Experts and users discuss intelligent design, evolution, religion in society, religion and science: ID Satisfies the NCSE’s Stated Definitions of Science
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
ID Satisfies the NCSE’s Stated Definitions of Science
- From Discovery Institute
By Discovery Institute - A Positive Vision of the Future
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sorry about my prior views
While I did feel for some time that ID had merit I also must admit that I believed for some time that it was religious due to those early panda's drafts.
I changed my mind and felt somewhat angry when I realized just what those early drafts meant:
http://www.discovery.org/a/3135 #title3
(Glad I learned to use the "Search" function on your site)
Just take today's "Panda's and People," replace designer with creator, and there doesn't seem to be anything that states the "Creator" is supernatural in nature.
Not sure if ID is without a doubt TRUE, but I know for sure it's not what the NCSE seems to think it is.
Let's hope they don't hate me for starting an IDEA center......
- F2XL
September 20, 2008 10:45AM
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.
Meaning
--I changed my mind and felt somewhat angry when I realized just what those early drafts meant:--
You mean you accepted the attempt to reconcile the early drafts while ignoring the facts? Sadly you seem to have fallen victim of DI propaganda.
--
Let's hope they don't hate me for starting an IDEA center......
--
Of course, not IDEA centers may finally help ID become scientifically relevant, although so far nothing to suggest that this will happen
- PvM
September 20, 2008 11:16AM
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.
Reply
"You mean you accepted the attempt to reconcile the early drafts while ignoring the facts? Sadly you seem to have fallen victim of DI propaganda."
Nothing in the early drafts state that the "creator" was specifically god or anything supernatural, something the DI is already emphasizing on this site.
"Of course, not IDEA centers may finally help ID become scientifically relevant, although so far nothing to suggest that this will happen"
Not sure what you're saying, please rephrase.
- F2XL
September 20, 2008 11:46AM
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.
Creationism
--Nothing in the early drafts state that the "creator" was specifically god or anything supernatural, something the DI is already emphasizing on this site.
--
The term creation and creationists have very clear and religious meanings. Let's not pretend otherwise, the Court certainly did not buy this after the fact 'explanation'
- PvM
September 21, 2008 12:53PM
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 it isn't
"The term creation and creationists have very clear and religious meanings."
http://www.fteonline.com/pandas-creationism.html
Check the actual context of those drafts. Did they actually use the term "creator" to specifically state God had to be directly implicated? So far all I can find says otherwise:
It's not the same as the "watchmaker" argument:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=795
The drafts specifically state that while some master intellect is the "creator" behind life, it would be impossible to tell if the "creator" is natural or supernatural:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=796
Here's another passage which states that commenting on the supernatural has no place in science:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=797
If you could find passages in the early drafts of Pandas in which God is SPECIFICALLY implicated in the use of the term "creator" then I would be wrong. I have yet to find such a case.
"Let's not pretend otherwise, the Court certainly did not buy this after the fact 'explanation'"
They didn't buy it because they never got the chance to hear it:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/was_justice_denied_to_foundati.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/08/justice_denied_foundation_for.html
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3706&program=DI %20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage
http://www.fteonline.com/aclu-dover.html
- F2XL
September 21, 2008 1:15PM
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.
Why did you not look at the drafts?
You argue, based on the FTE's claims that the term 'creation' and 'creationism' had nothing to do with religion.
Now I understand why you want to rely on the DI and the FTE's claims but this means that you are shielded from the facts.
As I said the term creation and creationism have clear meanings which help explain why the terms were quickly and abruptly changed after the Edwards ruling.
Since you believe in design inferences, what inference is one but to make here.
In addition you have fallen victim of the claim that just because the FTE was denied to be heard, that the argument was not heard.
From the actual ruling
--Judge Jones
As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards , which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. ***This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas.*** In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. (P-560 at 210; P-1 at 2-13; P-562 at 2-14, P-652 at 2-15; P-6 at 99-100; P-11 at 99-100; P-856.2.). This definition was described by many witnesses for both parties, notably including defense experts Minnich and Fuller, as "special creation" of kinds of animals, an inherently religious and creationist concept. (28:85-86 (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 34, May 26, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 1, Miller Test., 141-42, Sept. 26, 2005; 9:10 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 33, Bonsell Test., 54-56, Oct. 31, 2005). Professor Behe's assertion that this passage was merely a description of appearances in the fossil record is illogical and defies the weight of the evidence that the passage is a conclusion about how life began based upon an interpretation of the fossil record, which is reinforced by the content of drafts of Pandas.
---
In other words, the terms as defined clearly mirrored what we know as 'creationism' and that it was an inherently religious concept. Even the expert witnesses for the defense, Minnich and Fuller had to admit this. Behe attempted to 'explain' away the evidence but was ruled to be illogical and the weight of the evidence presented.
Thus the court concluded based on the evidence presented that
--
The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from "creation" to "intelligent design" occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court's important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs' assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. Importantly, the objective observer, whether adult or child, would conclude from the fact that Pandas posits a master intellect that the intelligent designer is God.
--
Such is the danger of relying on a biased set of documents from the publishers of Pandas and the Discovery Institute.
So let's see at what the book 'argues'
--
The book argues that the origin of new organisms is "in an immaterial cause: in a blueprint, a plan, a pattern, devised by an intelligent agent."
--
Clearly supernatural since common intelligent designers do not require immaterial causes. In addition, the objections to evolutionary theory mirror the same flawed criticisms of earlier religious opposition. So no wonder that reviewers such as Kevin Padian, a biologist at University of California Berkeley .. called it "a wholesale distortion of modern biology.
--Of Pandas
Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc
--
Exactly mirroring Christian apologetics...
- PvM
September 21, 2008 1:48PM
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'm still not convinced
"You argue, based on the FTE's claims that the term 'creation' and 'creationism' had nothing to do with religion."
And based on my own experiment in which I check Pandas out from the library and checked to see what the book would implicate if the term "creator" was used throughout the book.
"Now I understand why you want to rely on the DI and the FTE's claims but this means that you are shielded from the facts."
I beg to differ. They wrote the contents, I think they are just as qualified as anyone else to explain what was and wasn't in the early drafts.
"In addition you have fallen victim of the claim that just because the FTE was denied to be heard, that the argument was not heard."
Nothing in the passage of the ruling mentions that their argument was heard.
"(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID;"
If that's true, then the context of the term "creation science" was not used in a religious manner at all.
"(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and"
Then that clearly means they did not specifically implicate god in the passages (if that's truly the change that happened). Having drafts that say "We can't tell if the creator is natural or supernatural" does not constitute a religious idea.
"(3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards."
Right, because they wanted people to be aware that they were pursuing a completely different methodology then that of the people who lost their case in Edwards. From one of the authors of the book:
"I wasn’t comfortable with the typical vocabulary that for the most part creationists were using because it didn’t express what I was trying to do. They were wanting to bring God into the discussion, and I was wanting to stay within the empirical domain and do what you can do legitimately there."
(Deposition of Charles Thaxton 52-53, Kitzmiller, No. 4:04-CV-2688 (M.D. Pa., July 19, 2005))
That was how he coined the term "Intelligent Design."
"***This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas.***"
Considering the source of Judge Jones' ruling, it's no surprise that he would come to this conclusion without giving the FTE a fair trial. The answer is no, it doesn't. None of the three points Judges Jones and the ACLU make show that the early drafts specifically implicate god or the supernatural in Pandas. All it does show is that they wanted people to be aware they were writing about a completely different set of ideas then what creationists where aiming for in the late 80's.
"In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. (P-560 at 210; P-1 at 2-13; P-562 at 2-14, P-652 at 2-15; P-6 at 99-100; P-11 at 99-100; P-856.2.)."
Again, there is nothing within that definition which would show that the early drafts of Panda's specifically stated God or the Supernatural was the source of the various things they were trying to explain. "Intelligent Agency" could mean just about anything, nothing about it points directly to God.
(onto part 2)
- F2XL
September 21, 2008 3:43PM
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.
Part 2
"In other words, the terms as defined clearly mirrored what we know as 'creationism' and that it was an inherently religious concept."
See the above points, the terms prove no such thing.
"Even the expert witnesses for the defense, Minnich and Fuller had to admit this. Behe attempted to 'explain' away the evidence but was ruled to be illogical and the weight of the evidence presented."
What "evidence?" You have yet to provide anything that says god or the supernatural is directly implicated.
"The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from "creation" to "intelligent design" occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court's important Edwards decision."
Which does nothing but show they wanted people to be aware that they were pursuing a different set of ideas then that of the creationists of the late 80's.
"This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs' assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled."
By itself, no. You would have to find specific passages that state that ID requires God or the Supernatural.
"Importantly, the objective observer, whether adult or child, would conclude from the fact that Pandas posits a master intellect that the intelligent designer is God."
This passage suggests otherwise, it states that, "Some master intellect is the creator of life. But such observable instances of information cannot tell us if the intellect behind them is natural or supernatural.":
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=796
I would be naive to ignore that passage, it clearly states the opposite of what Judge Jones and the ACLU asserted.
"Such is the danger of relying on a biased set of documents from the publishers of Pandas and the Discovery Institute."
Such is the dangers of assuming from the start that what Jones (I should just say ACLU) states is true without actually reading the drafts for yourself.
"The book argues that the origin of new organisms is "in an immaterial cause: in a blueprint, a plan, a pattern, devised by an intelligent agent.""
Which means nothing more then the fact that the origin of new life forms is not reducible to matter and energy.
"Clearly supernatural since common intelligent designers do not require immaterial causes."
Common designers use more then just ink and paper when planning something, they use information which is in itself, an immaterial cause (not reducible to JUST matter and energy).
"In addition, the objections to evolutionary theory mirror the same flawed criticisms of earlier religious opposition."
Fallacy of composition. What's true of the parts is not automatically true of the whole. Can you describe some of these criticisms for me?
"So no wonder that reviewers such as Kevin Padian, a biologist at University of California Berkeley .. called it "a wholesale distortion of modern biology."
Seems like everyone has different reasons for critiquing ID, most that I see attack it's credibility as science without really addressing the arguments themselves, but that would be part of a totally different discussion altogether.
"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc"
Hold on.......
"Exactly mirroring Christian apologetics..."
......except there is no mention of the special creation taking place in a day (or less then a week), nothing that states the earth is 10,000 years old, nothing which explains the geography of the earth by means of a global catastrophic flood (nothing mentioning flood geology either), nothing that says that there is a separate ancestry for humans and apes, or that the universe had a sudden creation out of nothing by either god or a supernatural being of any kind
- F2XL
September 21, 2008 3:44PM
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.
Creation means
In pandas we read:
--Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc--
The FTE and its defenders have attempted to explain this as a statement of fact, but this is a troubling explanation, defying logic and reason. Either creation is defined independently of the facts and then the data show support or we have a tautological statement. In fact, the statement above does not describe the facts and the denial of said facts, is a standard creationist position were 'God created according to kinds' and these 'kinds could not change'. Typical creationist ignorance portrayed as 'science'.
No wonder, the abrupt appearance/creation is a standard religious explanation which ignores the facts of science. That thus creation became design shows that the concept of design is nothing more than a cover for creationism to hide under.
The best some can do is to state that 'well, it does not mention God'...
- PvM
September 22, 2008 9:01AM
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.
Socrates
http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology/mathematics-and-darwinism-plus-a-math-problem-to-solve /#comment-295900
I guess the question of whether or not it's religious seems to already reach a consensus on uncommondescent.
No one objects to me continuing the debate so I'll have you read my comment on UD and tell me if you have any objections.
- F2XL
September 28, 2008 11:11AM
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.
Uncommondescent allows no dissent
I am not welcome at UcD, a site which takes pride in ignorance over arguments. If you are interested in 'continuing the debate' then present your arguments.
Let me present you my position
1. ID is scientifically vacuous
2. ID's foundation in religious motivations is well established
Lacking 1, it is clear that ID fails the "secular motive which is not a sham" requirement, combined with 2, reduces it to be unconstitutional to be taught in public schools.
Simple really
- PvM
September 28, 2008 12:06PM
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.
Figures
"I am not welcome at UcD, a site which takes pride in ignorance over arguments. If you are interested in 'continuing the debate' then present your arguments."
The whole point was tor read my comment on that site and give criticisms here.
"If you are interested in 'continuing the debate' then present your arguments."
I guess maybe your blocked from even viewing the uncommon descent website, otherwise you wouldn't make such a request.
Here is the comment I intended for you to read:
"I would respond to that last comment PvM made and point out that he’s resorting to Socrates logic but I’ll let everyone on UD make up their own minds.
Just to ellaborate on Socrates logic:
Socrates was mortal, man is mortal, therefore all men are Socrates.
Or in a simpler context: Dogs have tails, cats have tails, therefore all cats are dogs.
Now the way PvM is using the logic is as follows:
“Creationism describes the fossil record with an abrupt appearance of animals with certain features fully intact, Pandas describes the fossil record with an abrupt appearance of animals with certain features fully intact, therefore ID is creationism.”
He insists that the religious content is there, I just need to “read between the lines” in order to find it.
“No God you say. Well not in direct words perhaps but all in implication and intention it seems.”
-from PvM on opposingviews
Now ain’t thatta b%#$&.
(yes Barbara, pun intended :D)
I don’t know if I should continue the debate with him or not; is it worth it or can readers notice the flaws in his logic from the start?"
Now that I have made it available here, can you give me any criticisms to my argument that you are resorting to Socrates logic to make you case?
"1. ID is scientifically vacuous"
Right now we're discussing the question of whether or not ID is religious, until we settle that argument I will not move on to another topic, at least not yet.
"2. ID's foundation in religious motivations is well established"
You keep saying that time and time again, and like most people, refer to the early drafts of Pandas to make your case. Take a quick look at this list:
1. The sudden creation of the Universe from nothing.
2. Everything created in six 24 hour days (or even metaphorical days).
3. The age of the Earth being less then 10,000 years old.
4. All the Earth’s geology can be explained by means of a global catastrophic flood.
5. Using the bible or some other sacred text to draw inferences, and last but not least…
6. Specifically having god or a supernatural creator in the role of the designer.
Now go find a passage in those early drafts in which one or more of these premises are stated to be a major pillar of ID. Until then I can see no grounds in the idea that the early drafts of Pandas were religious.
But if Pandas never was religious then would you care to cite another reason for why ID's religious nature is "well established?"
"Lacking 1, it is clear that ID fails the "secular motive which is not a sham" requirement, combined with 2, reduces it to be unconstitutional to be taught in public schools."
Again, I'm not moving onto another argument against ID until you prove to me that it's religious.
- F2XL
September 28, 2008 12:24PM
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.
Ignoring my argument
"1. ID is scientifically vacuous"
--Right now we're discussing the question of whether or not ID is religious, until we settle that argument I will not move on to another topic, at least not yet.--
That's too bad. But I understand.
--"2. ID's foundation in religious motivations is well established"
You keep saying that time and time again, and like most people, refer to the early drafts of Pandas to make your case. Take a quick look at this list:--
Nope, Pandas is but one part of the argument.
Want to try again?
- PvM
September 28, 2008 12:36PM
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.
What other arguments?
Try and quote the right text next time. Anyways...
"That's too bad. But I understand."
We CAN discuss that issue AFTER we settle the question of ID=Religion first.
"Nope, Pandas is but one part of the argument.
Want to try again?"
I sure would like to know what those other arguments are. If Pandas fails to be religious in any past present or future form then enlighten me to what the other facts are that make ID's religious nature "well established."
- F2XL
September 28, 2008 12:45PM
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.
The entire enchilada in a nutshell
Luskins opines:
"As I discussed in my rebuttals to the first two opening statements of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), some of their common debate tactics include:"
Of course. This "debate" is not a scientific debate. The scientific questions were settled many decades ago. This "debate" is a "public relations" debate, and the same tactics (and much worse) are used by you and the Discovery Institute to try to bamboozle the rubes into believing that your side actually has some logic or evidence on your side.
Luskin tries to confuse the issue:
"ID does not require appeals to the supernatural."
Maybe it only "allows" appeals to the supernatural? Regardless, the rubes that send financial contributions to the Discovery Institute are 99% religious believers and they just assume that your so-called "intelligent designer" is their Christian God.
Luskin continues:
"ID merely seeks to infer "intelligent causes""
Riiiiight. And since all of your silly inferences have been shown to be illogical, it is clear that ID is anti-science nonsense. Regardless, the rubes clearly understand that your "intelligent cause" is their Christian God.
Luskin then quotes a really silly opinion:
“If science is based upon experience, then science tells us the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause."
This is, of course, a completely unwarranted conclusion. This is just an appeal to a selected authority, since I am sure that many scientists would reject this opinion.
Then Luskin gets right down to admitting that "intelligent design" can never be science:
"design theorists recognize that the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy"
So, "intelligent design" postulates an "intelligent cause" than can never be a part of science. If that's not supernatural, I have a few hats in my closet to munch on.
Then Luskin admits that "intelligent design" could mean just about anything:
"Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being."
This is truly hilarious. What is the purpose of the "intelligent design" movement? They wish to specify that the Theory of Evolution could be wrong or incomplete because one of these "designers" might really be responsible? No wonder a Federal judge found that teaching this nonsense in a public high school was not permitted.
Luskin continues on and on and on with this nonsense:
"there is no known scientific method for identifying the intelligent source responsible for design in nature"
"for the scientific theory of ID to address the identity or metaphysical nature of the designer would be to inappropriately conflate science with religion."
Since there is not and cannot ever be a "scientific theory of ID", it is no wonder that there is no attempt to identify the designer. A real scientific theory that inferred a designer would have to actually find evidence of the existence and purpose of such a designer. ID can't be bothered, since it is clear that such a search might in fact admit that such a designer could be supernatural. Round and round we go, never actually getting anywhere. Luskin can rewrite the same old stuff for 5000 words, but it never actually means anything.
The flagellum used to be an example of an "irreducibly complex" biological structure that could not evolve. Now Luskin is reduced to "may":
"may indicate that the flagellum arose by intelligent design"
May? "Intelligent design" MAY have some evidence? Or maybe not. Such nonsense.
Luskin says of Dembski:
"This provides him with an ideal background provide giving a rigorous mathematical methodology for detecting design"
Riiight. Too bad he has utterly failed at any attempt to give "a rigorous mathematical methodology for detecting design" in the last decade or two.
----- Luskin can post a big rebuttal, but I can't post a big comment - to be continued
- onein6billion
September 22, 2008 7:04AM
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.
The whole enchilada in a nutshell part 2
In the past, the flagellum was supposedly an example of an "irreducibly complex" biological structure that could not evolve. Now Luskin is reduced to "may":
"may indicate that the flagellum arose by intelligent design"
May? "Intelligent design" MAY have some evidence? Or maybe not. Such nonsense.
Luskin says of Dembski:
"This provides him with an ideal background provide giving a rigorous mathematical methodology for detecting design"
Riiight. Too bad he has utterly failed at any attempt to give "a rigorous mathematical methodology for detecting design" in the last decade or two.
Luskin opines:
"But federal judges can get things wrong all the time."
Riiiight. This federal judge held a trial for six weeks and ruled against "intelligent design creationism" in every single respect. So I guess it's time to have a "debate" in the court of "public opinion" in order to try to get the verdict overturned? The judge ruled "It's not science" and nothing that any of the ID "scientists" have ever done would lead to the conclusion that there was any possibility of actual science being involved with "intelligent design".
Luskin quotes an attempt to avoid the supernatural:
"Explanations that call on intelligent causes require no miracles but cannot be reduced to materialistic explanations."
This seems to me to be an obvious contradiction - "cannot be reduced to materialistic explanations" means "no natural explanation" and that means a "supernatural explanation". Who are they trying to fool? They didn't fool a federal judge!
Finally we get to the fundamental question:
"ID makes reliable inferences."
Well maybe Luskin wishes to assert that, but scientists say "nonsense". How can ID convince scientists that the requirement of an "intelligent cause" is a "reliable inference"? They have tried and failed for more than 10 years. Their attempt is:
"Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or personal agent."
Fundamentally, this is an appeal to our knowledge of human agency. Humans are "intelligent". Humans create "complex information systems". Therefore life forms were created in some unspecified way by some unspecified entity at some unspecified time in the past by an "intelligent designer". Well, evolution is a perfectly good explanation and the "reliable inference" of "intelligent design" is nonsense.
Luskin attempts (for the 100th time) so convince skeptics that ID really really is scientific:
"Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.(24)"
But skeptics reject this assertion for the 100th time by pointing out that "complex and specified information" is in the eye of the beholder and not properly defined so that it could be used by a scientist. And "irreducible complexity" of a biological system is simply a false assertion.
Luskin then provides one final false assertion:
"ID has also provided new insights into biology"
Well, 10000 scientists say that such "insights" were really "distractions".
- onein6billion
September 22, 2008 7:19AM
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.
Good point
onein6billion observes that Luskins claim --"ID makes reliable inferences."-- is flawed. In fact, as I have shown, ID's chosen approach makes very unreliable inferences. The cost of which is significant, since as Dembski has argued, if the filter allows "false positives", as it does, it would render the approach useless
There you have it: Useless...
Others, have shown that the lack of any positive arguments surrounding ID, do not allow ID to compete with the much more scientific position that "we don't know", and yet it insists on labeling our ignorance with the very unreliable inference of 'design'.
Lovely...
- PvM
September 22, 2008 10:00AM
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.