complain of a lack of rigour?

    Have you heard of the bit? Why are you concerned with information when abio enthusiasts cannot generate RNA that has any of the functions we find in cells. To even perform an experiment illustrating the directional arrow one must intelligently design nucleic acid with functional sequences. OOLers cannot show such sequences arising from their fanciful soup.

  41. Even when you mention your own blog, there is no link. Does it really exist? Can you think of a good reason I should believe you?

    You won’t believe anything other than that life arose in a prebiotic soup no matter what is shown to you.

    http://intelligent-sequences.blogspot.com/

  42. Bradford

    It is not a field of science. It is a faith. Organic chemistry presupposes what everyone knows exists- organic molecules. It does not certify theoretical outcomes in advance as does abiogenesis.

    I think you kind of missed the point. No one “believes in organic chemistry”, no one thinks it is right or wrong. It is just a convenient way to collect together a load of ideas, theories and facts. Abiogenesis is just the same. Or theology, if you like. Theology collects together ideas about Islam, Buddism and Christianity. No one says (at least, no one should say) that theology itself is wrong, however much they disagree with some theological claims.

    The reason abiogenesis is not scientific is it does not allow for the only possibility that can falsify it – an intelligent inference. As such it is not suitable to assess all possible causal pathways.

    Abiogenesis researchers believe no intelligence is required, and do research on that basis. That seems like reasonable behaviour. IDists believe intelligence is required. So what research are they doing?

    Have you heard of the bit?

    Is that your rigorous definition? Okay…

    Why are you concerned with information…

    Because you keep bringing up as though it is important. But perhaps we can drop it now.

    … when abio enthusiasts cannot generate RNA that has any of the functions we find in cells. To even perform an experiment illustrating the directional arrow one must intelligently design nucleic acid with functional sequences. OOLers cannot show such sequences arising from their fanciful soup.

    It is early days. How can you be sure they will not do it some day?

    You won’t believe anything other than that life arose in a prebiotic soup no matter what is shown to you.

    Oh, I did not know that, thanks for the information.

    Is it possible that other people might read this page, people perhaps more sympathetic to ID, who might have their minds changed if shown evidence? I know I will not change your mind, but I post links and explain things for anyone else passing by. They can look at Teleologist’s desparation to be rid of me, Inunison’s inability to prove common descent does not predict a nested hierarchy, your inability to define information, and draw their own conclusions.

  43. Hi The Pixie,

    If teleologist is so desperate to get rid of you you wouldn’t be able to post here. If I was unable to show what you asked for I would not repeatedly link to relevant data that simply go against your adopted dogma. And now Bradford is all of the sudden unable to define information (you even question existence of his blog). But, hey I just realized, this whole thread is filed under humor.

    However Information is:

    From Wikipedia:

    Information is a message, something to be communicated from the sender to the receiver, as opposed to noise, which is something that inhibits the flow of communication or creates misunderstanding. If information is viewed merely as a message, it does not have to be accurate. It may be a lie, or just a sound of a kiss. This model assumes a sender and a receiver, and does not attach any significance to the idea that information is something that can be extracted from an environment, e.g., through observation or measurement. Information in this sense is simply any message the sender chooses to create.

    This view assumes neither accuracy nor directly communicating parties, but instead assumes a separation between an object and its representation, as well as the involvement of someone capable of understanding this relationship. This view seems therefore to require a conscious mind.

    Information is dependent upon, but usually unrelated to and separate from, the medium or media used to express it. In other words, the position of a theoretical series of bits, or even the output once interpreted by a computer or similar device, is unimportant, except when someone or something is present to interpret the information. Therefore, a quantity of information is totally distinct from its medium.

    What’s important here is 1) information always involves a sender and a receiver; 2) an encoding / decoding mechanism; 3) a convention of symbols (“code”) which represent something distinct from what those symbols are made of. A paragraph in a newspaper is made of ink and paper, but the sentence itself may say nothing about ink or paper.

    It may be very helpful here to point out the difference between a pattern and a code. Patterns (snowflakes, crystals, hurricanes, tornados, rivers, coastlines) occur in nature all the time.

    A code is “A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages.” Examples of code include English, Chinese, computer languages, music, mating calls and radio signals. Codes always involve a system of symbols that represent ideas or plans.

    All codes contain patterns, but not all patterns contain codes. Naturally occurring patterns do not contain code.

  44. I think you kind of missed the point. No one “believes in organic chemistry” , no one thinks it is right or wrong. It is just a convenient way to collect together a load of ideas, theories and facts. Abiogenesis is just the same.

    Noone made the claim that people believe in organic chemistry. It looks like you missed the point. Organic chemistry is a field of study because no outcomes are specified in advance of research. Despite decades of research not showing that life arises and trillions of life forms observed to come only from other life forms abiogenesis insists that life comes from non-life. This is not science. This is doctrine. Science is built on empirical evidence. Abiogenesis is built on personal beliefs. The facts collected do not support the belief that life arises without intelligent guidance. They do not even show that a single nucleic acid arises that has any capacity to encode any cellular function. The essential nature of error detection and repair mechanisms is well documented and known to scientists. Noone seriously doubts that death results when they are not functional.

  45. If teleologist is so desperate to get rid of you you wouldn’t be able to post here.

    Thank you inunison for recognizing that. I have a loose guideline for banning people — lewd languages, profanity or harassment of pro-ID guests and contributors. I have never banned anyone for harassing, insulting or criticizing me personally, but my ID guests are off limit.

  46. Inunison

    If teleologist is so desperate to get rid of you you wouldn’t be able to post here. If I was unable to show what you asked for I would not repeatedly link to relevant data that simply go against your adopted dogma. And now Bradford is all of the sudden unable to define information (you even question existence of his blog). But, hey I just realized, this whole thread is filed under humor.

    To be honest, I suspect the blog does exist, I just find it odd that he has such an aversion to supporting his claims with links. Maybe he just doers not want me posting there!

    What’s important here is 1) information always involves a sender and a receiver; 2) an encoding / decoding mechanism; 3) a convention of symbols (” code” ) which represent something distinct from what those symbols are made of. A paragraph in a newspaper is made of ink and paper, but the sentence itself may say nothing about ink or paper.

    Could you talk me through who (or what; are you allowed a what?) the sender is for the genetic code, and who the receiver is? What is the encoding mechanism? I can see a decoding mechanism, if we allow that there is a code, but not encoding. Is there a convention of symbols even? Surely a convention implies intelligent agents being in agreement.

    It may be very helpful here to point out the difference between a pattern and a code. Patterns (snowflakes, crystals, hurricanes, tornados, rivers, coastlines) occur in nature all the time.
    A code is “A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages.” Examples of code include English, Chinese, computer languages, music, mating calls and radio signals. Codes always involve a system of symbols that represent ideas or plans.
    All codes contain patterns, but not all patterns contain codes. Naturally occurring patterns do not contain code.

    Ah, so genetic code is actually just a pattern, given that it occurs so much in nature, and does not represent letters or numbers.

  47. IDists believe intelligence is required. So what research are they doing?

    This complaint is outdated since the DI funded lab hit the news. Go to your favorite MET website and come up with a new one.

  48. Pix: Abiogenesis researchers believe no intelligence is required, and do research on that basis. That seems like reasonable behaviour. IDists believe intelligence is required. So what research are they doing?
    Bradford: This complaint is outdated since the DI funded lab hit the news. Go to your favorite MET website and come up with a new one.

    You can answer the question then: So what research are they doing?

  49. Munson

    Welcome to the debate. When I first looked, I thought you were Inunison! Must get my eyes tested.

    Noone made the claim that people believe in organic chemistry.

    Exactly.

    It looks like you missed the point. Organic chemistry is a field of study because no outcomes are specified in advance of research.

    No, no. It is a field of study because it collects together a whole bunch of related stuff under one label. It is really as simple as that.

    As it happens, outcomes usually are specified in advance of research in organic chemistry. There are these things called “research proposals”, when scientists say what outcome they are looking for, and how they intend to research it. Chemists make observations, and based on the observations devise hypotheses. Based on the hypotheses they make predictions – that is, outcomes in advance of the research – and then do the research to test those predictions. In industry, chemists will be trying to make a certain material or compound, say a heat resistent polymer or a new pesticide. The outcome of the research – the polymer or pesticide – is specified, then they do the research to make it.

    Despite decades of research not showing that life arises and trillions of life forms observed to come only from other life forms abiogenesis insists that life comes from non-life.

    But they have made some progress.

    This is not science. This is doctrine.

    No, doctrine is when you have already decided abiogenesis cannot happen, and do not need to do any experiments to prove it. Luckily for you, Bradford will soon provide links to some ID research to show they are doing these experiments. Though I must admit, I am not holding my breath.

    Science is built on empirical evidence. Abiogenesis is built on personal beliefs.

    That is a little simplistic. Science starts wth a personal belief, which gets formalised as a hypothesis, which is used to generate predictions, and the predictions are tested giving empirical evidence (as opposed to non-empirical evidence is that… what would that be?). ID is at the personal belief stage (though we await Bradford’s links with baited breath for developments there). There are theories in abiogenesis that have gone a few more steps towards being science.

    The facts collected do not support the belief that life arises without intelligent guidance.

    The facts do not support the belief that there was even any intelligence back then, but there you go.

    The essential nature of error detection and repair mechanisms is well documented and known to scientists. Noone seriously doubts that death results when they are not functional.

    I do! I would like to see some data for simple bacteria about what happens when the error correction is turned off. What research are you basing your claim on?

  50. Science is built on empirical evidence. Abiogenesis is built on personal beliefs.

    That is a little simplistic. Science starts wth a personal belief, which gets formalised as a hypothesis, which is used to generate predictions

    So then you agree that consistent results showing the disintegration of rybozyme capacity, due to copying errors or environmental factors, would falsify abiogenesis.

  51. Bradford

    So then you agree that consistent results showing the disintegration of rybozyme capacity, due to copying errors or environmental factors, would falsify abiogenesis.

    I am not sure I am getting this. As I understand it, mutations are copying errors, that is, DNA sequences change when the DNA is getting copied. So what we are talking about is the frequency of copying errors. That is going to depend on environmental factors; the presence of a mutagen will lead to a high frequency of copying errors. Also, can you explain what ribozyme capacity is, and why this is the important function here? Surely all we need worry about is the functioining of the bacterium. If that starts to deteriorate, we have a problem, and it does not matter why that is. I will call a mutation that leads to significant loss of function as a “crippling error”. What abiogenesis needs is for copy errors to be sufficiently infrequent that most cells can reproduce without crippling errors. If at reproduction 40% of the cells suffer crippling errors, but 60% successfully reproduce then the colony will grow. Bear in mind, however, that the genetic code would have been much shorter at that time and so – ignoring error corection processes – mutation rates for the whole genome would have been less.

    So I would say that consistent results showing that crippling errors occur in 90% of cells when error correction is absent, without the presence of mutagens, then abiogenesis would be in big trouble. I do not think we know enough (meaning both what you and I know and what the scientific community knows) to be able to say this would falsify abiogenesis.

    By the way, what do you think would falsify the ID claim?

  52. ID Research at the Biologic Institute

    I had a go at finding what research IDists are actually doing. Here are some commnts about Dougkas Axe’s research at the Biologic Institute. Also, New Scientist visits the Biologic Institute:

    Gauger would not speak to New Scientist about her work. According to Axe, the projects currently under way at Biologic include “examining the origin of metabolic pathways in bacteria, the evolution of gene order in bacteria, and the evolution of protein folds”.
    Certainly the topics Axe mentions are of interest to science, says Kenneth Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, who testified as an expert witness for the pro-evolution side at the Dover trial. Miller adds that they might be of particular interest to people intent on undermining evolution if, like Axe’s earlier work on protein folding, they can be used to highlight structures and functions whose origins and evolution are not well understood.
    In addition to protein and cell biology, Biologic is pursuing a programme in computational biology which draws on the expertise of another of its researchers, Brendan Dixon, a former software developer at Microsoft. According to Axe, “On the computational side, we are nearing completion of a system for exploring the evolution of artificial genes that are considerably more life-like than has been the case previously.”
    Dixon also declined to speak with New Scientist, but there are reasons why the computational arena might be of interest to the anti-evolution movement. Starting in 2001, Robert Pennock at Michigan State University in East Lansing and colleagues wrote a computer program that behaves like a self-replicating organism able to mutate unpredictably and evolve (Nature, vol 423, p 139). The experiment demonstrates how natural selection and random mutation give rise to increasingly complex organisms.

    Strangely, the DI has only a couple of mentions of the Biologic Institute on its web site (Google search for “Biologic Institute” site:www.discovery.org), and they merely noting where Axe works, and I was unable to find a web site for the institute itself.

    Not to be confused with the American Biologic Institute, by the way! Or maybe not, ABI was founded by a guy called Bradford…

    Finally some bad; I will not be posting again for a couple of days. That will give Inunison some time to find that elusive common descent pattern…

  53. LOL @ The Pixie

  54. To The Pixie:

    Common Descent does not predict a nested hierarchy for the many reasons provided by Denton in Chapter 6 of “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”.

    Where would we place mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like mammals? And we do not see NH at the single-celled level. And if we don’t see it there and metazoans allegedly “evolved” from that then we shouldn’t expect it with metazoans. Simple logic actually.

    Did someone say ID research?

    The design inference- in peer-review

    I have in fact confirmed that these papers add to the evidence for ID. I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails “severe sequence constraints”. The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design. In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design.–Douglas Axe

    It would be interesting to know what “evolutionary” research is going on. Here it is 2007 and no one on this planet knows whether or not any mechanism can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans. Therefore no one should be taught that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor. Not in a science classroom anyway.

    And BTW the Pixie:

    Reality demonstrates the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer or the specific design processes involved, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    And guess what?

    Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. — William A. Dembski

    And yes the design inference does force us to ask other questions. ID is not preventing anyone from looking into them. However that also demonstrates that ID is NOT a scientific dead-end plus gives us the impetus to drive the research.

    Also if you ask any IDist they will tell you that we infer design based on what we KNOW about designing agencies coupled with what we know about what nature, operating freely, can do.

    The EF is eliminative but it eliminates via consideration. One has to consider the data against the options. If you want to believe in sheer dumb luck, that’s fine. But it doesn’t belong in a science classroom.

  55. Maybe The Pxiie can usntadenrd tihs laaugnge.

    And you are sitll mnsiisg the ponit. Let me try aagin. Bsuaece dnceest form a cmomon anectosr deos not nracsieelsy rluest in a ptetran of ntseed harciehry, the hptyehsios of common arnescty wolud not be ffiaslied if ogramsins did not fit taht perttan. Taht is, a nrohrcaehicainl pattren colud be eeanilxpd csntteisnloy wtih comomn acsntrey by apeapl to prcoseses taht wrok aignsat a nesetd harihrecy. Hence, the calim taht the hihospeyts of uensvairl cmomon asentrcy mekas a fisafibllae pdroctiein taht orgnmsias wlil ebhiixt a paettrn of netesd hiahrcrey is incorrect.

    So it is ireeravnlt if I or abyndoy esle, can gvie you epmaxle of cmomon dnecset taht pocerdus stimoehng otehr tahn a neetsd hhrcareiy. The fcat is taht fndinig scuh empxlae wolud not falsfiy the hsihytpeos of uvrnasiel cmoomn aetcsrny. The dcievrsoy colud be acmaetodocmd by the treohy in saerevl wyas.

  56. Common Descent does not predict a nested hierarchy for the many reasons provided by Denton in Chapter 6 of “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” .
    Where would we place mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like mammals? And we do not see NH at the single-celled level. And if we don’t see it there and metazoans allegedly “evolved” from that then we shouldn’t expect it with metazoans. Simple logic actually.

    Then read chapter 6, check what the reasons are, then devise a pattern of common descent that exploits those reasons to produce a tree of life that does not fit a nested hierarchy. How hard can that be?

    Or see here to learn why it is not possible.

    I have in fact confirmed that these papers add to the evidence for ID. I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails “severe sequence constraints” . The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design. In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design.–Douglas Axe

    At best the research is evidence for anti-evolution. The research does not mention design or intelligence, so it is hard to imagine how it can be described as evidence for Intelligent Design.

    See here and here for a different perspective, saying that it is not even evidence for anti-evolution, and that Axe’s experimental data suggests enzyme sequences are actually not that constrained.

    Reality demonstrates the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer or the specific design processes involved, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    Sure. On the other hand, ID says making such a determination is irrelevant!

    The EF is eliminative but it eliminates via consideration. One has to consider the data against the options. If you want to believe in sheer dumb luck, that’s fine. But it doesn’t belong in a science classroom.

    The EF is flawed because it only considers the probability of the non-design scenario. But if it is only generating inferences that you use to start your scientific research that is fine. By the way, how much scientific research has been initiated by inferences from the EF over the years?

    Maybe The Pxiie can usntadenrd tihs laaugnge.

    Just why are you so reluctant to devise an example of common descent that does not give a nested hierarchy. One single example will prove me wrong and you guys right. But you cannot do it, prefering mockery to reason. Is that because this is an article of faith maybe? You know it is true, because Denton says it, you just cannot understand why?

    Has anyone around here even had a go? Or are you all so entrenched in your dogma that you already know I am wrong and they are right because I am the atheist and they are the Christians? Or maybe some of you have had a go, failed and were tooembarassed to admitthat maybe I am right?

  57. The ONLY flaw the EF has is with the people who use it. That is a fact.

    DR Theobald has been refuted. Why use him as a source? Mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like mammals would cause overlapping. And overlapping is NOT allowed in NH. Only ignornace can get around that. Is that your position- to argue from ignorance? It certainly appears to be.

    the Pixie:
    At best the research is evidence for anti-evolution.

    ID is NOT anti-evolution so I doubt what you said is the case. Also I will go with what the investigating scientist has to say about his research.

    Reality demonstrates the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer or the specific design processes involved, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    the Pixie:
    Sure. On the other hand, ID says making such a determination is irrelevant!

    That is wrong! IDists say that determination is irrelevant to ID. That is all we say. And we say that becayuse that is what reality demonstrates- tat we do NOT need to know the designer(s) or the process BEFORE determining design.

    Is there ANY research which demonstrates our existence is due to sheer dumb luck? What predictions can be made from that scenario?

  58. The ONLY flaw the EF has is with the people who use it. That is a fact.

    Labelling something as fact does not make it one, no matter how desparate you are for it to be one. I am surprised you would imagine this was at all convincing.

    DR Theobald has been refuted.

    Great! So it must be dead easy to find that elusive example of common descent not giving a nested hierarchy. What? Still cannot do it? I wonder why?

    I explained the reptile-to-mammal nesting in the other thread.

    ID is NOT anti-evolution so I doubt what you said is the case.

    Read Axe’s research. It is all about specificity of proteins, and the likelihood of SDL happening upon one. It says nothing about ID, only about evolution. As you say, ID is not anti-evolution, so this research is not ID. You want to disagree, read the research yourself, and quote the bit that talks about design or intelligence.

    That is wrong! IDists say that determination is irrelevant to ID. That is all we say. And we say that becayuse that is what reality demonstrates- tat we do NOT need to know the designer(s) or the process BEFORE determining design.

    Ah the smoke and mirrors in action. No one is demanding that you identify the designer and/or the process before establishing design. We insist that they go hand-in-hand, that any evidence for design is necessarily evidence for the nature of the designer and the design process. See this thread at ARN, for example.

    Is there ANY research which demonstrates our existence is due to sheer dumb luck? What predictions can be made from that scenario?

    Modern evolutionary theory (MET) has three main facets, variation, selection and inheritance. Predictions can be made for any of these, and those predictions tested. Furthermore, MET (or more specifically common descent) makes predictions about what we see in the fossil record and extant species, including the transitionals and the nested hierarchy. There are plenty of scientists actively inolved in this research too.

  59. Umm it is well known that any process or procedure is only as good as the people who use it.

    I have provided examples of common descent not leading to NH. Why do you keep ignoring them?

    And again I will take the researcher’s word over anyone else’s- Axe said his research supports ID. There isn’t anything you can do about that- except whine.

    the Pixie:
    No one is demanding that you identify the designer and/or the process before establishing design.

    Yeah right.

    the Pixie:
    We insist that they go hand-in-hand, that any evidence for design is necessarily evidence for the nature of the designer and the design process.

    LoL! The origin of living organisms goes hand-in-hand with any subsequent evolution, yet they can be held separately. Your doub;e-standards are more than sickening.

    Just how can I tell how an airliner was designed or built just by looking at the airliner?

    As Dembski stated in NFL the designer and the process are separate questions. ID was not formulated to answer them. And no amount of whining can change that fact.

    Suggested reading:

    ID and Mechanisms

    the Pixie:
    Modern evolutionary theory (MET) has three main facets, variation, selection and inheritance.

    So does the Creation model of biological evolution.

    the Pixie:
    Predictions can be made for any of these, and those predictions tested.

    IOW there aren’t any predictions exclusive to the MET.

    the Pixie:
    Furthermore, MET (or more specifically common descent) makes predictions about what we see in the fossil record and extant species, including the transitionals and the nested hierarchy.

    The fossil record is not evidence for Common Descent. All alleged transitionals are only so to those who need them

  60. Can the Pixie tell us of a better process (than the EF) for determining design that is not prejudiced towards that end?

    I know for a fact that even the best of processes are totally dependent upon the operators- ie the people who use them.

    Nested Hiearchy is determined by TRAITS. A mixture of traits causes overlapping. A mixture of traist is what one expects to see in incremental evolution that allows reversals of traits. And that is what Common Descent allows.

    An article doesn’t have to spell out I-n-t-e-l-l-i-g-e-n-t Design to be supportive of it. Can you name ANY articles, not even Theobald does, that demonstrate any mechanism can account for the range of change required (if populations evolved from some unknown LUCA)?

    the Pixie:
    No one is demanding that you identify the designer and/or the process before establishing design. We insist that they go hand-in-hand, that any evidence for design is necessarily evidence for the nature of the designer and the design process.

    Yaeh and abiogenesis and any theory of evolution SHOULD go hand-in-hand because any OoL directly impacts and subsequent evolution. Yet they are held separate! But when IDists say that the designer and the process are separate from the detection and study of, all the morons can say is “we insist that you do what we say!”, without even realizing the obvious double-standard.

    As for your thread @ ARN- LOL!!!!

    The following is a must read for you:

    ID and Mechanisms

    To say that ID has no proposed mechanism means only that we don’t specifically know how ID was implemented. So what? Do we have any good reason to think that if ID was implemented at the origin of life (for example), then we should be able to determine how ID was implemented? Of course not. The truth of ID does not entail the ability to describe the process of design. Thus, the inability to describe the actual process that was implemented is essentially meaningless apart from its rhetorical appeal.

    Just how can I tell how something was designed or made (exactly) by just having the object to study? I may be able to make some determinations, but that just shows that ID is NOT a scientific dead end and that it forces us to ask other questions!

    Pretty much the same can be said of the designer’s identity

    the Pixie:
    Modern evolutionary theory (MET) has three main facets, variation, selection and inheritance.

    So does the modern Creation model of biological evolution. So I take it you cannot provide anything exclusive to the MET.

    I would love to know what scientists are working on to verify the premise that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor.

    Common Descent without divergence would give us a line, not a branching diagram. Common Descent with divergence and with trait reversals would give us much overlapping. Overlapping is not allowed in NH.

  61. What happened to my comments?

    the Pixie:
    No one is demanding that you identify the designer and/or the process before establishing design. We insist that they go hand-in-hand, that any evidence for design is necessarily evidence for the nature of the designer and the design process.

    Let’s compare- the theory of evolution and abiogenesis are separated even though how living organisms arose directly impacts any subsequent evolution. But when IDists say that the process and the designer are separate from the detection and study of the design we are told that is a no-no.

    And THAT is a double-standard.

    ID and Mechanisms

    the Pixie:
    As you say, ID is not anti-evolution, so this research is not ID.

    That research isn’t ID if and only if you don’t understand ID or what is being debated. And everything points to both.

    the Pixie:
    Modern evolutionary theory (MET) has three main facets, variation, selection and inheritance.

    Guess what? The modern Creation model of biological evolution has the SAME three main facets! IOW there isn’t any predictions exclusive to the MET.

  62. Joe G

    Let’s compare- the theory of evolution and abiogenesis are separated even though how living organisms arose directly impacts any subsequent evolution. But when IDists say that the process and the designer are separate from the detection and study of the design we are told that is a no-no.
    And THAT is a double-standard.

    They are two different processes. You can study one, without knowing how the other happens. Like the manufacturing of a car, and the driving of a car. Of course, scientists are still trying to learn all they can about both evolution and abiogenesis.

    From: ID and Mechanisms

    To say that ID has no proposed mechanism means only that we don’t specifically know how ID was implemented. So what? Do we have any good reason to think that if ID was implemented at the origin of life (for example), then we should be able to determine how ID was implemented? Of course not. The truth of ID does not entail the ability to describe the process of design. Thus, the inability to describe the actual process that was implemented is essentially meaningless apart from its rhetorical appeal.

    Mike kind of gets it right in the first sentence I quoted. I would have said: ID has no proposed mechanism means only that (officially) IDists don’t have a clue how ID was implemented. Why is that a problem? Well without a proposed mechanism ID is all set up for the accusation that it is creationism in disguise; of course there is a mechanism, just read Genesis, it is just that the IDists are pretending that that is not the mechanism so they can create the illusion of science, but still get support (i.e., book sales) from the creationists. I do not know if that is true, but certainly that is my suspicion about the ID movement (not the rank-and-file like you guys, I would guess, but the big names).

    Also, no mechanism means no predictions. If ID cannot choose between front-loading be ETI 4 billion years ago, and creation by God 6000 years ago, besides who know what in between, then how can anyone make a prediction of what we must necessarily see in nature? And no predictions means no science.

    That research isn’t ID if and only if you don’t understand ID or what is being debated. And everything points to both.

    Sure, I expect I do not understand ID. But it is very telling that you are making no attempt to explain it to me. Is that because yoi also do not understand ID? Or because I am right?

    Put up or shut up. If the research supports ID, tell us how.

    Guess what? The modern Creation model of biological evolution has the SAME three main facets! IOW there isn’t any predictions exclusive to the MET.

    Great, then we all agree, and I guess the only difference is whether we accept common descent of not, which we are arguing on the other thread.

  63. the Pixie:
    They are two different processes. You can study one, without knowing how the other happens. Like the manufacturing of a car, and the driving of a car. Of course, scientists are still trying to learn all they can about both evolution and abiogenesis.

    They may be two different processes but abiogenesis DIRECTLY impacts any subsequent evolution. That is because if living organsims did NOT arise from non-living matter via stochastic, ie blind watchmaker-type, processes, there would be NO reason to infer the subsequent diversity arose solely due to those types of processes.

    IOW just as with every other investigative venue, it matters a great deal whether or not that which is being investigated arose via intentional design or by nature, operating freely.

    And again DESIGN is a mechanism. And it is bit as valid of a mechanism anything you can propose to support the anti-ID position. To say that we don’t know the EXACT design mechanism involved, well that is not relevant to the detection and study of. (IOW did it evolve via design or willy-nilly?)

    The ONLY way to make ANY determination about the specific mechanism(s) involved in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    The people who ignore that really are not interested in science.

    Umm I am not here to explain ID to you. If you want to discuss something it is best that YOU come prepared.

    the Pixie:
    And no predictions means no science.

    That is NOT part of the definition of science. Dr Humphreys said he correctly predicted the mag fields of a couple gas giants by the Bible. Does that mean Creation and the Bible are science?

    Creation in the physics lab

    Put up or shut up- tell us about those “predictions” the MET makes. We will see if they are really predictions or just post-hoc accomodations. And that way we will have a reference.

  64. Mechanism is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

    Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

    Willy-nilly is without choice (in a haphazard or spontaneous manner).

    Both design and willy-nilly are mechanisms.

    Now with design although one might never be able to determine the exact methodology used one usually is able study it in order to reverse-engineer it so that it can be duplicated. Or just hope to understand it so it can be maintained and/or repaired. IOW by studying it we can figure out a way to design and manufacture it.

    I have walked away from jobs in which the original work was done willy-nilly. The only way to “fix” it was to rip it down and do it by design.

  65. They may be two different processes but abiogenesis DIRECTLY impacts any subsequent evolution. That is because if living organsims did NOT arise from non-living matter via stochastic, ie blind watchmaker-type, processes, there would be NO reason to infer the subsequent diversity arose solely due to those types of processes.

    I guess that is why scientists are working in the field of abiogenesis then…

    And again DESIGN is a mechanism. And it is bit as valid of a mechanism anything you can propose to support the anti-ID position. To say that we don’t know the EXACT design mechanism involved, well that is not relevant to the detection and study of. (IOW did it evolve via design or willy-nilly?)

    Interesting that you put “EXACT” in upper case, when it is just a bit misleading surely. It is not that you do not know the “EXACT design mechanism”, but that you have no clue at all.

    You use “design” as a label. To say a car was “designed” tells me nothing about who built it, why they built it, how they built. It tells me nothing about the mechanism.

    The ONLY way to make ANY determination about the specific mechanism(s) involved in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    I thought we had already agreed on that. My opinion is that as soon as you have any evidence at all of design, you start to consider the mechanism, the purpose, the nature of the designer. For some reason – let us be honest, it is politics – ID wants to just identify design, declaring the rest irrelevant.

    Creation in the physics lab

    It would be interesting to discuss how Humphreys determined data for the magnetic fields of Jupiter from the Bible, but a little off-topic I feel. For one thing, I thought we were discussing ID, not creationism. Or do you think they are the same? Easy mistake to make.

    Put up or shut up- tell us about those “predictions” the MET makes. We will see if they are really predictions or just post-hoc accomodations. And that way we will have a reference.

    To be a fair comparison, I should be allowed any predictions from mainstream science, as the ones you provided are about the magnetic fields of Jupiter! Nevertheless, you can look here, here or here for predictions from MET.

    Both design and willy-nilly are mechanisms.

    In science: “A mechanism is part of an answer to a question about why some object or process occurred. Mechanism refers backwards from the object or process, along some chain of causes. No description of mechanism is ever complete. For example, the mechanism of sunlight might include the rotation of the earth, the earth’s orbit, the sun, nuclear reactions, heat, temperature, radiation emission, electromagnetic theory about the propagation of light, formation of the solar system, etc. …”

    Both design and willy-nilly are labels. MET has mechanisms that explain how inheritance happens, how variation happens and how selection happens. ID has nothing.

    Now with design although one might never be able to determine the exact methodology used one usually is able study it in order to reverse-engineer it so that it can be duplicated. Or just hope to understand it so it can be maintained and/or repaired. IOW by studying it we can figure out a way to design and manufacture it.

    If ID showed any sign of doing that, you might actually have a point.

  66. They may be two different processes but abiogenesis DIRECTLY impacts any subsequent evolution. That is because if living organsims did NOT arise from non-living matter via stochastic, ie blind watchmaker-type, processes, there would be NO reason to infer the subsequent diversity arose solely due to those types of processes.

    the Pixie:
    I guess that is why scientists are working in the field of abiogenesis then”

    Was that supposed to be a rebuttal? LoL! So if there were IDists working on the specific design process involved ID would be considered science? That is just plain dumb.

    And again DESIGN is a mechanism. And it is bit as valid of a mechanism anything you can propose to support the anti-ID position. To say that we don’t know the EXACT design mechanism involved, well that is not relevant to the detection and study of. (IOW did it evolve via design or willy-nilly?)

    the Pixie:
    Interesting that you put “EXACT” in upper case, when it is just a bit misleading surely. It is not that you do not know the “EXACT design mechanism” , but that you have no clue at all.

    Umm I have already told you of at least two design mechanisms- built-in responses to environmental cues and front loading evolution.

    the Pixie:
    You use “design” as a label.

    No, I use design as a mechanism. And a mechanism I know quite a bit about.

    the Pixie:
    To say a car was “designed” tells me nothing about who built it, why they built it, how they built. It tells me nothing about the mechanism.

    So what? To say someone was murdered tells me nothing about who did it- we still have many unsolved murders. In at least some cases we don’t even know why someone was murdered. And sometimes the mechanism is also lost. Yet we still know it was murder and we try our best to put the pieces together.

    The ONLY way to make ANY determination about the specific mechanism(s) involved in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    the Pixie:
    I thought we had already agreed on that.

    I thought we did too. However…

    the Pixie:
    My opinion is that as soon as you have any evidence at all of design, you start to consider the mechanism, the purpose, the nature of the designer.

    You are welcome to your opinion. Just don’t force it on other people.

    the Pixie:
    For some reason – let us be honest, it is politics – ID wants to just identify design, declaring the rest irrelevant.

    That is wrong. Please read “No Free Lunch”. Dembski makes it clear that the process is a separate question! That is because we may NEVER know the EXACT process used. But perhaps we may be able to figure out a mechanism that allows us to duplicate it.

    IOW I know I can design and build something that no one would be able to figure out EXACTLY how I did it. However it can still be studied.

    the Pixie:
    It would be interesting to discuss how Humphreys determined data for the magnetic fields of Jupiter from the Bible, but a little off-topic I feel. For one thing, I thought we were discussing ID, not creationism. Or do you think they are the same? Easy mistake to make.

    Umm the point was about predictions. And according to your definition of science the Bible and Creation must be scientific.

    Both design and willy-nilly are mechanisms.

    the Pixie:
    In science: “A mechanism is part of an answer to a question about why some object or process occurred.”

    And something can occur by design.

    Mechanism refers backwards from the object or process, along some chain of causes.

    OK when the MET can do that with humans and chimps you will have a point. Until then all you have is a double-standard.

    the Pixie:
    Both design and willy-nilly are labels.

    Funny, because it was just shown that bith are mechansims. I will go with the real world definitions over yours. But thanks anyway.

    the Pixie:
    MET has mechanisms that explain how inheritance happens, how variation happens and how selection happens. ID has nothing.

    The MET has speculations based on assumptions. And as far as anyone knows some or most of the genetic recombinations occur by design and do NOT occur willy-nilly.

    Also it was a Creationist who told us about inheritance.

    Now with design although one might never be able to determine the exact methodology used one usually is able study it in order to reverse-engineer it so that it can be duplicated. Or just hope to understand it so it can be maintained and/or repaired. IOW by studying it we can figure out a way to design and manufacture it.

    the Pixie:
    If ID showed any sign of doing that, you might actually have a point.

    First things first.

  67. Predictions:

    Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).

    Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).

    Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).

    Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).

    Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella “fit these predictions closely” (Mallatt and Chen 2003).

    Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).

    Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

    Nothing there is support of the MET. Any of those predictions would be fulfilled by front loading evolution.

    Don Lindsay’s page is just more of the same.

    But I understand how those toatlly wed to the MET would think those are valid predictions of the theory

  68. Ooops I take the Pixie missed this:

    A true science need not make predictions. That is just one method of demonstrating that the theory in question conforms to fact. It is not the only method, nor necessarily the preferable method. It can be demonstrated that Darwinism conforms to fact by other methods which are reasonable in the context of their emergence.

    And again “predictions” made from evolution does not equate to predictions made from the MET. As for fossils and predictions, without any way to verify the transformations required are even possible, there is no way to place any fossil in any lineage in which such transformations are required.

    However there is another prediction from the Creation model that has been verified by scientific observation- populations reproduce after their Kind:

    Chapter IV of prominent geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti’s book Why is a Fly Not a Horse? is titled “Wobbling Stability”. In that chapter he discusses what I have been talking about in other threads- that populations oscillate. The following is what he has to say which is based on thorough scientific investigation:

    Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state– scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.

    (snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)

    Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type– the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.

    Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.

    It is true that species may lose something on the way– the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution– the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.

    The point being, that IF it were left to direct scientific observations, evolutionism fails miserably and all that is left is wishful thinking supported by speculation.

    And ID does predict CSI and IC. That is because ID predicts intelligent agencies will leave their mark and that mark can be detected- both CSI and IC are that mark. IOW we wouldn’t have a design inference without either.

  69. Was that supposed to be a rebuttal? LoL! So if there were IDists working on the specific design process involved ID would be considered science? That is just plain dumb.

    ID is not science because IDists have decided not to look at the design process for political reasons. If IDists start working on the design process, that would be a step towards science.

    No, I use design as a mechanism. And a mechanism I know quite a bit about.

    So tell me… Is the mechanism the same for designing a house, a lesson timetable and a statue? I would have guess they were very different mechanisms, that all fall under the one label of “design”.

    So what? To say someone was murdered tells me nothing about who did it- we still have many unsolved murders. In at least some cases we don’t even know why someone was murdered. And sometimes the mechanism is also lost. Yet we still know it was murder and we try our best to put the pieces together.

    Can you imagine a scenario where we know someone was murdered, but we do not know the mechanism? If the guy was shot, they would suspect murder because of the gunshot wound, and would feel confident saying the mechanism was shooting.

    That is wrong. Please read “No Free Lunch” . Dembski makes it clear that the process is a separate question! That is because we may NEVER know the EXACT process used. But perhaps we may be able to figure out a mechanism that allows us to duplicate it.
    IOW I know I can design and build something that no one would be able to figure out EXACTLY how I did it. However it can still be studied.

    There you go again capitalising “EXACTLY”. No one is demanding that you know EXACTLTY. What we require to start off with is some reasonable speculation, based on the available evidence.

    Umm the point was about predictions. And according to your definition of science the Bible and Creation must be scientific.

    No, making predictions is a requirement of science, but it does not follow that anything that makes preductions is science.

    Nothing there is support of the MET. Any of those predictions would be fulfilled by front loading evolution.

    Yes. But Darwin said first, Darwin got his theory accepted as science before front-loading was suggested. Like it or not, MET is the establishe paradigm, and it works well. Front-loading may work just as well, but it has to do better than Darwinism to displace Darwinism.

    Interesting through that ID is compatible with all the prediction of MET?
    Don Lindsay’s page is just more of the same.

    And ID does predict CSI and IC. That is because ID predicts intelligent agencies will leave their mark and that mark can be detected- both CSI and IC are that mark. IOW we wouldn’t have a design inference without either.

    Can you show me why CSI and IC are necessarily true if ID is true?

  70. ID is not science

    Pixie: Each time I said there was evidence for design. The implication is that design can therefore be scientifically detected, would you not say?

    Pixie: So I have been saying that design can be scientifically detected to this day for some time now.

    Pixie the Insincere Debater

  71. the Pixie:
    ID is not science because IDists have decided not to look at the design process for political reasons.

    Please substantiate that claim or retract it.

    the Pixie:
    If IDists start working on the design process, that would be a step towards science.

    That is nonsense. And we do have proposed design mechanisms.

    No, I use design as a mechanism. And a mechanism I know quite a bit about.

    the Pixie:
    So tell me” Is the mechanism the same for designing a house, a lesson timetable and a statue? I would have guess they were very different mechanisms, that all fall under the one label of “design” .

    It does not matter, design is still a mechanism as demonstrated by standard accepted definitions.

    the Pixie:
    Can you imagine a scenario where we know someone was murdered, but we do not know the mechanism? If the guy was shot, they would suspect murder because of the gunshot wound, and would feel confident saying the mechanism was shooting.

    People die of gunshot wounds but they are not always murdered. Also some people get shot and then die of a heart attack or from something else.

    And I am sure that before modern times there were plenty of examples in which murder was determined before the mechanism was known.

    the Pixie:
    There you go again capitalising “EXACTLY” . No one is demanding that you know EXACTLTY. What we require to start off with is some reasonable speculation, based on the available evidence.

    But no one cares what you require, not even science! But I understand your reliance of speculation, seeing that is all the MET has.

    the Pixie:
    No, making predictions is a requirement of science, but it does not follow that anything that makes preductions is science.

    No it isn’t a requirement. From YOUR Wiki link on predictions:

    A true science need not make predictions. That is just one method of demonstrating that the theory in question conforms to fact. It is not the only method, nor necessarily the preferable method. It can be demonstrated that Darwinism conforms to fact by other methods which are reasonable in the context of their emergence.

    Did you get that? A true science need not make predictions. A true science just be concerned with the reality of the existence to what is being investigated.

    Try reading what you link to BEFORE posting it. Also I asked for a reference to support YOUR requirement. Yet you didn’t provide one.

    But if predictions don’t make something scientific then why harp on predictions?

    And again those are NOT predictions of the MET. Also Creationists gave us nested hierarchy as evidence of Common Design BEFORE Charles wrote his book. A Creationist gave us the mechanism of inheritance. And a Creationist wrote of natural selection before Charles.

    IOW everything the MET has it took from Creation! And not one of those alleged predictions says anything about a mechanism. Therefore by YOUR standards they aren’t worth anything.

    IOW to be valid predictions they must be exclusive. If more than one model can predict the same thing the prediction is meaningless to any one model.

    the Pixie:
    Can you show me why CSI and IC are necessarily true if ID is true?

    If both were absent A) we wouldn’t infer design and B) we wouldn’t be here.

  72. Joe, you should inform Dembski that design is a mechanism. His philosophy is premised on the opposite assumption. See Can Specified Complexity Even Have a Mechanism?.

  73. To the Pixie:

    It is true that some design events lend themselves to an easy inference as to the method and designer. I woiuld say the simpler the design event in question and the more knowledge we have of cause-n-effect, the easier that process would be. And it would become almost second-nature.

    But it took time to get to that point. Time and effort. And as you (should) know living organisms aren’t a simple matter.

    We do have experience with genetic engineering, computer run goal-oriented genetic algorithms, layering of information, yada, yada, yada.

    Now if we took a PC to some jungle population, I would bet that they could tell it was artificial. I am also sure they wouldn’t have any clue as to who, why, how or when. But if they are really curious they may be able to find out something about it (but probably not because they are just interested in survival) or it may lead them to discover lands outside of their own. Ever see “The God’s Must be Crazy”? Look what a Coke bottle did…

  74. Unfortunately the Pixie’s attitude is borne from a fast-food society and CSI TV shows.

    Now the cheap seats chime in:

    secondclass:
    Joe, you should inform Dembski that design is a mechanism.

    I have. Well I have put it on his blog enough. I am also sure he has a dictionary and can parse out the definitions. He is smarter than your average bear.

    secondclass:
    His philosophy is premised on the opposite assumption.

    And here I thought his philosphy was premised on the assumption that design can be detected and studied.

    Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?

    “Intelligent cause” is a mechanism also. Probably even synynomous of design.

    But in the end Wm is using mechanism differently than I:

    Specified complexity is only a mystery so long as it must be explained mechanistically. But the fact is that we attribute specified complexity to intelligences (and therefore to entities that are not mechanisms) all the time.

    Any questions?

  75. Teleologist

    Pixie: ID is not science
    Pixie: Each time I said there was evidence for design. The implication is that design can therefore be scientifically detected, would you not say?
    Pixie: So I have been saying that design can be scientifically detected to this day for some time now.

    Interesting that these follow on from your baseless accusation of quote-mining on the Pixie character assassination page, but you neglect to give the context. As I recall, the second two refer to a hypothetical situation in which the universe is created by God. In this hypothetical universe, there is evidence for design. I do not believe our universe was created by God, being an atheist. I do not believe there is evidence for ID in this universe.

  76. Pix: ID is not science because IDists have decided not to look at the design process for political reasons.
    Joe: Please substantiate that claim or retract it.

    The Dover court case decided that ID was essentially creationism with the “G” word removed (ID is not the same as creationism, but…). Sure, you will disagree, but the evidence just mounts up. How many of the IDists here are also creationists? How often do attempts to get ID into schools appeal to religion? How come in “Of People and Pandas” the word “creationism” could be swaped for “intelligent design”? How come you provided an example of creation science giving predictions to support your claims about ID?.

    That is nonsense. And we do have proposed design mechanisms.

    And you just cold not be bothered to name one, or provide a link. Somehow I do not believe you. Sorry.

    It does not matter, design is still a mechanism as demonstrated by standard accepted definitions.

    See again I might believe that if you could find a web site that states these “standard accepted definitions”. If they are standard, they must be written down, right?

    Pix: There you go again capitalising “EXACTLY” . No one is demanding that you know EXACTLTY. What we require to start off with is some reasonable speculation, based on the available evidence.
    Joe: But no one cares what you require, not even science! But I understand your reliance of speculation, seeing that is all the MET has.

    MET has speculation based on evidence. ID has no speculationa. For political reasons.

    Also Creationists gave us nested hierarchy as evidence of Common Design BEFORE Charles wrote his book. A Creationist gave us the mechanism of inheritance. And a Creationist wrote of natural selection before Charles.
    IOW everything the MET has it took from Creation! And not one of those alleged predictions says anything about a mechanism. Therefore by YOUR standards they aren’t worth anything.

    I do not think common descent came from creationism!

    Pix: Can you show me why CSI and IC are necessarily true if ID is true?
    Joe: If both were absent A) we wouldn’t infer design and B) we wouldn’t be here.

    A) Suppose hypotheticially God created the universe, and he did so in such a way that there was no CSI and no IC in it (and I would not be so presumptuous to say whether this was possible or not), then we would not infer design you say (even if God took us back in time and showed us how he did it).

    B) What? You seem to be claiming: If both CSI and IC were absent we wouldn’t be here, therefore if ID is true, then both CSI and IC must be present. I have no idea what your reasoning might.

    Unfortunately the Pixie’s attitude is borne from a fast-food society and CSI TV shows.

    More of that character assassination that seems so popular among the Christians on this site.

  77. the Pixie:
    More of that character assassination that seems so popular among the Christians on this site.

    Umm I’m not a Christian and all I have done was to note the obvious.

    the Pixie:
    How come you provided an example of creation science giving predictions to support your claims about ID?.

    I didn’t. But apparently you cannot even follow a discussion. Those predictions were given to show, by YOUR definition, Creation is science.

    the Pixie:
    And you just cold not be bothered to name one, or provide a link. Somehow I do not believe you. Sorry.

    You are daft and that is your issue, not mine. Built-in responses to environmental cues- I have told you that mechansim several times now.

    the Pixie:
    The Dover court case decided that ID was essentially creationism with the “G” word removed (ID is not the same as creationism, but”).

    That court case didn’t decide anything that was based on reality.

    the Pixie:
    See again I might believe that if you could find a web site that states these “standard accepted definitions” .

    I did. Man you have deep issues. Seek help, please.

    the Pixie:
    I do not think common descent came from creationism!

    I never said nor implied it did. what I said was the “evidence” for Common Descent was the evidence for Creation.

  78. “Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs.”

    I’ll let you guess who I stole this from.

  79. As for predictions- If scientific predictions are based on scientific observation and scientific testing, then what can be predicted based on the following”:

    Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state– scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.

    (snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)

    Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type– the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.

    Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.

    It is true that species may lose something on the way– the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution– the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.– geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti in “Why is a Fly Not a Horse?”

    “seeing that it is based on scientific observation and scientific testing?

    (great quote Inunison!)

  80. Joe G

    Pix: How come you provided an example of creation science giving predictions to support your claims about ID?.
    Joe: I didn’t. But apparently you cannot even follow a discussion. Those predictions were given to show, by YOUR definition, Creation is science.

    Well let us see how the discussion went:

    Pix (post 65): Also, no mechanism means no predictions. If ID cannot choose between front-loading be ETI 4 billion years ago, and creation by God 6000 years ago, besides who know what in between, then how can anyone make a prediction of what we must necessarily see in nature? And no predictions means no science.
    Joe (post 66): That is NOT part of the definition of science. Dr Humphreys said he correctly predicted the mag fields of a couple gas giants by the Bible. Does that mean Creation and the Bible are science?

    Now as I read that, I was talking about how ID cannot make predictions because it is inherently fence-sitting. You respond by saying actually creation is science. What have I missed here, Joe?

    That court case didn’t decide anything that was based on reality.

    Not based on your reality. ID had the perfect change to prove itself in court, just as Dembski hoped for in the “vise stratgey”. But the big IDists decided to stay away for some reason.

    Joe: IOW everything the MET has it took from Creation!
    Pix: I do not think common descent came from creationism!
    Joe: I never said nor implied it did.

    What am I missing here? Have you not heard that MET includes common descent? And yet you claim everything in MET came from creation!

  81. the Pixie:
    Now as I read that, I was talking about how ID cannot make predictions because it is inherently fence-sitting.

    As I read what transpired it is obvious that I was talking about science and predictions in general. Just as I have explained! You know going by what YOU stated, but never substantiated about science and predictions.

    As for Dover if I was the school board member pushing for the change the decision would have been in favor of the school board. And we will get a chance to test that theory as I am either going to get on a school board or at least influence one enough so that ID is presented in theor school system.

    And why is it only those who know the least about ID and Creation the same people who try to conflate the two?

    Didn’t you post something from AiG (a Creationist org) that disses ID? That doesn’t sound like they are the same at all.

    IOW only dishonest wankers continue to conflate the two.

    Let’s take another look:

    genetics & inheritance- taken from Creation
    Natural Selection- taken from Creation
    Nested Hierarchy- taken from Creation
    binomial nomenclature- taken from Creation

    All supporters of the MET have done is to twist each to suit their agenda.

  82. IOW only dishonest wankers continue to conflate the two.

    Not surprised you got banned from ARN, just strange what the IDists can get away with here.

  83. the Pixie:
    Not surprised you got banned from ARN, just strange what the IDists can get away with here.

    Ya I know. The truth usually hurts, but I will still call them as I see them.

    IOW there shouldn’t be ANY way possible for someone, like yourself who has participated on that ARN discussion board for years, to not understand that ID and Creation are NOT the same. That you do that just exposes the obvious.

  84. Oh, and that you still conflate the two should be more than reason enough to ban you from that discussion venue.

    When there is a cancer you don’t get rid of the person trying to cure it. You get rid of the cancer.

  85. Hi The Pixie,

    ID is not science because IDists have decided not to look at the design process for political reasons.

    There are no more politically motivated organizations than NCSE and ACLU, so your propagandist statement is just that.

    The Dover court case decided that ID was essentially creationism with the “G” word removed (ID is not the same as creationism, but”). Sure, you will disagree, but the evidence just mounts up

    Still spinning the story?

    The issue is court-ordered censorship of ID in school rooms. It seems to have escaped you and many others that the Kitzmiller (Dover) decision was about that subject. The court had no capacity to judge ID on its scientific merits, but it did have an obligation to speak to First Amendment issues. Sadly, the judge, as have been shown, took over 90 percent of his ruling on ID right out of the ACLU brief– factual errors and all. It is clearly blatant effort at censorship.

    Let me remind you that Discovery Institute does not support requiring the teaching of ID, only the teaching of the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory. Don’t you think we should also support academic freedom on the subject of intelligent design (even potentially being proven wrong). Let me see you The Pixie therefore deal with the true issue of censorship because that is the right thing to do in this case. However I am not holding my breath.

  86. Joe G

    As for Dover if I was the school board member pushing for the change the decision would have been in favor of the school board. And we will get a chance to test that theory as I am either going to get on a school board or at least influence one enough so that ID is presented in theor school system.

    It is shocking to realise that you are so arraogant that you feel you can enforce your opinions on children across all the schools in your district. I get the impression you do not have a degree in biology, and yet you think you are better able to judge the evidence than people who studied the subject for six or more years, then made a career in it.

    I also have no degree in biology. I think that is fine for a discuss on the internet, but there is no way I would enforce my opinions on biology in a teaching curriculum.

    And why is it only those who know the least about ID and Creation the same people who try to conflate the two?
    Didn’t you post something from AiG (a Creationist org) that disses ID? That doesn’t sound like they are the same at all.
    IOW only dishonest wankers continue to conflate the two.

    IOW there shouldn’t be ANY way possible for someone, like yourself who has participated on that ARN discussion board for years, to not understand that ID and Creation are NOT the same. That you do that just exposes the obvious.
    Oh, and that you still conflate the two should be more than reason enough to ban you from that discussion venue.

    What I actually said is: “The Dover court case decided that ID was essentially creationism with the “G” word removed (ID is not the same as creationism, but”). ” I.e., they are not identical, just pretty similar. And it is of course after many years of discussion at ARN that I come to the conclusion that ID is a political movement that pretends to be science, and has sprung from a subset of creationists. That does not mean all IDists are IDists for political reasons, many may believe that ID is legimate science – afterall that is what the ID movement wants you to think.

    Let’s take another look:
    genetics & inheritance- taken from Creation
    Natural Selection- taken from Creation
    Nested Hierarchy- taken from Creation
    binomial nomenclature- taken from Creation
    All supporters of the MET have done is to twist each to suit their agenda.

    But you originally claimed that all MET was taken from creationism. And that was false, because MET includes common descent, as I am sure you know.

  87. Inunison

    There are no more politically motivated organizations than NCSE and ACLU, so your propagandist statement is just that.

    Who is claiming that NCSE and ACLU are doing science? Sure there are political organisations that promote mainstream science (and just as well, giving the activities of IDists and creationists to use politics to promote bad science). But there are lots and lots of organisations just doing mainstream biology – most of the universities around the world for a start.

    Pix: The Dover court case decided that ID was essentially creationism with the “G” word removed (ID is not the same as creationism, but”). Sure, you will disagree, but the evidence just mounts up
    Still spinning the story?
    The issue is court-ordered censorship of ID in school rooms. It seems to have escaped you and many others that the Kitzmiller (Dover) decision was about that subject. The court had no capacity to judge ID on its scientific merits, but it did have an obligation to speak to First Amendment issues. Sadly, the judge, as have been shown, took over 90 percent of his ruling on ID right out of the ACLU brief– factual errors and all. It is clearly blatant effort at censorship.

    Do you think the same rules should be applied to astrology? Many people read horoscropes, so surely there is an argument that astrologyshould be taught as science in schools. Or geocentrism, or ufology. Personally, I think not, and I would hope you would not too. So you need an objective rule for deciding whether something should be taught in schools. And the only objective rule I can think of is that you teach only what has been accepted by over 95% of the scientists working in that subject. 95% of physicists will tell you astrology is wrong, so you do not teac it in school. 95% of biologists will tell you MET is right, so that is what you teach.

    Naturally you want to present this as censorship, because that is how you spin the story. Is it censorship to stop the physics teach telling the children that astrology is good science? I do not think so.

    Let me remind you that Discovery Institute does not support requiring the teaching of ID, only the teaching of the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory.

    Of course that is the DI official position, because they have got whipped in the courts to often to hope for any more at this time.

  88. the Pixie:
    It is shocking to realise that you are so arraogant that you feel you can enforce your opinions on children across all the schools in your district.

    LoL! I am shocked at the arrogance of evolutionists who feel they can force their unscientific opinions across all school districts!

    All I am going to do is to show the kids there is more than one option behind the reality to our existence. But I understand why you wouldn’t want that. Afterall the MET cannot have any critical thinkers lurking about.

    the Pixie:
    I get the impression you do not have a degree in biology, and yet you think you are better able to judge the evidence than people who studied the subject for six or more years, then made a career in it.

    Umm there are biologists and geneticists who are either Creationists or IDists. If the MET was so strong we shouldn’t see that at all.

    the Pixie:
    What I actually said is: “The Dover court case decided that ID was essentially creationism with the “G” word removed (ID is not the same as creationism, but”). ” I.e., they are not identical, just pretty similar.

    And ID and the MET are also pretty similar. Go figure…

    the Pixie:
    And it is of course after many years of discussion at ARN that I come to the conclusion that ID is a political movement that pretends to be science, and has sprung from a subset of creationists.

    If you would have done any actual research as opposed to discussion boards you would know that your inference is wrong. ID is based on scientific observation coupled with scientific testing.

    It is also obvious that the materialistic anti-ID position of sheer dumb luck is about as far away from science as one can get yet that is what is being forced on our kids- and in an underhanded way- no one is telling the kids that sheer dumb luck is a major ingredient!

    ID is legitimate science. We exist and there is only one reality behind that existence. And not one anti-ID scientist has been able to substantiate the anti-ID position. Not with observation and definitely not via scientific testing.

    the Pixie:
    But you originally claimed that all MET was taken from creationism. And that was false, because MET includes common descent, as I am sure you know.

    You have issues with reading comprehension. Here it is AGAIN- this time pay attention to the last sentence:

    Let’s take another look:
    genetics & inheritance- taken from Creation
    Natural Selection- taken from Creation
    Nested Hierarchy- taken from Creation
    binomial nomenclature- taken from Creation
    All supporters of the MET have done is to twist each to suit their agenda.

    THAT is where Common Descent comes from!

    the Pixie:
    Of course that is the DI official position, because they have got whipped in the courts to often to hope for any more at this time.

    Name ONE court case the DI got whipped in- Dover doesn’t count becvause the DI told that school board not to do what it did. IOW the DI did NOT support Dover. Also in Dover the judge obviously did NOT listen to the ID experts. He based his decision solely on the testimony of the people who least understand ID!

    That is why I know if I was on that SB the decison would have been very different. And if the participants can change a decision without changing ID then it is obvious something was amiss.

    Also I will note that if teaching ID or Creation in public schools means that the kids will be as scientifically literate as Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Linneaus, Kepler, Pasteur, Einstein, Plack, et al., and I can live with that. I would wish such a thing on all children.

    I know if the MET and ID were compared side by each- IOW if the MET went on trial at the same time, ID would win. Reality demonstrates the following:

    Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state– scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.

    (snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)

    ction, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type– the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.

    Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.

    It is true that species may lose something on the way– the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution– the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.– geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti in “Why is a Fly Not a Horse?”

    And there isn’t ONE scientist on this planet that can refute that. Go figure…

  89. Joe G

    LoL! I am shocked at the arrogance of evolutionists who feel they can force their unscientific opinions across all school districts!

    You are shocked by scientists who have studied biology for many years trying to force their ideas on biology into biology eduction? How do you feel about scientists who have studied physics for many years trying to force their ideas on physics into physics eduction? Does that shock you too? And I just bet it is the same in chemistry. Scientists who know chemistry having the arrogance to decide what should be taught in chemistry!

    Surely any country that boasts free speech must let any who wants to dictate what the children will be taught this year in science classes.

    Umm there are biologists and geneticists who are either Creationists or IDists. If the MET was so strong we shouldn’t see that at all.

    Umm, what percentage is that, do you think?

    Project Steve gives us a starting point, with 787 Steves who support evolution, all have a “Ph.D. in biology, geology, paleontology, or a related scientific field”. I think this is more than the DI list, which includes engineers, for crying out loud! I suspect the percentage of biologists who reject MET is less than 1.

    So if the evidence for ID is so strong that you are confident about forcing it on children, why do so very, very few biologists accept it?

    And ID and the MET are also pretty similar.

    I know! But tell people around here that and they get very annoyed.

    If you would have done any actual research as opposed to discussion boards you would know that your inference is wrong. ID is based on scientific observation coupled with scientific testing.

    And yet only a tiny fraction of people knowledgeable in biology think ID has any merit. Go figure…

    It is also obvious that the materialistic anti-ID position of sheer dumb luck is about as far away from science as one can get yet that is what is being forced on our kids- and in an underhanded way- no one is telling the kids that sheer dumb luck is a major ingredient!

    And yet only a tiny fraction of people knowledgeable in biology would agree with you. Go figure…

    ID is legitimate science.

    And yet only a tiny fraction of people knowledgeable in biology would agree with you. Go figure…

    What I find interesting is that you have chosen not to offer any objective criteria for what goes into the school curriculum. Why would that be? Perhaps because you know that if you let ID in, you also let in astrology, geocentrism and all the other pseudosciences? Oh, wait, you just want to teach the controversy. And I am sure you want to extend that to atomic theory and Newton’s law.

  90. Hi The Pixie,

    Nice of you to offer us your opinions. However reality is a bit different. First you missed the point of my post. Let me repeat: The issue is court-ordered censorship of ID in school rooms. It seems to have escaped you and many others that the Kitzmiller (Dover) decision was about that subject. The court had no capacity to judge ID on its scientific merits, but it did have an obligation to speak to First Amendment issues. Scientific merits of ID need to be addressed elsewhere not in courts.

    There are many scientific theories that have been refuted before. So by your logic, invoking majority of scientists we should never be able to falsify any such theory. Great way of doing science indeed.

    And have you ever wondered why real scientists outside evolutionary biology never (not sure about never, but you can prove me wrong) claim their theory is a fact as much as Darwinian Evolution.

    And again the famous few stolen sentences:

    Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs.

  91. …and The Pixie, if you take your biased outlook off and read some history you would find that geocentricism was a valid scientific theory (that was subsequently refuted). Since when we call refuted theories pseudoscience?

  92. the Pixie:
    You are shocked by scientists who have studied biology for many years trying to force their ideas on biology into biology eduction?

    Only the unsubstantiated un-scientific ideas.

    Umm science is NOT done via majority. Anyone who is even remotely familiar with science understands that.

    And if ANY one of those “Steves” could substantiate their position I would still be an evolutionist!

    the Pixie:
    So if the evidence for ID is so strong that you are confident about forcing it on children, why do so very, very few biologists accept it?

    Again NOT ONE BIOLOGIST CAN SUBSTANTIATE THEOR ANTI-ID POSITION.

    What part about that don’t you understand?

    As for how I would prefer a science classroom to go is to teach the data, present the options and have a discussion. And it would be really nice if science teachers told the truth about those options- namely that sheer dumb luck is the materialistic anti-ID option- iow that is what is currently being taught but not spoken. And that is dishonesty at its finest.

    However at this point in time that is all supporters of the MET have.

    I wonder if the Pixie knows that geocentrism was first and foremost a SCIENTIFIC theory?

    As for Newton why don’t the teachers tell students he was a Creationist?

    It is also obvious that the materialistic anti-ID position of sheer dumb luck is about as far away from science as one can get yet that is what is being forced on our kids- and in an underhanded way- no one is telling the kids that sheer dumb luck is a major ingredient!

    the Pixie:
    And yet only a tiny fraction of people knowledgeable in biology would agree with you.

    Huh? Anyone knowledgeable of the materialistic anti-ID position knows it is based on sheer dumb luck. What else is there?

  93. The court had no capacity to judge ID on its scientific merits

    inunison, you’ve missed the point. Please read Judge Jones entire Kitzmiller written opinion, here.

  94. namely that sheer dumb luck is the materialistic anti-ID option

    JoeG, dumb yes, luck no. 😀

  95. Inunison (or anyone) why not start a new thread on Kitzmiller and censorship.

  96. lol @ teleologist

  97. For the Pixie:

    ID Gaining Momemtum in the UK

    Stuart Burgess is Professor of design and nature in the department of mechanical engineering at Bristol University. He argues that intelligent design is as valid a scientific concept as evolution.

    Current scientific philosophy is to rule out completely the possibility that a creator was involved. But there is no scientific justification for making such a sweeping assumption. Science should always be open-minded.

    Newton, Kelvin, Faraday and Pascal had no problem with a creator and with design. There is no reason why a modern scientist cannot take the same position as these eminent scientists. Three hundred years ago, there was so much support for intelligent design that life could be difficult if you were an atheist. Now the opposite is true; life can be difficult if you show the slightest sympathy for intelligent design.

    Evolution cannot be taken as a fact of science because of the ambiguities in the evidence. The fossil record can be evidence for and against evolution because of the gaps. Similarities in DNA code can be just as much evidence for a common designer as for evolution. Most significantly, scientists have failed to reproduce the spontaneous generation of life for 60 years.

    I’ve been designing systems like spacecraft for more than 20 years. One of the lessons I’ve learnt is that complex systems require an immense amount of intelligence to design. I’ve seen a lot of irreducible complexity in engineering. I have also seen organs in nature that are apparently irreducible. An irreducibly complex organ is one where several parts are required simultaneously for the system to function usefully, so it cannot have evolved, bit by bit, over time.

    The mammalian knee-joint is an organ that appears irreducible. Everyone has a four-bar linkage in their knee. Engineers know that for this to work, you need all four bars to be present. Every time we walk, we’re using irreducible mechanisms. Evolutionists have not been able to explain how the knee joint evolved step by step. We cannot prove that an intelligent being designed these, but at present no one can prove that they evolved, either.

    There is a real difference between intelligent design and creationism. Creationism is about who the designer is and why he created the world.

    For this reason, I don’t think creationism should be taught in a science lesson. But the question of intelligent design is completely different. It only addresses the question of whether an intelligent designer is needed for life to have been possible. The possibility of a designer should be mentioned, however briefly.

    I can understand that some people are worried about the implications of the existence of a creator, but it’s not science to rule something out because you don’t like the implications. (bold added)

    Double-standards indeed.

  98. Here is a link to what Burgess said.

    Stuart Burgess is Professor of design and nature in the department of mechanical engineering at Bristol University. He argues that intelligent design is as valid a scientific concept as evolution.

    So this is the opinion of an engineer, rather than a biologist? What exactly is his background in biology? Why should I think he knows any more about it than you or I?

    Current scientific philosophy is to rule out completely the possibility that a creator was involved. But there is no scientific justification for making such a sweeping assumption. Science should always be open-minded.

    Good spin, but actually science does not “rule out completely the possibility”, rather it offers a specific theory of what probably happened, given the available evidence.

    Newton, Kelvin, Faraday and Pascal had no problem with a creator and with design. There is no reason why a modern scientist cannot take the same position as these eminent scientists. Three hundred years ago, there was so much support for intelligent design that life could be difficult if you were an atheist. Now the opposite is true; life can be difficult if you show the slightest sympathy for intelligent design.

    This would seem to answer itself. “Now the opposite is true”; i.e., there is now so much support for evolution that life could be difficult if you were a creationist.

    Evolution cannot be taken as a fact of science because of the ambiguities in the evidence. The fossil record can be evidence for and against evolution because of the gaps.

    Ah, the old god-of-the-gaps argument. More and more fossils are being discovered; at what hypothetical point do you think this argument becomes invalid? How small must the gap be before you or Burgress would accept evolution? I would hazard a guess it would need to be about a generation!

    Similarities in DNA code can be just as much evidence for a common designer as for evolution.

    Yeah, but evolution is prepared to stick its neck out and say how and when. The “common design” thing does not.

    Most significantly, scientists have failed to reproduce the spontaneous generation of life for 60 years.

    And in all that time, no one has seen God create life either.

    I’ve been designing systems like spacecraft for more than 20 years.

    No wonder he thinks he can speak authoritively on biological evolution then.

    One of the lessons I’ve learnt is that complex systems require an immense amount of intelligence to design.

    I guess the logic goes:
    * I have designed complex systems
    * Therefore all complex systems must be designed
    Is that right, or have I missed something here?

    I’ve seen a lot of irreducible complexity in engineering. I have also seen organs in nature that are apparently irreducible. An irreducibly complex organ is one where several parts are required simultaneously for the system to function usefully, so it cannot have evolved, bit by bit, over time.

    There is a big difference between saying “apparently irreducible” and proving something is “irreducibly complex”, according to this definition (which is the most recent one). As far as I am aware, no one has ever done that.

    The mammalian knee-joint is an organ that appears irreducible.

    I found This paper from 1938 interesting.

    There is a real difference between intelligent design and creationism. Creationism is about who the designer is and why he created the world.
    For this reason, I don’t think creationism should be taught in a science lesson.

    Who and why are vital questions surely. Why would you want to avoid them? Bear inmind that in the UK we do not have separation of church and state, so creationism does not have that problem.

    But the question of intelligent design is completely different. It only addresses the question of whether an intelligent designer is needed for life to have been possible. The possibility of a designer should be mentioned, however briefly.

    I can understand that some people are worried about the implications of the existence of a creator, but it’s not science to rule something out because you don’t like the implications.

    Funny, it sounds to me as though Burgess has ruled out evolution because he does not like the implications. Double standards indeed.

  99. PARODY: This just in… It has been revealed that in certain parts of the country the history curriculum is being decided by historians! This discovered has naturally angered many creations across the country. As one said; “What do they know about history, just because they’ve studied history for years in their so-called universities, don’t mean they know what our children should be taught.” Already creationist groups are urging members to stand for election on district school boards. “This country is about democracy and free speech. That means we have the right to force children across the district to learn in history classes exactly what I say they should, and not these so-called facts the eggheads say they should learn.”

    REALITY?: This just in… It has been revealed that in certain parts of the country the biology curriculum is being decided by biologists! This discovered has naturally angered many creations across the country. As one said; “What do they know about biology, just because they’ve studied history for years in their so-called universities, don’t mean they know what our children should be taught.” Already creationist groups are urging members to stand for election on district school boards. “This country is about democracy and free speech. That means we have the right to force children across the district to learn in biology classes exactly what I say they should, and not these so-called facts the eggheads say they should learn.”

  100. the Pixie:
    So this is the opinion of an engineer, rather than a biologist?

    Umm this is the opinion of someone who is an expert in design and nature. Biologists appear not to know much about design. Also if any biologist could support the “design is illusory” ID would go away.

    the Pixie:
    Good spin, but actually science does not “rule out completely the possibility” , rather it offers a specific theory of what probably happened, given the available evidence.

    All evidence to the contrary of course.

    the Pixie:
    This would seem to answer itself. “Now the opposite is true” ; i.e., there is now so much support for evolution that life could be difficult if you were a creationist.

    No one is debating “evolution”. Also no one can demonstrate that ANY mechanism can account for the changes required by Common Descent.

    the Pixie:
    Yeah, but evolution is prepared to stick its neck out and say how and when.

    No one has ANY clue as to “how or when”.

    the Pixie:
    And in all that time, no one has seen God create life either.

    Did he mention “God”? No. However science has demonstrated that only life begets life.

    the Pixie:
    No wonder he thinks he can speak authoritively on biological evolution then.

    And again- he is an authority of design and nature.

    Add that to the fact that NOT ONE BIOLOGIST CAN SUBSTANTIATE THE GRAND CLAIMS OF COMMON DESCENT and the design inference is what you get.

  101. Joe G

    No one is debating “evolution” . Also no one can demonstrate that ANY mechanism can account for the changes required by Common Descent.

    Evolution is a mechanism! At least as much as design is, anyway.

    No one has ANY clue as to “how or when” .

    Sure they do. The fossil record gives a good indication of when. It is not certain, but to claim there is no clue is quite wrong. And genetics gives us a load of clues about how.

    Did he mention “God” ? No.

    Yeah, but we all know that was what he meant. Do you really believe he thinks otherwise?

    However science has demonstrated that only life begets life.

    Can you talk me through how science has demonstrated this. I know about Pascal, I am just unclear how his experiments can be extrapolated in this way.

    And again- he is an authority of design and nature.

    So not evolution then.

  102. No one is debating “evolution” . Also no one can demonstrate that ANY mechanism can account for the changes required by Common Descent.

    the Pixie:
    Evolution is a mechanism!

    And what has that mechanism been observed to do?

    the Pixie:
    At least as much as design is, anyway.

    Designed to evolve…

    No one has ANY clue as to “how or when” .

    the Pixie:
    Sure they do. The fossil record gives a good indication of when.

    Only if many untestable assumptions are made.

    the Pixie:
    It is not certain, but to claim there is no clue is quite wrong. And genetics gives us a load of clues about how.

    Too bad there isn’t ANY genetic data that tells us anything about the “how”.

    Did he mention “God” ? No.

    the Pixie:
    Yeah, but we all know that was what he meant.

    You can infer all you want. That you can does not make it so.

    the Pixie:
    Do you really believe he thinks otherwise?

    I believe otherwise.

    However science has demonstrated that only life begets life.

    the Pixie:
    Can you talk me through how science has demonstrated this.

    Just jog down to any university and open a biology textbook. Ya see if it was ever demonstrated otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    And again- he is an authority of design and nature.

    the Pixie:
    So not evolution then.

    Designed to evolve.

    When I was an evolutionist it used to bother me that we started with something that required an explanation to begin with- that being already viable living organisms. Then once I realized that if those first living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via stochastic, ie blind watchmaker-type, processes, there would be no reason to indfer those types of processes had sole dominion over the subsequent evolution (of those original organisms).

    Now we have a geneticist who tells us that sexual reproduction was the death to “evolution”. And all the scientific data supports him! And he is an expert in biology and on evolution.

  103. Joe

    Pix: Evolution is a mechanism!
    Joe: And what has that mechanism been observed to do?

    Make species to change over time. See section 5 here for some examples.

    Only if many untestable assumptions are made.

    That is not so, all the assumptions are tested (just trying this ID mode of debate where you make vague claims and do not bother to support them).

    Too bad there isn’t ANY genetic data that tells us anything about the “how” .

    Sure there is, and plenty of it.

    You can infer all you want. That you can does not make it so.

    And you can deny it all you want, that does not make it not so.

    Pix: Do you really believe he thinks otherwise?
    Joe: I believe otherwise.

    Good dodge! But seriously, do you really believe he thinks otherwise? The dodge suggests not.

    Joe: However science has demonstrated that only life begets life.
    Pix: Can you talk me through how science has demonstrated this.
    Joe: Just jog down to any university and open a biology textbook. Ya see if it was ever demonstrated otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    Ah, the old false dichtomy fallacy. Either science has demonstrated that only life begets life or science has demonstrated otherwise. Is it at all possible that science has been unable to demonstrate neither? Nah, surely not. We all know science is omnipotent!

    Seriously, sciece has not demonstrated that only life begets life, just as it has yet to demonstrate abiogenesis.

    Joe: And again- he is an authority of design and nature.
    Pix: So not evolution then.
    Joe: Designed to evolve.

    Not sure I get this. Are you saying Burgess is an authority on designing things to evolve (or that Burgess was designed to evolve)? That is not apparent from the list of publications on his home page.

    Now we have a geneticist who tells us that sexual reproduction was the death to “evolution” . And all the scientific data supports him! And he is an expert in biology and on evolution.

    That sounds interesting. Who is the geneticist? Where did he say that? Why did you not name him? Why did you not quote him?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.