With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
5
6
15
11
13
11
10
8
6
6
9
7
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Does Intelligent Design Have Merit?
ID misleading
The pro-IDers claim that "ID Uses Scientific Method; Infers Design by Testing Positive PredictionsDiscovery Institute on ID Uses Scien. Method; Infers Design by Testing Positive Predictions"
However this is false and misleading. First of all it is important to point out that by design, ID means the "set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity or chance". Now what does this mean? This means that when science fails to have found an explanation for any particular system, ID argues that the default should not be "we don't know" but rather "design".
In other words, design is a place holder for our ignorance. Now ask yourself, does ID provide any positive explanations? Of course it does not. How otherwise does ID explain the bacterial flagellum? It provides no testable hypotheses beyond the negative claim that "science cannot explain it".
Notice that ID remains scientifically vacuous, that is without merit, because it is unable to constrain its designer(s) which means that as an explanation it cannot even compete with the "we don't know" category.
In other words, ID uses misleading terminology as well as bait and switch to make its claims. Ask yourself for instance: how does ID define 'information' and how to does it actually use this terminology?
Information is the negative base two logarithm of the probability that a particular system can be explained by science. In other words, complexity or information, two terms which are used interchangeably by ID disappears when one can explain the system. But that also means that no complexity remains if ID were to be able to explain the system.
Realize that ID has failed to be scientifically relevant in any non trivial manner and you will come to realize why it has remained and is in fact doomed to remain, scientifically vacuous.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 8:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (7)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You are not looking at it scientifically
PvM said:
quote
"The pro-IDers claim that "ID Uses Scientific Method; Infers Design by Testing Positive PredictionsDiscovery Institute on ID Uses Scien. Method; Infers Design by Testing Positive Predictions"
However this is false and misleading. First of all it is important to point out that by design, ID means the "set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity or chance". Now what does this mean? This means that when science fails to have found an explanation for any particular system, ID argues that the default should not be "we don't know" but rather "design"."
/quote
I personally wouldn't attribute this kind of stuff to ID without more direct evidence than an "appearance" but a scientist wouldn't call this an explanation, (like you seem to think that IDists would), rather, (s)he would say that the so called, "appearance of design" that is often a common feature to these arguments, warrants further scientific investigation.
It is unfair for you to say that IDists will claim that this is the answer, end of story, when in fact, the science that is being begged by the "appearance" is only for further investigation into the "apparent plausibility" that there is some kind of strong anthropic constraint at work here that is a part of some good physical reason why we might be entirely necessary to the energy economy of the ecosystem to which we belong*.
You pretend like the "appearance" doesn't beg a real scientific question, because you are over-reacting to your perceived motivation of IDists, but not because you are thinking like an honest scientist would.
-A REAL country heard from
- island September 10, 2008 3:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hit a nerve?
--Island states--
You pretend like the "appearance" doesn't beg a real scientific question, because you are over-reacting to your perceived motivation of IDists, but not because you are thinking like an honest scientist would.
--
I am not sure what your argument is but given the ad hominem, I doubt that it is very relevant. Appearance of design does beg a real scientific question, however science has so far shown how honest scientists resolve this issue. After all, we know that us humans are very easily deceived in seeing design where there is none. This is very likely an evolutionary adaptation.
As to ID, what do they do to resolve the issue of appearance of design? Nothing really because they refuse to go beyond the design inference approach. Ask yourself, what have ID proponents done in this area?
Pray tell.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 8:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Apparently I did hit a nerve, yes...
... because I simply stated a common fact, and there was no "ad hominem" involved, but, as you stated, you "did not get the point", so you see it as an insult.
PvM says:
"Appearance of design does beg a real scientific question"
and
"This is very likely an evolutionary adaptation."
But is the adaptation guided by some higher agency to a specific end?... which is the question that the "appearance" calls for that is willfully ignored by scientists. Science doesn't give equal time to the guy that's standing over the body holding the smoking gun, (the most apparent implication of the evidence), because reactionary scientists think that it looks too much like god, so the single investigated possibility is strictly limited to... "This is very likely an evolutionary adaptation"... no matter how long it takes to prove it.
And they don't ever see this as the violation of the scientific method that it really is because they wrongly believe that "agency" necessarily equates to an intelligent agent...
Which makes the debate political, rather than scientific, much to the highly vocal chagrin of theoretically righteous scientists...
... which makes ID... a necessary evil to counterbalance the historically recorded fact that scientists are stereotypically anti-centric in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary.
It is begrudgingly known to scientists as "Copernicanism".
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/06/23 /
http://knol.google.com/k/richard-ryals/the-anthropic-principle/1cb34nnchgkl5/2
http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2007/02/goldilocks-enigma-again.html
http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2006/11/very-strong-anthropic-principle.html
- island September 10, 2008 10:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Honest scientist
You are missing the point, the ad hominem is not that I did not understand your argument, I can see why, given your limited exposure to ID, you may have come to that conclusion. Rather, I was referring to your statement "honest scientist".
--Island--
But is the adaptation guided by some higher agency to a specific end?...
---
A good philosophical question and I think you and I would agree that this adaptation could have been guided by some higher agency, of course, by using a fully natural mechanism, such questions remain scientifically vacuous.
--Island--
Which makes the debate political, rather than scientific, much to the highly vocal chagrin of theoretically righteous scientists...
---
I think you are a bit to rough on your fellow ID proponents.
--Island--
Science doesn't give equal time to the guy that's standing over the body holding the smoking gun, (the most apparent implication of the evidence), because reactionary scientists think that it looks too much like god, so the single investigated possibility is strictly limited to... "This is very likely an evolutionary adaptation"... no matter how long it takes to prove it.
--
Where did we see God standing over the victim? The reason science does not give equal time to ID is because it presents nothing scientifically relevant, it's really that simple. Call it 'reactionary' or 'old fashioned' that scientists insists on something scientifically relevant.
Remember, design always remains a possibility, even when science manages to explain the supposedly 'designed' features, such is the nature of theology versus science. However, agency is never truly of the table, scientifically speaking, as ID very well realizes when it comes to historical sciences. So how come that, unlike these historical sciences, ID has failed to contribute in any meaningful manner?
- PvM
September 10, 2008 10:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nope
PvM stated:
"A good philosophical question and I think you and I would agree that this adaptation could have been guided by some higher agency, of course, by using a fully natural mechanism, such questions remain scientifically vacuous."
No, that's false, and this empirically evidenced plausibility doesn't even have to be right for your convenient ignorance of the plausibilty to have proven my point:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990
- island September 10, 2008 10:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Design is always a theoretical possibility
--I wrote: --
"A good philosophical question and I think you and I would agree that this adaptation could have been guided by some higher agency, of course, by using a fully natural mechanism, such questions remain scientifically vacuous."
--
--Island--
No, that's false, and this empirically evidenced plausibility doesn't even have to be right for your convenient ignorance of the plausibilty to have proven my point:
--
I am not ignoring the plausibility, I told you as much when I stated that design always remains a possibility. What I am arguing is that a plausibility is not sufficient for it to be scientifically with merit. In fact, ID has shown nothing to go beyond its eliminative and thus highly unreliable approach to detect rarefied design.
Perhaps you can show us how ID has contributed in this area to make the question a scientifically tractable one?
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Copernicanism isn't honest science...
PvM said:
Rather, I was referring to your statement "honest scientist".
So was I, and had you clicked on the very first link or even read the rest of the post, then you'd know why.
Pvm:
"I can see why, given your limited exposure to ID..."
LOL!
- island September 10, 2008 10:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The truth comes out...
PvM exposed his motives:
"I think you are a bit to rough on your fellow ID proponents."
I'm an atheist, a materialist, and a Darwinist, but you willingness to find god where no reason was given, proves just about everything that was said about how reactionary antifanatics hurt science just as much as any fanatical cretionist ever does.
So take your politics and vote.
- island September 10, 2008 11:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So take your politics and vote.
I surely intend to do so, but these issues go beyond questions of policy. I am not sure about reactionary antifanatics and how you believe it applies to me, but I can reassure you that rather than being fanatic, I am well informed and committed to my faith and good science. If that means I am guilty of some 'crime' in your eyes, then I plead willingly and proudly guilty as I stand for accuracy in science, freedom of religion and more.
I have many reasons to find 'god' and I am sure that I do not confuse my theology with my scientific endeavours, since both would suffer.
I am still somewhat lost as to the nature of your argument but at least I can attempt to address your confusions.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"ID has failed to contribute in any meaningful manner?"
You said "ID has failed to contribute in any meaningful manner?"
Wrong! Newton, Pascal, Einstein, and many others put stock in the ID theory. This is why they figured out what they did. With the assumption of ID you can bet that there is order to the natural world and that it its knowable. Einstein believed as much as people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and many others want to believe. After all, he was on a quest to discover the "Theory of Everything" or "to read the mind of GOD". When asked what was his objection to Quantum Mechanics he was quoted as saying, "I refuse to believe GOD would play chance with the Universe"
The better question is:
"What has evolutionary biology contributed in a meaningful matter?"
I'll help you out. Mr. Richard Dawkins said that using a computer program to map out piping to containers that over generations the program had calculated the perfect plumbing for this system. Then, proceeded to say that we see the same type of ducting system in canine livers.
Ha!
That simply means that (1)there was an intelligence behind both, and (2) your program sucked because it took more than one try.
If the bank took more than one try to deposit your check, you'd be pretty steamed. You be mad to continue banking with them.
So why then, do you trust a theory in which death & time are the heroes and is obviously lacking the same credentials that you claim apply to ID.
"Pull the beam out of your eye before trying to pull the splinter out of mine!"
Jesus of Nazareth
"Asking an atheist why he can't find GOD is like asking a thief why he can't find a police officer."
Kent Hovind
- archfilejockey
September 11, 2008 1:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Let's not add to the confusion.
I understand why ID proponents would like to embrace Newton and others as relevant to ID. And when pressed for details, the best they can come up with is that their faith guided them in developing scientific theories, theories which had no relevance to ID since it was based on methodological naturalism.
It's this regrettable confusion which may give ID more relevance in people's minds than it really deserves. Wanting to 'read the mind of God' can be a useful metaphor to spur scientific research to the same extent as 'wanting to discover a theory of everything' to better understand nature. One should not confuse this with ID having a meaningfull manner to science.
In fact, with Newton, one of the few ID explanations he provided, was shown to be quite wrong and it took until Laplace figured it out, to correct Newton's 'foolish' suggestion that since he could not understand how orbits of planets would remain stable, it would require God to actively correct these orbits.
The concept of God is one of faith alone, once you have accepted the existence, it is hard to imagine a world without, but similarly, to those who have not found the need or for those who were not grown up in a religious environment, the need for a God or gods seems rather foolish. And neither side really has compelling scientific arguments as to why one position should be better than others.
So let's not confuse these issues. ID is already confusing enough.
PS: Since you used double quotes to describe Einstein's response, it would be helpful to correctly quote him. It was not "I refuse to believe GOD would play chance with the Universe" but rather
"I, at any rate, am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice." (Einstein in a 1929 letter to Max Born).
However, Einstein was hardly appealing to a God as guiding his quest for science.
--
Einstein clarified his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
---
Source: Wikipedia "Einstein"
- PvM
September 11, 2008 2:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Quoting Kent Hovind In An Intelligent Design Discussion Is A Mistake
"Archfilejockey" quoted Kent Hovind as saying: "Asking an atheist why he can't find GOD is like asking a thief why he can't find a police officer."
Unfortunately for Kent Hovind, he has no problem finding police officers and prison guards in his current residence - he's serving time in federal prison for tax-related crimes. Hovind is a Young Earth Creationist and has the dubious distinction of having other Young Earth Creationist individuals and organizations such as Answers in Genesis criticize his excessive zeal.
Quoting such ardent defenders of Young Earth Creationism as Kent Hovind in defense of intelligent design creationism is anathema to the Discovery Institute, as they continue to try desperately to convince the world that intelligent design creationism has scientific merit rather than religious merit.
- Paul Burnett
September 13, 2008 4:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
conflating evolution with the creation of the universe
Einstein's quotes are not supportive of ID, he was talking about the fabric of the universe, not the means by which species evolve. This is a common shell game played by ID proponents. They setup some premise based on the creation of the universe then draw a conclusion about evolution and hope that no one notices. Evolution and the creation of the universe (or the fabric of the universe) are not the same issue.
- reckoner
October 16, 2008 10:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Looking at things scientifically?
Science is ultimately based on the scientific method, which is used to support and confirm physical and chemical laws. It is the application of those laws to the past that makes natural history possible and the application of those same laws to the future that makes it possible to make predictions.
The question is, what physical and chemical laws are in play in Intelligent Design? We know evolution is scientific because it does not contradict any scientific laws, we can make predictions based on evolutionary theory, and we can falsify it by finding a possible mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating beyond a certain limit, making evolution beyond the limits of a "created kind" impossible. But we have found no such thing, ever.
You cannot test to see if something in biology is "intelligently designed" by reference to scientific laws. Instead, you would ASSUME something is designed just because it looks complex and specific, but such complexity is indeed possible via natural selection, because complex organisms may have survival value over less complex organisms. DNA, RNA, and proteins are polymers, molecules that are made of repeating parts, and they can actually be of unlimited length, so their complexity is also unlimited.
In short, there is NO evidence for Intelligent Design. None. It is theology, nothing more.
- Dale Husband
September 11, 2008 11:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (8)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
AC Grayling v Fuller
Grayling explains, in his review of Fuller's latest book, quite well how ID is doomed to remain scientifically vacuous
--
Fuller has written about Popper; he seems to forget Popper’s killer point, namely, a theory that explains everything explains nothing. ID is such a theory; everything is consistent with it, nothing disproves it. The idea that there is such a thing as a deity behaves logically as a contradiction does (unsurprisingly, because the idea is indeed contradictory): anything whatever follows from it. (But presumably this is okay for Fuller because he was educated by Jesuits.)
--
AC Grayling, Origin of the specious, New, Humanist, Volume 123 Issue 5 September/October 2008
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1856
In his response, Fuller shows that he has fallen victim to the bait and switch of ID
--Fuller
But on to Grayling’s most glaring deficiency vis-à-vis the topic of Dissent over Descent: his sheer ignorance of ID’s argument structure, which is not that of a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) who looks for whatever evidence supports his pet theory. Generally speaking, ID is defended on the basis of what philosophers of science call “inference to the best explanation” for the plausibility of design over chance in nature
--
But ID is NOT about an inference to the best explanation, something trivially shown by asking any ID proponent how ID explains the bacterial flagella, which due to lack of sufficient scientific understanding was claimed to have been 'designed'
Of course, this somewhat foolish argument sets up Fuller for a scathing response
--Grayling:
I am, says Fuller, ignorant (sheerly so; this is the glaring deficiency in my case) of "ID's argument structure", which is - argument to the best explanation! Oh pul-eese! I ignored this bit in my review out of a kind of residual collegiality, for even among the toxicities that flow when members of the professoriate fall out, embarrassment on others" behalf is a restraint. But he asks for it. Argument to the best explanation! Look: there is a great deal we do not know about this world of ours, but what is beautiful about science is that its practitioners do not panic and say "cripes! we don't understand this, so we must grab something quick - attribute it to the intelligent designing activity of Fred (or Zeus or the Tooth Fairy or any arbitrary supernatural agency given ad hoc powers suitable to the task) because we can't at present think of a better explanation." They do not make a hasty grab for a lousy "best explanation" because they have serious thoughts about the kind of thing that can count as such. Instead of quick ad hoc fixes, they live with the open-ended nature of scientific enquiry, hypothesising and testing, trying to work things out rationally and conservatively on the basis of what is so far well-attested and secure. What looks like having a chance of being both an "explanation" and the "best" in a specific case turns on there being a well-disciplined idea of "best" for that specific case. But an hypothesis has no hope of becoming the best explanation (until a better comes along) unless it survives testing, is specific, and is consistent and conservative with respect to much else that is secure. This is a far cry from the gestural "best explanation" move that ID theorists attempt, which - and note this carefully - does not restrict itself to individual puzzles only, but applies to Life, the Universe and Everything. It has to, at risk of incoherence; and yet by doing so, it collapses into incoherence.
--
Well said. Seems that many people have fallen victim of the erroneous claim that ID is an inference to the best explanation. After all he should have consulted Dembski who is on the records as
--Dembski
As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: ”Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.
--
Are there still any ID proponents out there willing to defend the position?
- PvM
September 13, 2008 9:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PvM misleading
PvM wrote:
However this is false and misleading. First of all it is important to point out that by design, ID means the "set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity or chance". Now what does this mean? This means that when science fails to have found an explanation for any particular system, ID argues that the default should not be "we don't know" but rather "design".
This is false and misleading. ID does not attempt to fill gaps in science, it looks at the same evidence produced by science (eg, the mechanics of molecular biology) and draws an inference different from folks like PvM. ID sees a complex system which contains inter-dependent parts, assembled in a highly specific way, does the math on probability this arrangement could arise by chance and concludes the system is designed. Period. No god, no gap filling.
I invite PvM to cite any leading ID theorist filling gaps in scientific knowledge with ID, as claimed above. Just one.
- Highlander
September 10, 2008 8:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Glad you asked
--Hghlander--
This is false and misleading. ID does not attempt to fill gaps in science, it looks at the same evidence produced by science (eg, the mechanics of molecular biology) and draws an inference different from folks like PvM.
---
While many unfamiliar with ID may believe this to be the case, and indeed, the Discovery Institute has done a good job confusing its followers, it is important to realize that this is exactly how ID works.
I am sure that Highlander is familiar with the foundational works of Behe and Dembski, both rely on the absence of science being able to explain a particular feature to infer 'design'.
--Highlander--
ID sees a complex system which contains inter-dependent parts, assembled in a highly
specific way, does the math on probability this arrangement could arise by chance and concludes the system is designed. Period. No god, no gap filling.
---
That is incorrect as well, in fact in ID speak, complex means 'lacking scientific explanations', nothing more, nothing less. From this, ID conflates the meaning of complexity with what one has come to understand as complexity in science, which is not the same as how ID 'defines' it.
Sneaky eh..
But I can understand the levels of confusion. For instance, Highlander asserts that ID calculates the probability that something was designed by chance and then concludes 'design'. While this description only superficially matches the design inference, it shows the gap filling of "not chance thus design", nothing more, nothing less. Of course, ID has not done any non trivial calculations of probabilities and worse, it does not have to reject chance alone, which is often the simplest and still intractable calculation, but it also has to exclude regularity pathways. And yet, ask yourself, what calculations exist for the bacterial flagellum or any non trivial biological system?
None I tell you. Surprised? I bet. This is but one reason ID has remained scientifically without content.
--Highlander--
I invite PvM to cite any leading ID theorist filling gaps in scientific knowledge with ID, as claimed above. Just one.
---
Dembski, Behe come to mind.
Glad you asked. Many ID proponents are only vaguely familiar with ID.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 9:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
In depth exploration
---
Okay, let’s start with how ID tries to infer design, namely by using the Design Inference. In order for something to be designed, it needs to be ‘specified’ and sufficiently ‘complex’. So what is really meant by these terms? Specification basically means that there exists an independent description of the event or system, and as Dembski points out in biology ‘specification’ is trivially met by function. So what about ‘complexity’? Unlike the more common meaning of the term, complexity in ID speak refers to something which cannot (yet) be explained by regularity and/or chance. When these requirements are met, a design inference is triggered. In other words, a design inference bascially states that something functional whose origin we do not (yet) understand and is thus specified and complex, is also ‘designed’. Or to use Del Ratzsch’s description: Design is the “set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance. “. This clearly qualifiies as an argument from ignorance, also known as a ‘gap argument’.
So far so good, Intelligent Design is inferred based on our ignorance not because of what we know. So how do ID activists make the claim that ID is based on ‘positive evidence’? After all, it seems self evident that ID cannot make any predictions or that it is based on ‘positive evidence’. After all, without knowing the intentions or capabilities of the Designer, how can one make any predictions? Anything goes…
---
As to the scientific vacuity, Ryan Nichols states it best
--Ryan Nichols--
In my argument against Intelligent Design Theory I will not contend that it is not falsifiable or that it implies contradictions. I’ll argue that Intelligent Design Theory doesn’t imply anything at all, i.e. it has no content. By ‘content’ I refer to a body of determinate principles and propositions entailed by those principles. By ‘principle’ I refer to a proposition of central importance to the theory at issue. By ‘determinate principle’ I refer to a proposition of central importance to the theory at issue in which the extensions of its terms are clearly defined. I’ll evaluate the work of William Dembski because he specifies his methodology in detail, thinks Intelligent Design Theory is contentful and thinks Intelligent Design Theory (hereafter ‘IDT’) grounds an empirical research program. Later in the paper I assess a recent trend in which IDT is allegedly found a better home as a metascientific hypothesis, which serves as a paradigm that catalyzes research. I’ll conclude that, whether IDT is construed as a scientific or metascientific hypothesis, IDT lacks content.
--
Source: Ryan Nichols, "Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of intelligent design theory", The American Catholic philosophical quarterly, 2003, vol. 77, no4, pp. 591-611
From my contribution at http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/05/post_17.html
- PvM
September 10, 2008 9:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Assertions needing cites
--PvM--
| I am sure that Highlander is familiar with the
| foundational works of Behe and Dembski,
| both rely on the absence of science being
| able to explain a particular feature to infer 'design'.
Would that a citation exist to back this one up!
I am familiar with their works. Not familiar with that argument, though. I think PvM may be conflating 'science' with 'evidence supporting materialist assumptions'. The above statement is true with this substitution.
--PvM--
| That is incorrect as well, in fact in ID speak,
| complex means 'lacking scientific explanations',
| nothing more, nothing less. From this, ID conflates
| the meaning of complexity with what one has
| come to understand as complexity in science,
| which is not the same as how ID 'defines' it.
Again, a citation would be nice. I don't expect them considering PvM's continued conflation of 'science' with 'evidence supporting materialist assumptions'.
ID does say that complexity alone isn't a sign of intelligence, but irreducible complexity is. The criteria have been revised over the years to clarify, but the core idea is sound: A complex system with inter-dependent parts has a much higher probabilistic hurdle for spontaneous unguided assembly. A simple analogy is the game "Mouse Trap" - if all the parts aren't in the right place, the metal ball won't reach the trigger to drop the plastic net.
PvM is also confirming the falsifiability of ID with this statement. ID proponents do say an empirical demonstration (evidence supporting materialist assumptions) of an unguided process producing such interdependent systems, while retaining over-all reproductive ability, would falsify the design inference. Human technology, a result of intelligence, is chock full of irreducibly complex systems. It is therefore not unreasonable to infer intelligence in biological systems absent evidence supporting materialist assumptions.
--PvM--
| Highlander asserts that ID calculates the probability
| that something was designed by chance and then
| concludes 'design'. While this description only
| superficially matches the design inference, it shows
| the gap filling of "not chance thus design", nothing
| more, nothing less. Of course, ID has not done any
| non trivial calculations of probabilities and worse, it
| does not have to reject chance alone, which is often
| the simplest and still intractable calculation, but it
| also has to exclude regularity pathways. And yet,
| ask yourself, what calculations exist for the
| bacterial flagellum or any non trivial biological system?
Dembski wrote a book and has a website and several papers detailing the scope of input points and explaining how and why statistical probabilities are used and calculated. In real life they are used to distinguish/derive (designed) signals from (random) noise.
PvM seems unaware randomness and design are mutually exclusive concepts. I understand 'chance' as shorthand for that which happens as a result of unguided (random) interaction of matter according to human understanding of forces and material chemistry. 'Organized' means ordered with intent and implies intelligence Human tech. varies in level of organizational complexity, but is wholly caused by intelligent action upon matter. This organization (design) is inferred because the arrangement of such matter defies explanation appealing to chance.
The calculations on flagellum are irrelevant, but can be derived given accurate input points - how many of each different proteins are needed? Which components are required for it to function as needed - (ie, if the cell needs to move to survive, what functional parts are needed), how many nucleotides are needed to code the RNA template of each protein? And so on...
The lack of evidence supporting materialist assumptions complexity is a chance arrangement means the opposite could be true. That many of these systems look designed and that science has not (even remotely) demonstrated a chance pathway to such organization, leaves design as the logical alternative. Until proven otherwise.
- Highlander
September 10, 2008 11:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Chance, no chance
--Highlander--
PvM seems unaware randomness and design are mutually exclusive concepts.
---
Pray tell given that I have shown you how ID defines design to be the set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance. Or perhaps I should translate this somewhat technical phrase? Let me attempt to explain. Design is the compliment (mutually exclusive) of regularity-or-chance explanations. Of course, this is wrong in the sense that it may ignore the fact that randomness can in fact be an attribute of a designer and of course, the simplistic statement that randomness and design are mutually exclusive only captures part of the ID argument.
By focusing on pure chance, Highlander has shown that he does not understand the ID argument and has highlighted one of the major problems for ID, namely that regularity and chance can explain information and complexity quite well.
Until we clarify the terminology, highlander's arguments seem irrelevant at best as they argue a strawman version of reality.
When asked for examples, Highlander remains without any, exemplifying once again the scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design. Why, if design depends so strongly on this step, are ID proponents unable to calculate any relevant measure of probability for said supposedly 'designed' systems?
That's the $1M dollar question. I would like to buy a vowel, Alex.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Still no cites?
Naming two well known ID proponents does not a citation make to support PvM's twisted version of ID arguments. I've asked for them repeatedly and he's dodging. What PvM still fails to understand is that probability is a measure of random outcomes. It cannot 'prove' design because it isn't a measure of agency.
Probability tells us how often to expect a certain arrangement of a given number of items within the whole set of items. We expect fellow poker players to get flushes and straights and even straight flushes. We know a royal flush is possible but not very probable so we might naturally suspect a fix on the deal if several royal flushes were dealt in an evening of cards. Extend that to a running game over many days and we are less suspicious. Why? Because of all possible arrangements of hands, a royal flush is the least probable and very unlikely to be repeated in a limited number of deals. A deck of cards is cut before dealing as a check on intentional sorting.
So we could go through all the permutations of flagellar components, the number and arrangement of proteins, the nucleotides needed to code them and so on, but why? If we stumbled upon a starter motor in the middle of a remote Amazonian jungle, our experience would immediately eliminate it as a product of environmental selection. The exact same is true when modern science reveals an IC structure such as the flagellar motor & assembly. The absence of a plausible natural pathway means the design inference is valid. The appearance of such a pathway would falsify design.
I have not focused on pure chance, either. Regularity and chance can explain re-arrangement of existing systems, but I would (again) request PvM produce citations to support his central claim that specified information is an emergent property of matter.
That I do not address other aspects of the ID argument doesn't mean I've I excluded them. I'm just addressing the simple core of ID: Design eliminates chance as a cause. Initial biological systems formed by chance collision of the right stuff in the right environment at the right time, growing more and more complex either happened or did not.
If the question is whether some arrangement of matter is random or designed, then assuming chance fills the gap beforehand is classic question begging. PvM's circular proof therefore doesn't stand. His allusions to facts to which he offers no support, other than the force of his assertion 'regularity and chance can explain information and complexity quite well', stand wholly unsupported.
Okay PvM. Support that last one. Cite the literature which demonstrates how information and complexity are easily explained by regularity and chance. That would falsify a central proposition of ID. Since you said it would be easy, I eagerly await the citation.
- Highlander
September 10, 2008 1:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
See below
Seems Highlander was somewhat quick in his 'response' as I am more than willing to support my claims.
--
Naming two well known ID proponents does not a citation make to support PvM's twisted version of ID arguments. I've asked for them repeatedly and he's dodging. What PvM still fails to understand is that probability is a measure of random outcomes. It cannot 'prove' design because it isn't a measure of agency.
--
I love the assertion that my version of ID is twisted, when it is based on the writings of ID proponents. Perhaps Highlander knows something we may not know?
Am I dodging his 'repeated requests'? Of course not.
Highlander asks for another cite
--
Okay PvM. Support that last one. Cite the literature which demonstrates how information and complexity are easily explained by regularity and chance. That would falsify a central proposition of ID. Since you said it would be easy, I eagerly await the citation.
--
As I said, this is simple and quite well known in the ID world. I guess that means that it would indeed falsify a central proposition of ID?
Nuff said
Tom Schneider, "evolution of biological information" Nucleic Acids Res", vol 28(14), 2794-2799, 2000. http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov /~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html
Kim JT, Martinetz T, Polani D, Bioinformatic principles underlying the information content of transcription factor binding sites, J. of Theor. Biology, Volume: 220 , Issue: 4 , Pages: 529-544 , Published: FEB 21 2003
Christoph Adami, Charles Ofria and Travis C. Collier, "Evolution of biological complexity", PNAS April 25, 2000 vol. 97 no. 9 4463-4468
--Abstract--
To make a case for or against a trend in the evolution of complexity in biological evolution, complexity needs to be both rigorously defined and measurable. A recent information-theoretic (but intuitively evident) definition identifies genomic complexity with the amount of information a sequence stores about its environment. We investigate the evolution of genomic complexity in populations of digital organisms and monitor in detail the evolutionary transitions that increase complexity. We show that, because natural selection forces genomes to behave as a natural “Maxwell Demon,” within a fixed environment, genomic complexity is forced to increase.
--
Christoph Adami, Sequence complexity in Darwinian evolution, Complexity, Volume 8 , Issue 2, Pages: 49 - 56 , 2002
--Abstract--
Whether or not Darwinian evolution leads to an increase in complexity depends crucially on what we mean by the term. Physical complexity is a measure based on automata theory and information theory that turns out to be a simple and intuitive measure of the amount of information that an organism stores, in its genome, about the environment in which it evolves. It can be shown that the physical complexity of the genomes of clonal organisms must increase in evolution, if they occupy a single niche and if the environment does not change. This law of increasing complexity is a consequence of natural selection only and can be violated in co-evolving systems as well as at high mutation rates, in sexual populations, and in time-dependent landscapes. Yet, co-evolution, because it can be viewed as creating an increase in physical complexity across niches, is likely the agent of a global increase in complexity.
--
Richard E. Lenski, Charles Ofria, Robert T. Pennock, Christoph Adami, ""The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features", Nature (Vol. 423, 2003, pp. 139-145)
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/papers/nature2003 /
- PvM
September 10, 2008 1:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Flawed
--Highlander--
The exact same is true when modern science reveals an IC structure such as the flagellar motor & assembly. The absence of a plausible natural pathway means the design inference is valid. The appearance of such a pathway would falsify design.
--
As long as we agree that 'design' is nothing more that the claim that 'science cannot explain a particular feature or system', however then it has little relevance to intelligent design(ers). The IC claim of the flagellum is a good example of flawed reasoning. First of all, it has been shown how at least in principle IC systems can evolve, of course ID is quick to restrict IC to systems which retain their "original function" and "evolved by Darwinian processes". In other words, IC is basically the much narrower claim that certain systems could not possibly have evolved by Darwinian processes while maintaining their original function.
Of course, falsifying this would at best falsify the claim of ignorance, not really the concept of design as it is more commonly understood.
Clever trick...
- PvM
September 10, 2008 2:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Cites
--Highlander--
"I am sure that Highlander is familiar with the foundational works of Behe and Dembski,
both rely on the absence of science being able to explain a particular feature to infer 'design'."
Would that a citation exist to back this one up!
--
Sure, always ready to please the audience.
William Demsbki. "The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities", Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory, 1998
William Dembski, 'No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence ", Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001
Irreducible Complexity is an example of Behe's formulation of 'ignorance should be called design'. In case of Behe, his biggest mistake is that he limits himself to only Darwinian processes and the concept of original function.
So let me explain what the design inference is all about:
The Explanatory Filter
A good overview of the filter and its shortcomings can be found in Wilkins, John S, and Wesley R Elsberry. 2001. The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance. Biology and Philosophy 16 (November):711-724.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/theftovertoil/theftovertoil.html
Basically the steps involve
1. High probability then it was caused by a regularity
2. Intermediate probability then it was caused by chance
3. Small probability: either chance or design depending on the existence of a "specification"
Specification is a somewhat tricky concept but according to Dembski, function in biology would be a sufficient specification. Ironically, function is also the outcome of the process of natural selection and thus whether the low probability score was caused by our ignorance or because of design is why the design inference remains without content, in case of rarefied design.
Rarefied design: Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized.
The authors observe "There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies."
This is an important observation because it helps us understand why historical sciences can accurately apply 'design inferences' while ID remains scientifically without content.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 1:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pages please
Your cites are worthless as defenses of your claims Behe & Dembski define ID as an 'absence of science' What pages? What words?
Do you really think that's a clever proof of anything? You are not being very honest here, PvM.
- Highlander
September 10, 2008 1:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Honesty?
I am not sure why Highlander accuses me of not being honest when I provide the information and my explanation. I have shown how both IC and CSI are based on science's inability to explain a particular feature to lead to a conclusion of 'design'. So far I have seen no attempt by Highlander to refute anything I said, other than asserting that I am not being honest.
Telling...
- PvM
September 10, 2008 2:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Until 'proven' otherwise
--Highlander--
The lack of evidence supporting materialist assumptions complexity is a chance arrangement means the opposite could be true. That many of these systems look designed and that science has not (even remotely) demonstrated a chance pathway to such organization, leaves design as the logical alternative. Until proven otherwise.
--
Design always has remained a logical possibility however, ID does nothing to actually demonstrate that such a possibility is actuated. In fact, there is plausible and growing evidence that complexity and information increase are inevitable outcomes of evolutionary processes and while science may remain ignorant about the exact origin and evolution of systems, this does not give ANY credibility to the 'design' arguments, lest we define design to be 'that which science does not yet understand'. But then we should be careful not to use 'bait and switch' and conflate terminology to suggest that this kind of 'design' has any relevance to the concept of Design.
- PvM
September 11, 2008 11:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well, here we go in their own words
---
These two moves -ruling out regularity, and then ruling out chance -- constitute the design inference. The conception of design that emerges from the design inference is therefore __eliminative__, asserting of an event what it is not, not what it is. To attribute an event to design is to say that regularity and chance hav been ruled out.
...
To be sure, design renders agency plausible. But as the negation of regularity and chance, design is a mode of explanation logically preliminary to agency.
---
p.19 The Design Inference
--
Because the design inference is eliminative, ther is no "design hypothesis" against which the relevant chance hypotheses compete, and which must then be compared within a Bayesian confirmation scheme.
--
p.62 The Design Inference
In "No Free Lunch" Dembski attempts to show that the design inference, which is purely eliminative is not an argument from ignorance, as I have shown, his position is flawed. Others have done so as well, including Fitelson and Sober, Ryan Nichols, Pete Dunkelberg, Mark Perahk, Wesley Elsberry and John Wilkins.
--
Section 2.10 is of especial interest because it addresses the legitimacy of inferring design via an eliminative argument (the concern being that design inferences are arguments from ignorance--as we shall see, they are not).
---
p. 73 No Free Lunch
The argument is one of induction, with all its problems namely that according to Dembski all instances in which we identified specified complexity and we know the causal history, intelligence was involved as well. In fact, Dembski claims that "choice is the defining feature of intelligence and that specified complexity is how in fact we identify choice".
That final phrase dooms Intelligent Design since natural processes of natural selection also have 'choice' and thus such processes fall well within the realm of processes known to be able to generate specified complexity.
--
If the argument were purely eliminative, one might be justified in saying that the move from specified complexity to a designing intelligence is an argument from ignorance (i.1., not X therefore Y).
--
p. 111 No free Lunch
But the argument IS purely eliminative followed by an inductive argument which cannot exclude natural selection as a designer.
Need more?
- PvM
September 11, 2008 1:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Intelligent Design has Merit
PvM is confused.
The design inference reached based on our knowledge of what nature, operating freely can & cannot do, coupled with our knowledge of what designing agencies can do.
And as with ALL scientific inferences further research can either confirm or refute that inference.
Also if we truly "do not know" then it is a miscarriage of science to disallow the design inference just because some people would rather stick with the "chance & necessity" diatribe.
- Joe G
September 15, 2008 5:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Misleading
--Joe
The design inference reached based on our knowledge of what nature, operating freely can & cannot do, coupled with our knowledge of what designing agencies can do.
---
We do not know that designing agencies can design a genome or a flagella. There is no inference to best explanation.
The design infernence is alo not disallowed, it's just that it cannot compete with the 'we don't know' explanation as it fails to add anything.
SImple really
- PvM
September 15, 2008 9:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PvM is misleading
The design inference reached based on our knowledge of what nature, operating freely can & cannot do, coupled with our knowledge of what designing agencies can do.
---
PvM
We do not know that designing agencies can design a genome or a flagella. There is no inference to best explanation.
---
We look at the options. And the anti-ID option is "it just happened". We do have direct observatiuons of agencies designing rotary motors. We have NEVER observed nature, operating freely, even come close.
----
PvM
The design infernence is alo not disallowed, it's just that it cannot compete with the 'we don't know' explanation as it fails to add anything.
---
The design inference is disallowed. And experience tells us it makes all the difference in the world whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or by nature, operating freely.
And also it is not "we don't know" because all the textbooks are teaching that a designer was not involved.
So when it comes to teaching the theory of evolution the only real answer is "we don't know"- as in we don't know whether or not the transformations required by universal common descent are even possible via any amount of accumulated mutations.
Very simple really...
- Joe G
September 15, 2008 10:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No design allowed?
Joe argues that the 'design inference is disallowed" and we agree to the extent that it fails to be scientifically relevant a posteriori but of course, it is never disallowed a priori.
--Joe
We look at the options. And the anti-ID option is "it just happened".
--
On the contrary, that's what ID's 'explanation' is "poof"
All textbooks teach that a designer was not "required" which is not the same as "not involved".
So let's accept the vacuity of ID and move to real science. So what evidence do you have that UCD is not possible through the accumulation of mutations?
I understand why you want to abandon discussing ID, I would also hate to have to defend it.
- PvM
September 15, 2008 10:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No design allowed
Joe
We look at the options. And the anti-ID option is "it just happened".
--
PvM
On the contrary, that's what ID's 'explanation' is "poof"
---
That's false. Thank you for demonstrating your dishonesty. BTW you don't have an explanation.
---
PvM:
All textbooks teach that a designer was not "required" which is not the same as "not involved".
----
There isn't anything that supports that concept. All our exoperience tells us a designer is required.
------
PvM
So let's accept the vacuity of ID and move to real science. So what evidence do you have that UCD is not possible through the accumulation of mutations?
-----
LoL- YOUR position is vacuous. And there isn't any data that shows an accumulation of mutations can do what you say they did.
THAT is how science works- by actually demonstrating the premise you hold.
---
PvM
I understand why you want to abandon discussing ID, I would also hate to have to defend it.
----
I understand why you don't want to discuss your position. It is totally based on faith.
- Joe G
September 17, 2008 5:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I understand
Joe, I do...
--
That's false. Thank you for demonstrating your dishonesty. BTW you don't have an explanation.
--
In fact, it is true. Let me show you: How does ID explain the bacterial flagella.
As to UCD and mutations, the best explanation is that variations, selection as well as drift can indeed explain the observed data. After all, the mutation rates needed to explain the differences between species are well within the range of observed mutation rates.
I understand though why you want to move the discussion from ID, which explains nothing, to UcD and mechanisms.
Show us either how ID explains UcD or how mutation rates need to be too high for UcD.
Surprise us with some real science.
- PvM
September 17, 2008 9:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wrong again
--Joe
We look at the options. And the anti-ID option is "it just happened". We do have direct observatiuons of agencies designing rotary motors. We have NEVER observed nature, operating freely, even come close.
--
No the scientific position is 'we don't know'. Surely you should realize that misrepresenting the scientific position does little for your argument. And there are more than just two options. Chance, regularity, already provide two possibilities, not to mention the countless variations on this theme.
Remind me again how ID 'explains' the bacterial flagellum? After all, was it not claimed to be an inference to the best explanation. Are you saying that there is no explanation?
Weird, why would they then call it an inference to best explanation?...
What do you think?
--
So when it comes to teaching the theory of evolution the only real answer is "we don't know"- as in we don't know whether or not the transformations required by universal common descent are even possible via any amount of accumulated mutations.
--
Again missing the point, the 'we don't know' explanation is countered by real positive scientific hypotheses and these hypotheses have rendered the 'we don't know' hypothesis much less relevant. Of course minor questions still remain but the idea that there must be limits to evolution that would make common descent impossible are at best wishful thinking.
It's sad how you continue to misunderstand science.
- PvM
September 15, 2008 9:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We don't know
Joe:
We look at the options. And the anti-ID option is "it just happened". We do have direct observatiuons of agencies designing rotary motors. We have NEVER observed nature, operating freely, even come close.
--
PvM:
No the scientific position is 'we don't know'.
---
Then that is what should be on just about every page of a biology textbook- "We don't know". Yet instead we find that things "evolved" without even knowing whether or not the transformation is even possible.
BTW PvM regularity arose by chance in the anti-ID scenario.
The laws that govern nature "just are the way they are" - Stephen Hawking. IOW once again you don't have an explanation.
BTW PvM the scientific answer to UCD is "we don't know". So why is it OK for YOU to make an inference- UCD- when we don't know, but it is wrong for IDists to make an infer3ence when it is based on observations, data and experience?
- Joe G
September 17, 2008 5:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
UcD
--JoeG
BTW PvM the scientific answer to UCD is "we don't know". So why is it OK for YOU to make an inference- UCD- when we don't know, but it is wrong for IDists to make an infer3ence when it is based on observations, data and experience?
---
Nope, the scientific fact shows UcD, the mechanisms through which UcD can be explained ,again are not 'we don't know' but rather observed sources of variation as well as processes such as drift and selection.
ID makes no inference based on obsevations, data and experience, it merely lifts its hands when seeing the data and argues, that because we do not know how it happened, it should be 'designed'.
We all know how that led Newton astray, ID is not much better than that.
What positive evidence for ID exists to explain UcD? Poof?
For science we can actually point to countless evidences that show not only the fact of UcD, a fact even some better informed ID proponents like Behe have to accept, but also science can point to actual observed mechanisms to explain.
All ID can do is say 'but but but'....
Thanks for your contribution as it demonstrates the vacuity of ID combined with the ignorance needed to reach such a conclusion.
PS: We do know that things evolved, the question is merely how. ID fails to propose any explanations beyond 'well it must have been designed' while science shows how natural processes of variation and chance serve as the 'designer'.
That my friend is why ID has no cotent.
- PvM
September 17, 2008 9:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Futher research
--And as with ALL scientific inferences further research can either confirm or refute that inference.--
Sure, just like 'we don't know' generates the same research or more than 'design (wink wink)' did it.
So at best ID is nothing more than the 'we don't know' position, but rather than calling it ignorance, they call it 'design'. What a bait and switch.
- PvM
September 15, 2008 9:27AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wrong again
As I said earlier experience demonstrates that it matters a great deal to an investigation whether or not that which is being investigated occurred via agency involvement or by nature, operating freely.
There is just no getting around that fact.
As for the "bait and switch"- that would be you. Who else would say "we don't know" and then allow the teaching of the "no design allowed" position?
"We don't know but we do know a designer wasn't involved."
- Joe G
September 15, 2008 10:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nonsense
--
"We don't know but we do know a designer wasn't involved."
--
That's not how science works my confused ID proponent.
The fact remains, that, even in your response, you have failed to show that ID is scientifically relevant.
For that I thank you, it's most educational when one can provide some 'live examples'
- PvM
September 15, 2008 10:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I know how science is SUPPOSED to work
PvM- the quote-"We don't know but we do know a designer wasn't involved."
is YOUR position. And thank you for telling us that is not how science works.
BTW ID is scientifically relevant because experience demonstrates that it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or nature, operating freely.
I take it you have never investigated anything in your life.
Also only ID will lead us to understand that DNA and RNA are similar to a computer's harddrive. That is they are data carrying mediums. That is the data is NOT the sequence but it rides on the sequence- just like a computer disk isn't the data but the data rides on the disk.
- Joe G
September 17, 2008 5:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And more vacuity from ID
ID can be scientifically relevant if it were to take the scientific approaches used by real science, such as criminology which uses means, motives, opportunities etc. It is simple to show that ID is without content by showing how ID proponents refuse to answer the simple question
How does ID explain the bacterial flagella?
Chirp, chirp.
Yes, it matters if something arose throuugh agency or not, the problem is that ID's chosen method has doomed it to remain without content.
As to your claims about DNA, and RNA, your claims are at best wishful thinking. Science has done far more for our understanding here than ID will ever do.
How does ID explain DNA or RNA?
Let me guess, it's that poof thing again.
- PvM
September 17, 2008 9:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
An example of ignorance and misleading statements
In a recent article, Casey Luskin addresses the recent findings that changes in a regulatory gene can help explain the morphological differences between the chimpansee and humans.
Luskin however continues the somewhat ignorant statement that this shows how junk dna is not always junk. However, what Luskin does not tell you is that 1) Junk dna was introduced to describe initially pseudogenes etc 2) that regulatory genes were in fact already recognized and never considered junk 3) that said 'regulatory' genes are well conserved and under strong selection.
In other words, these findings strengthen, not weaken the argument. Furthermore, the research shows a change of I believe 18 nucleotides out of 80 or so, responsible for the regulation.
In fact, early papers had already pointed out that much of the morphological differences between chimps and humans are likely due to regulatory gene changes.
Now I understand that Luskin, who is a lawyer, may have been confused by how the popular press portrayed the findings but since he works for an organization which claims its goals are to correct errors in reporting, one would have hoped that Luskin would have quoted from the original research rather than from popular press.
Prabhakar S and 9 others. 2008. Human-specific gain of function in a developmental enhancer. Science 321:1346 - 1350. doi:10.1126/science.1159974
Wray GA, Babbitt CC. 2008. Enhancing gene regulation. Science 321:1300-1301. doi:10.1126/science.1163568
And for those wondering how ID explains these findings, of course, it doesn't, it does not deal in answering such 'pathetic questions', just ask Dembski.
- PvM
September 26, 2008 10:08AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.