Answering ID critics
Over on the ARN discussion board the following 3 questions were asked. Here I have provided answers:
ARN discussion board
1. What are your testable predictions?
A. That we will observe the existence of CSI & IC in life.
2. What would falsify ID?
A. Demonstrate that unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can account for each- CSI & IC.
3. If what you are doing is science why are you trying to redefine science?
What is the data that shows IDists are trying to redefine science? IOW present the definition of science and show how IDists try to change it.
IDists have laid down the criteria for detecting/ determining/ inferring design. What is the comparable or any criteria used for determining that unintelligen, blind/ undirected processes were responsible? I mean besides the total and a priori rejection of any design argument.
ARN discussion board
1. What are your testable predictions?
A. That we will observe the existence of CSI & IC in life.
2. What would falsify ID?
A. Demonstrate that unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can account for each- CSI & IC.
3. If what you are doing is science why are you trying to redefine science?
What is the data that shows IDists are trying to redefine science? IOW present the definition of science and show how IDists try to change it.
IDists have laid down the criteria for detecting/ determining/ inferring design. What is the comparable or any criteria used for determining that unintelligen, blind/ undirected processes were responsible? I mean besides the total and a priori rejection of any design argument.
posted by Joe G @ 11:49 AM
37 Comments:
At 11:22 AM,
fdocc said…
Very good observations!
At 3:21 PM,
noname said…
Your --so called-- testable prediction is not supported by scientific data.
At 10:31 AM,
Joe G said…
Hi Turkish Darwin,
Both CSI and IC are supported by the scientific data.
Scientists are currently trying to refute IC and CSI is the reason why Dean Kenyon, once a very big player in chemical evolution, is now an IDist.
At 4:27 PM,
Dan said…
"Both CSI and IC are supported by the scientific data."
Again, you're just plain lying. There has never actually been any scientific research or experimentation to support CSI or ID, with the exception of an experiment that Behe tried, and he was asked about while under oath during the Dover trial. The result, which he freely admitted, did not support CSI/IC - in fact, it supported evolution pretty strongly. The paper can be found here
At 5:11 PM,
Joe G said…
Actually CSI and IC have both been confirmed by science. Why else would scientists be attempting to show that both can arise without intelligence?
Perhaps Daniel would care to post on how it was determined that the observed design is illusory...
At 6:10 PM,
Dan said…
Actually CSI and IC have both been confirmed by science.
Um, once again Joe, no, they haven't. No such research has ever been conducted.
Perhaps Daniel would care to post on how it was determined that the observed design is illusory...
Why would one have to disprove that which has never been proven?
Meanwhile, let's see, there's 150 years of science that explains that divine intervention is unnecessary to explain change over time, aka Evolution. Read any biology textbook.
At 8:56 AM,
Joe G said…
Daniel,
There are scientists tryng to show that CSI and IC can arise via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes. If neither existed, as you claim, then what are those scientists doing?
And once again- science is NOT about proving anything. You may want to read about what science actually is and attempts to accomplish.
Also no one says that divine intervention is required to explain change over time.
And as for the 150 years- LoL! We still don't even know what makes an organism what it is. Therefore it is very premature to say that one population can/ did "evolve" into another.
Now either the observed design is real or it is illusory. Anti-IDists say it is illusory. How did they reach that inference? If you can't answer than stop criticizing ID because it makes you look like you are whining.
Francis Crick first spoke of specified complexity- SC being another name for CSI. Leslie Orgel also discussed it.
At 12:20 PM,
Dan said…
There are scientists tryng to show that CSI and IC can arise via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes. If neither existed, as you claim, then what are those scientists doing?
Name one such scientist. The Discovery Institute claims this list of research that's been done, but if you look closely not one citation on there is actual science, and none of it is really peer-reviewed or peer-edited, as TQA better explains.
And once again- science is NOT about proving anything. You may want to read about what science actually is and attempts to accomplish.
Then please, if science isn't about proving or discovering facts, illuminate us - what is science about?
Also no one says that divine intervention is required to explain change over time.
Oh? So you can prove who the Designer is? Or are you still dodging that question?
And as for the 150 years- LoL! We still don't even know what makes an organism what it is. Therefore it is very premature to say that one population can/ did "evolve" into another.
Actually, if you'd bother to actually read a textbook or any science, you'd know that organisms, populations, and speciation are all precisely defined.
Now either the observed design is real or it is illusory. Anti-IDists say it is illusory. How did they reach that inference? If you can't answer than stop criticizing ID because it makes you look like you are whining.
How about the evidence for evolution being very real, and the evidence for ID being non-existent? Consistently asserting that something (evidence for ID) exists when it doesn't, does not make it come true.
How is that obvious statement (to anyone who's studied biology) whining?!
Francis Crick first spoke of specified complexity- SC being another name for CSI. Leslie Orgel also discussed it.
Discussing a concept and actually conducting scientific experimentation are not the same thing. One is speculation, and the other is science.
At 8:41 AM,
Joe G said…
Daniel,
Saying that organisms, populations and speciation has been defined does NOT mean we know what makes a fly a fly or a mouse a mouse. The fact remians we just do not know.
Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution- perhaps I need a new blog to cover that fact.
Ken Miller is one scientist trying to show IC really isn't. Doolittle is another. As for information, ie CSI, one such paper was brought up during the Dover trial.
Come on Daniel, why don't you tell us how it was determined that the observed design is illusory and not real. Why do you keep avoiding that?
At 10:22 AM,
Joe G said…
More on IC in peer-review:
Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.
Dynamical Genetics
Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?" Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).
At 10:33 AM,
Joe G said…
I "see" the "problem" with the first article:
"It should be stated that the hypotheses of Behe and Dembski and my applications of them to the further biological phenomena as decribed above have been formulated in an intellectual climate of enormous tensions between different world views, often so much so that it seems to be necessary to point out that an author supporting ID is speaking not in the name of an institution, but gives his personal opinion. However, I am fully convinced that there is a range of cogent scientific arguments (of which some have been discussed above) encouraging open-minded researchers to carefully consider and investigate the topic within their different biological disciplines."
Can't have open-minded researchers...
At 8:12 PM,
Will said…
I just read the article by Loennig that you link to Joe, and I'll tell you the other problem with it: it's just speculation. Where's the proof?
At 8:50 PM,
Will said…
About the papers on Ic in supposedly peer reviewed journals:
Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.
Read it, just speculation. Don't know much about the standards of the publisher, either.
Dynamical Genetics: http://www.weloennig.de/DynamicGenomes.html
Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?" Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62
Downloaded the PDF, will read. But I noticed, looking at the list of Well's publications, that this seems to be the only one published in a peer reviewed journal. I don't know about the editorial standards of this journal either. Most are published by the DI, many of his publications are opinions in newspapers.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).
The name of this indicates that the conference is devoted to ID, thus it doesn't count as peer review.
Jonathan Well's Published works:
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/articles.php3
At 12:41 PM,
Dan said…
Saying that organisms, populations and speciation has been defined does NOT mean we know what makes a fly a fly or a mouse a mouse. The fact remians we just do not know.
Are we talking science, or metaphysics? Because in science, these things have been defined. But if you want to discuss how we know what is real and what is not, then by all means - metaphysics can be fun.
Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution- perhaps I need a new blog to cover that fact.
Again, why attack evolution then?
Come on Daniel, why don't you tell us how it was determined that the observed design is illusory and not real. Why do you keep avoiding that?
Again, we're talking science here. Do I need to disprove everything that's never been proven? Maybe I should prove that there are really no monsters under my bed. Or that I really haven't been abducted by aliens. LOL
Nice papers you link to... let's take a look at them:
The standards of review for the Lönnig et al paper are unclear, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt here by looking at the abstract - in brief, morphological stasis and abrupt shifts in the fossil record are brought forth as evidence for irreducible complexity. Both these concepts are acknowledged and incorporated into evolutionary theory throught the punctuated equilibrium model. This is not disputed, and has in fact been squared away with evolution. Lönnig completely ignores punctuated equilibrium, and thoroughly mischaracterizes the fossil record in his attempt to prove IC. For better explanations, please look up:
Kerr, R.A. "Did Darwin Get it All Right?" Science, March 10, 1995. Studies of invertebrate fossils are adding support for punctuated equilibrium.
Kerr, R.A. "Does Evolutionary History Take Million-Year breaks?"
or Evolution 101
For the Wells' paper: Again, this looks suspicious in that it seems to be from a DI publication, but he says "Centrioles consist of nine microtubule triplets arranged like the blades of a tiny turbine. Instead of viewing centrioles through the spectacles of molecular reductionism and neo-Darwinism, this hypothesis assumes that they are holistically designed to be turbines."
Let me get this straight - If something looks like a turbine that was built, it must be a turbine that was built - is that what he just said? How does one go about proving that? ...another baseless ID claim.
And Minnich and Meyer: an engineering conference? what peer-review has this paper faced?
Regardless, M&M attempt to refute the virulence protein pump explanation of evolution of the flagellar motor. The conclusions section is particularly informative. First, it's called "Philosophical Conclusion." Second, it claims "Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of Design, namely, irreducible complexity."
Let's look at that for a second - it claims "We know that molecular machines are ID'd because they look irreducibly complex." But how do we know what's irreducibly complex? It looks like a machine. Circular logic
Try again, Joe.
At 8:41 AM,
Joe G said…
Daniel,
Scientists tell me we do not know what makes an organism what it is:
Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)
”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”
The above is from prominent geneticst G. Sermoni- who was also the editor of a presitigious biological journal.
Then Daniel again misses the point:
Let's look at that for a second - it claims "We know that molecular machines are ID'd because they look irreducibly complex." But how do we know what's irreducibly complex? It looks like a machine. Circular logic
In reality IDists say if it looks designed there may be something to it. As opposed to Daniel and his ilk who would never even consider the observed design is real.
It is also very telling of Daniel's position that he cannot/ will not tell us how it was determined the observed design is illusory. Instead he will just continue to post irrelevant nonsense when asked about this.
I am not asking for any "proof". I just want to know how the determination was made- either what we observe is real design or it is illusory. We have the criteria for determining real design. If you don't have any criteria for determing the design is illusory then all you have is a religion, ie a belief that it is.
So please stop avoiding the issue. Every one can see you don't have a leg to stand on. Might as well admit it.
At 2:01 PM,
Dan said…
You're saying a book published by the Discovery Institute was written by scientists? LOL
In reality IDists say if it looks designed there may be something to it. As opposed to Daniel and his ilk who would never even consider the observed design is real.
Wrong - we'll consider it. But without any scientific evidence, we won't call it science. And since the papers you referenced are a poor excuse for science, your "inference" remains unsupported by science.
It is also very telling of Daniel's position that he cannot/ will not tell us how it was determined the observed design is illusory. Instead he will just continue to post irrelevant nonsense when asked about this.
Again, unless you can provide any scientific evidence, which you can't, you're presenting the argument that there's a controversy when there isn't one.
Science deals with the presence of empirical evidence (i.e. what we know by observation), not what we don't know.
Why don't you just admit it, you're uncomfortable having a God that you can't prove exists, and are making up evidence to make yourself sleep better at night.
At 2:37 PM,
Joe G said…
Daniel sez:
You're saying a book published by the Discovery Institute was written by scientists? LOL
What are you talking about?
In reality IDists say if it looks designed there may be something to it. As opposed to Daniel and his ilk who would never even consider the observed design is real.
Daniel:
Wrong - we'll consider it.
LoL! All evidence to the contrary of course.
Daniel:
But without any scientific evidence, we won't call it science.
What would YOU accept?
Daniel:
And since the papers you referenced are a poor excuse for science, your "inference" remains unsupported by science.
And what "science" demonstrates are existence is due to unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes? IOW it's time to expose your double-standards.
It is also very telling of Daniel's position that he cannot/ will not tell us how it was determined the observed design is illusory. Instead he will just continue to post irrelevant nonsense when asked about this.
Daniel:
Again, unless you can provide any scientific evidence, which you can't, you're presenting the argument that there's a controversy when there isn't one.
Again it is obvious YOU cannot provide any scientific data that supports YOUR PoV.
Daniel:
Science deals with the presence of empirical evidence (i.e. what we know by observation), not what we don't know.
The theory of evolution was founded on and relies heavily upon our ignorance.
Why don't you just admit it. You don't understand ID. You don't understand the debate. And it appears you understand little about science.
And BTW a simple reading of The Privileged Planet demonstrates that ID is based on scientific research. I suggested you watch the video because the book is too deep for you.
At 2:49 PM,
Dan said…
What are you talking about?
For "Why is a Fly not a Horse," I looked it up on Amazon, and one can see who the publisher is. In this case, it was the DI.
All evidence to the contrary of course.
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
What would YOU accept?
How about some empirical evidence, sound and logical reasoning, and reasonable conclusions.
And what "science" demonstrates are existence is due to unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes? IOW it's time to expose your double-standards.
Did you actually ever read The Blind Watchmaker or a biology textbook? Just do a Pubmed or Google Scholar search for "evolution" or "evolutionary biology" for crying out loud - it's not my fault you're so frustratingly ignorant.
The theory of evolution was founded on and relies heavily upon our ignorance.
More bullshit.
Why don't you just admit it. You don't understand ID. You don't understand the debate. And it appears you understand little about science.
No, I understand it perfectly. ID's goals are to change science to accept the supernatural, and prove God's existence, in essence.
And again, what's this nonsense that non-biologists, who is unfamiliar with a biology textbook, much less the peer-reviewed literature, knows more about biology than a biologist?
At 9:32 AM,
Joe G said…
What are you talking about?
Daniel:
For "Why is a Fly not a Horse," I looked it up on Amazon, and one can see who the publisher is. In this case, it was the DI.
Giuseppe Sermonti, the author of the book, is a geneticist. He was also an editor of a respected peer-reviewed journal. IOW he knows what he is talking about. IF you can refute what he says then do it. If not I will take his word over yours as his word is supported by reality.
What would YOU accept?
Daniel:
How about some empirical evidence, sound and logical reasoning, and reasonable conclusions.
But the theory of evolution doesn't utilize that. Seriously what is the "empirical" evidence that demonstrates a population of land animals could evolve into a population of cetaceans? What "logic" and "reasoning" were used to reach that inference?
And what "science" demonstrates are existence is due to unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes? IOW it's time to expose your double-standards.
Daniel:
Did you actually ever read The Blind Watchmaker or a biology textbook?
Yes I have. The data I am asking for canot be found in either. So tell us Daniel, what is the data that shows that life can arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes? Dawkins doesn't cover that. Neither do biology text books. And I can't find anything in peer-review...
The theory of evolution was founded on and relies heavily upon our ignorance.
Daniel:
More bullshit.
Now reality is bullshit? Let's see- the theory of evolution came about during a time when "scientists" thought the cell was a "blob of protoplasm"- IOW they were ignorant as to what was inside of a cell. Today we still don't know (ie ignorance) whether or not ANY mutation selection process can lead to the range of change required if all of life's diversity owed its collective common ancestry to some unknown LUCA. Add that to the fact we still don't even know what makes an organism what it is and it all adds up to ignorance.
Why don't you just admit it. You don't understand ID. You don't understand the debate. And it appears you understand little about science.
Daniel:
No, I understand it perfectly.
Your posts betray you. It is obvious you have little clue as to what ID is.
Daniel:
ID's goals are to change science to accept the supernatural, and prove God's existence, in essence.
That is false. All IDists say is that IF the evidence LEADS us to the metaphysical than so-be-it. THAT is how science is supposed to operate- by following the data.
AND as I have already told you, even in the anti-ID scenario it still boils down to something non or super natural. Even you dance routine can't dance around that fact.
Daniel sez:
And again, what's this nonsense that non-biologists, who is unfamiliar with a biology textbook, much less the peer-reviewed literature, knows more about biology than a biologist?
Your posts say it all Daniel. You haven't a clue. IF you were correct there wouldn't be ANY Creationists or IDists who are biologists. But reality demonstrates there are thousands. Go figure...
At 2:14 PM,
Joe G said…
Just so everyone is clear on this:
Why is A Fly Not A Horse? is an English version of the original book Dimenticure Darwin. It is the English translation that was published by the DI.
From the book-
Giuseppe Sermonti is a retired Professor of Genetics at the university of Perugia and the chief editor of Rivista di Biologia/ Biology Forum, one of the oldest still-published biology journals in the world.
Ya see Daniel, when it comes to genetics a geneticist presenting reality trumps a "biologist" spewing unsubstantiated bullshit. IOW, "sorry partner- you lose"
But it is always nice to see the typical "attack everything BUT the data" tactic. A sure sign of desperation...
At 4:04 AM,
noname said…
joe g said:
"Both CSI and IC are supported by the scientific data.
Scientists are currently trying to refute IC and CSI is the reason why Dean Kenyon, once a very big player in chemical evolution, is now an IDist."
Then show me that scientific data. Show me a scientific data showing something to be irreducibly complex.
You said "scientists are currently trying to refute IC and CSI..." but you are wrong. Scientists have refuted them. There are no irreducible complex parts in biological systems. Noone proved any part of any biological system to be irreducibly complex. Behe asserted some parts as irreducibly complex but many scientists showed that that assertions were the result of ignorance or lack of knowledge.
At 7:53 AM,
Joe G said…
"Both CSI and IC are supported by the scientific data.
Scientists are currently trying to refute IC and CSI is the reason why Dean Kenyon, once a very big player in chemical evolution, is now an IDist."
Turk sez:
Then show me that scientific data. Show me a scientific data showing something to be irreducibly complex.
Why don't you show us the data that demonstrates that the bac flag can "evolve" in a population that doesn't have a flagellum.
Turk sez:
You said "scientists are currently trying to refute IC and CSI..." but you are wrong.
Reality says I am right.
Turk sez:
Scientists have refuted them.
Show us the data that demonstrates they arer refuted. Just saying they are refuted is meaningless.
Turk:
There are no irreducible complex parts in biological systems.
Sure there are. Do you know what IC means? It has been shown there are systems that if one or more parts are removed the systems do not function.
Turk:
Noone proved any part of any biological system to be irreducibly complex.
It has been done. A simple reading of the experiments that tried to refute Dr. Behe demonstrates you are wrong.
Turk:
Behe asserted some parts as irreducibly complex but many scientists showed that that assertions were the result of ignorance or lack of knowledge.
And reality has shown the ignorance belongs to the anti-IDists. Is that how your science is done- via ignorance?
The theory of evolution was borne out of ignorance- back then they thought the cell was a simple blob of protoplasm, And it continues due to our ignorance- no one knows if the alleged transformations required can even be accomplished via any mutation/ selection process.
At 12:43 PM,
noname said…
Ok Joe, you are right. For a secondII have thought as if "unevolvability" is a part of the definitons of IC and CSI. Behe and Dembski claim that IC and SCI systems can't have evolved but this claim has been refuted by Kenneth Miller, David Ussery, Ian Musgrave, H. Allen Orr and many other. I am sure you know their arguements, if you don't, try to search them.
PS: Bacterial flagellum is not a good example for IC since it doesn't fit the definition. Because Behe says "...any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional" but TTSS is a fully functional precursor to bacterial flagellum.
At 8:45 AM,
Joe G said…
Turk sez:
Ok Joe, you are right. For a secondII have thought as if "unevolvability" is a part of the definitons of IC and CSI. Behe and Dembski claim that IC and SCI systems can't have evolved but this claim has been refuted by Kenneth Miller, David Ussery, Ian Musgrave, H. Allen Orr and many other. I am sure you know their arguements, if you don't, try to search them.
First neither Behe nor Dembski make the claim that IC or CSI could not have evolved. The debate is all about the mechanism.
Also the people you mentioned above that allegedly refuted IC in reality have not done so. Miller has been soundly refuted and not one of their papers appears in a peer-reviewed journal.
Turk sez:
PS: Bacterial flagellum is not a good example for IC since it doesn't fit the definition. Because Behe says "...any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional" but TTSS is a fully functional precursor to bacterial flagellum.
Science tells us that if anything the TTSS "evolved" from the bac flg OR the two systems shared a common ancestor. IOW science does not say that the TTSS is a precursor.
Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions
"A True Acid Test":
Response to Ken Miller
Still Spinning Just Fine:
A Response to Ken Miller
Irreducible Complexity And Darwinian Pathways
Guest response to article by R.H. Thornhill and D.W. Ussery
At 11:07 AM,
noname said…
Behe and Dembksi says there is no model for IC systems' evoltionary model but Nick Matzke shows a possible evolutionary model for bacterial flagellum: Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum
It may be true or wrong but but it is a possible way. Even if it is wrong, it shows that there may be possible evolutionary ways to IC systems. It shows that facterial flagellum might have evolved from TTSS.
Please don't give the link of Dembski's answer to this because I have already read it. There is nothing worth to read or answer in it. In fact it is not a true answer. I think it is writen for being have writen something.
I can give tons of links refuting ID and IC but I won't.
At 11:14 AM,
noname said…
I have forgotten another evolutionary model for bacterial flagellum:
Musgrave, Ian (2004). "Evolution of the Bacterial Flagellum", in: Young, M., and Edis, T. (Eds.), Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the Neocreationism, forthcoming from Rutgers University Press, Piscataway, N.J.
At 8:35 AM,
Joe G said…
Turk,
Matzke's paper does NOT appear in ANY peer-reviewed journals. You know why? Because it is pure bullscorch- just as Dembski demonstrates. (BTW Behe claims that there isn't anything in peer-reviewed journals that explains/ demonstrates the flagellum could evolve in a population that didn't have one.)
And again science has shown us that IF anything the TTSS evolved from the bac flag. Why don't you try staying current on what science says about these things?
If you want to refute ID or IC then show us life arising from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes. Too bad no one can do such a thing.
If you really want to show that a population of flagella-less bacteria can "evolve" a flagella, then do the experiment. Any one can put anything down on paper. But we all know what "works" on paper does not always translate to the real world.
Just a thought- why don't evolutionists just substantiate their claims? That alone would refute ID...
At 6:22 AM,
noname said…
Joe, I am very surprised to see you talking about peer reviewed journals. What an irony :))
Is there any papers published in a peer reviewed journal which argues that bacterial flagellum can't have been evolved. Or is there any papers published in a peer reviewed journal which argues that any IC system can't be formed as a result of evolution?
As every other creationst Behe uses the "god of the gaps" arguement. He doesn't prove the "unevolvability" arguement nut he wants his oponents to prove the full step by step evolution model with its details. But he doesn't prove anything or even does not try to prove anything. Although there is no evidence of his claims, he wants others to prove the oopsite of his claim. This is absolutely ridiculous.
And if someone tries to show an evolutionary model, they only say "no, it is not good enough, go and try more". Their jod is very simple, isn't it?
PS: About Matzke's paper. Did he send his article to any peer reviewd journal? Do you know anything about this? Did he send and rejected or he didn't send?
At 7:50 AM,
Joe G said…
Turk demonstrates his ignorance of science and ID with:
Is there any papers published in a peer reviewed journal which argues that bacterial flagellum can't have been evolved. Or is there any papers published in a peer reviewed journal which argues that any IC system can't be formed as a result of evolution?
Science does NOT work that way Turk. Anyone who knows anything about science understands that basic and simple fact.
Also as I have already pointed out, ID is NOT anti-evolution. Neither Behe nor Dembski states that IC means it could not have evolved.
Turk sez:
He doesn't prove the "unevolvability" arguement nut he wants his oponents to prove the full step by step evolution model with its details.
Science is NOT about proof. Can you prove that the bacterial flagella evolved? No.
Turk:
But he doesn't prove anything or even does not try to prove anything.
Again science is NOT about proof. Can you prove that humans evolved from non-humans? No.
Turk:
Although there is no evidence of his claims, he wants others to prove the oopsite of his claim.
You are obviously confused. Dr. Behe, unlike you, understands science is NOT about proving this or that.
Dr. Behe's point is that neither YOU nor any other evo can substantiate your claims pertaining to evolution. Yet you want evolution taught as fact.
Yes I have discussed Matzke's paper with him. He had not sent it in for peer-review.
At 6:55 AM,
noname said…
Joe,
I am surprised to see what you have writen. Are you serious about these things?
You wrote: "Also as I have already pointed out, ID is NOT anti-evolution. Neither Behe nor Dembski states that IC means it could not have evolved."
Are you sure? Do they say IC systems can be formed as a result of evolution or in general as a result of natural (this means without any supernatural direction or supernatural intervention) events?
If so, what do you think the point of ID or IC is? and what do you think they are arguing about evolution?
At 7:32 AM,
Joe G said…
Turk sez:
I am surprised to see what you have writen. Are you serious about these things?
If you had any real knowledge about ID or IC you wouldn't be surprised.
"Also as I have already pointed out, ID is NOT anti-evolution. Neither Behe nor Dembski states that IC means it could not have evolved."
Turk asks:
Are you sure?
Yes I am.
Turk asks:
Do they say IC systems can be formed as a result of evolution or in general as a result of natural (this means without any supernatural direction or supernatural intervention) events?
Both intelligence and design are natural processes. ID does NOT say anything about the supernatural- except that IF the data/ evidence leads to the metaphysical then so-be-it.
Turk:
If so, what do you think the point of ID or IC is? and what do you think they are arguing about evolution?
The debate is about the mechanism of evolution.
I suggest you read some ID literature that was written by IDists. It appears you have "learned" about ID from ID critics and anti-IDists.
Ya see Turk natural selection can only select for what exists. IC systems do not perform that function until all the parts are together and functioning.
At 6:31 PM,
noname said…
Joe said: "[i]The debate is about the mechanism of evolution.[/i]"
But unfortunately IDist doesn't say anything about the mechanism. They don't offer any mechanism of evolution. They say that natural selection can't form IC systems but they don't offer a new mechanism, do they?
They claim only an intelligent agency can do this. Only an intelligent agency can form IC systems. İsn't this true?
So lets try to find an intelligent agency. What is the intelligent agency? It is a had question. I couldn't find the answer. Do you know the answer Joe?
And Joe, how do you think humans formed? Are we evolved from an other animal species or are we designed or are we created? What do you think about this?
And as an answer to your criticism: "I suggest you read some evolution literature that was written by evolutionists. It appears you have "learned" about evolution from evolution critics and anti-evolutionists."
At 8:49 AM,
Joe G said…
Turk suggests:
And as an answer to your criticism: "I suggest you read some evolution literature that was written by evolutionists. It appears you have "learned" about evolution from evolution critics and anti-evolutionists."
I did Turk. I learned about evolution by reading Darwin, Dawkins, Mayr, Gould and a host of other evolutionists. As well as taking university level biology courses.
Perhaps if you had something specific that you don't think I know about prsent it. But if history is any indication I usually end up knowing more about the theory of evolution than my evolutionary opponents- you included.
I can and have pointed out your ID ignorance. Perhaps you can point out my evoltutionary ignorance.
Joe said: "The debate is about the mechanism of evolution."
Turk:
But unfortunately IDist doesn't say anything about the mechanism.
Actually we have. But we also know the ONLY possible way to determine a mechanism is by studying the design.
Turk:
They don't offer any mechanism of evolution. They say that natural selection can't form IC systems but they don't offer a new mechanism, do they?
IC systems goes against what NS stands for. It is as simple as that.
Turk:
They claim only an intelligent agency can do this. Only an intelligent agency can form IC systems. İsn't this true?
That is what the data/ evidence demonstrates.
Turk:
So lets try to find an intelligent agency. What is the intelligent agency? It is a had question. I couldn't find the answer. Do you know the answer Joe?
But the ONLY way to do that is by studying the design! Therefore the designer is irrelevant to design detection and understanding- just as reality demonstrates.
Turk:
And Joe, how do you think humans formed? Are we evolved from an other animal species or are we designed or are we created? What do you think about this?
I don't know and I am sure that no one does. But all that means is we have to keep ALL options open and FOLLOW the data/ evidence where-ever it leads.
I also suggest you read my other blogs because much of what you question is answered in those.
At 8:21 AM,
noname said…
Look what Mustafa Akyol, a IDN board member, said:
Since there are no known natural mechanisms to explain the origin of biological complexity, we are justified to infer that they give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose because they were designed for a purpose. This is the basic tenet of the Intelligent Design theory and today it is pushing for a major paradigm shift in modern biology.
İf there are no known natural mechanisms explaning the biological complexity, then they must have been designed by an intelligent agent. It is the argument from ignorance. We can't find an natural explanation -infact there is- then there must be design. Lack of knowledge leads to the result that there is design. This fits "god of the gaps" I think. There is gap and we fill the gap with the designer and as everybody knows that designer is God.
Joe said: "Actually we have. But we also know the ONLY possible way to determine a mechanism is by studying the design."
Then where is the study of design? Is there any study? Of course there is not. The study is always against evolution not for design.
Joe said: "But the ONLY way to do that is by studying the design! Therefore the designer is irrelevant to design detection and understanding- just as reality demonstrates."
But your design detection is flawed. You think there is design because you can't find a natural way, not because you find an evidence of design. You think somethink can't be formed by nutural means, you say so there must be design.
This logic is flawed. It is the argument from ignorance. There is no big difference from creation.
One question Joe. Wha tdo you think about trnasitional froms? Do you think there are transitional fossils? What do you think about the common descent? How can ID and common descent be together? Once Behe said something like, every genetic information of all living things may be put into the DNA of the first bacteria or the first living thing. Don't you think this is an absurd claim?
At 9:45 AM,
Joe G said…
Turk,
The "ignorance" you speak of is the ignorance of evolutionists. IDists understand what intelligent agencies can do. Therefore ID is based on knowledge and the theory of evolution is based on ignorance.
Where is the study of the design? Well THAT is what is being debated- to allowed a design inference based on the data. However people like you are preventing others from doing so.
Dr. Behe:
"The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself-not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day."
and
" To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity. Rather, they were planned."
He goes on to say:
” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.”
“Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.
In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed” Pg. 72 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education.
As for fossils- two things-
1) Fossils cannot tell us anything about a mechanism
2) ID is not anti-common descent
As for absurd claims- saying that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown LUCA (which just happened to have the ability to asexually reproduce) via some blind watchmaker-type process is the most absurd and un-scientific claim there is.
You do realize there isn't ANY data that demonstartes that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into anything but a population of single-celled organisms. Which means "common descent" can't even get started.
At 3:36 PM,
Doppelganger said…
The above is from prominent geneticst G. Sermoni- who was also the editor of a presitigious biological journal.
What makes Sermonti 'prominant'? Or is this the usual credential embellishment? And as far as Rivista being 'prestigious', well, maybe at one time. Of late, however, it has become something of a joke, with Sermonti at the helm allowing garbage like Wells' no-experiment nonsense and Davidson's senile rants get free passes.
Imagine - a creationist writing a creationist book being heralded as a 'prominant' geneticist by a creationist. INcredible.
At 8:20 AM,
Joe G said…
The above is from prominent geneticst G. Sermoni- who was also the editor of a presitigious biological journal.
Doppleganger asks:
What makes Sermonti 'prominant'?
His scientific work in genetics.
Doppleganger:
And as far as Rivista being 'prestigious', well, maybe at one time.
It still is. However I am sure some losers don't like it these days. But cry-babies always find some "reason" to whine.
Doppleganger:
Of late, however, it has become something of a joke, with Sermonti at the helm allowing garbage like Wells' no-experiment nonsense and Davidson's senile rants get free passes.
Actuall both Wells and Davison's (not Davidson) work went through peer-review. GS only has the final say- that is what editor's do.
Why is that you NEVER have any refuting data and you always have time to whine and lick yourself?
Post a Comment
<< Home