Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, February 20, 2006

Intelligent Design 101

Intelligent reasoning

In this day and age in which information is virtually at our finger tips, it amazes me how little most critics of Intelligent Design actually know about it. In the following essay I will try to help those critics, as well anyone else who may care, understand ID reality.

As for myself I have always stated that ID is about the detection AND understanding of (the) design. What do other IDists say:

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

(That one sentence alone refutes what many anti-IDists, including Professors Scott L. Page (aka huxter, pangloss, doppleganger) of Norwich Univ. in Vermont and Joe Meert of the University of Florida, say about ID- that ID is just about the detecting of the design and once the design is detected there isn't anything else to do. These are also dealt with in my ID PRATT List blog.)

How would one understand the design? By studying it. I believe that is what scientists are doing and have done, with Stonehenge (for example).

The following is a must read for ID critics as well as for those others who are also unfamiliar with the subject:
ID 101 by Mike Gene

Mike Gene opens with:

"What is Intelligent Design? If you ask a critic, he will probably tell you that ID is a disguised version of Creationism and nothing more than a Trojan Horse to get God taught in the public schools. If you ask a typical proponent of ID, he will probably tell you that ID is the best explanation for various biotic phenomena.

For me, ID begins exactly as William Dembski said it begins – with a question":

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


"The first thing to note about the question is that you don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to ask it. You don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to consider it. In fact, you don’t even have to be a religious fundamentalist to answer it."



As for the people who have some "God phobia":

Guillermo Gonzalez tells AP that “Darwinism does not mandate followers to adopt atheism; just as intelligent design doesn't require a belief in God.”

Dr. Gonzalez is one of the authors of The Privileged Planet. His scientific research has led him to the design inference independent of the biological data. IOW his scientific research demonstrates the design inference extends to other scientific fields of investigation and is not limited to biology.

It is obvious that nature and life have the appearance of design. Either that appearance is illusory or because it is real, i.e. involved intelligent agency causation:

“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


However it may be that even the appearance of design will never be enough for some people to even want to check out if that appearance is for a reason. For most anti-IDists the following applies:

Page 270 of “The Privileged Planet”

“In fact, no amount of evidence for apparent design could ever count as evidence of actual design. But if science is a search for the best explanation, based on the actual evidence from the physical world, rather than merely a search for the best materialistic or impersonal explanations of the physical world, how responsible is it to adopt a principle that makes one incapable of seeing an entire class of evidence?”


There are only three options to our existence:

1) Unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes (non-goal oriented)
2) Intelligent, directed processes (goal oriented)
3) A combination of 1 & 2
(as exemplified by Dr. Behe):

Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism.

Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important.


We do have processes and criteria in place that allow us to determine the design is real.

What processes and criteria are used to determine the design is illusory?


If, as I like to say, science is our search for the truth, i.e. the reality, to our existence via our never-ending quest for knowledge, then forcing the data to lead only to option #1 by relying on multiple atomic accidents, multiple chance collisions, multiple metaphysical universes and multiple lucky events, is not only an injustice to science, but to all residing on this planet.

21 Comments:

  • At 10:34 AM, Blogger Daniel said…

    You're still going at it, claiming that ID is scientific?

    Just provide me with one bit of empirical and tested evidence that there is purpose or intelligence evident in the pattern of life on Earth...

     
  • At 3:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Daniel,

    Considering the alternative to ID is multiple atomic accidents, coupled with multiple chance collisions, coupled with multiple lucky events, all wrapped up in multiple universes, who in their right mind would say that ID isn't scientific?

     
  • At 9:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Daniel,

    Read The Privileged Planet. Ignoring their empirical data will not make it go away.

    However ignoring your teeth WILL make them go away. Now go floss, brush and read the book.

     
  • At 1:45 PM, Blogger BWE said…

    Do you think that natural selection does not explain speciation?

     
  • At 3:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BWE asks:
    Do you think that natural selection does not explain speciation?

    Speciation isn't being debated. IOW that which explains variation of the finch beak (speciation) does not explain the finch.

    Evolution has several meanings:

    The meanings of [I]evolution[/I], from [I]Darwinism, Design and Public Education[/I]:

    1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature

    2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population

    3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

    4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.

    5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

    6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.


    The debate involves #6. IOW ID is not for or against common descent. The debate is about the mechanism of evolution.

     
  • At 1:40 PM, Blogger Daniel said…

    Considering the alternative to ID is multiple atomic accidents, coupled with multiple chance collisions, coupled with multiple lucky events, all wrapped up in multiple universes, who in their right mind would say that ID isn't scientific?

    ID does not posit nor show any such thing, Joe.

    And I've read The Privileged Planet - it's theologically-driven speculation of astronomy, by an astronomer and a theologian, not on biology.

    As for your criticisms of the "Blind Watchmaker" thesis - if life is the product of "intelligent, purposeful" change, perhaps you could show us the blueprints for the design, or the footprints of the designer's divine intervention...

     
  • At 2:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Considering the alternative to ID is multiple atomic accidents, coupled with multiple chance collisions, coupled with multiple lucky events, all wrapped up in multiple universes, who in their right mind would say that ID isn't scientific?

    Daniel sez:
    ID does not posit nor show any such thing, Joe.

    Umm logic, reasoning and reality demonstrate what I posted is spot on.

    What do you think the alternative to ID is? There are only 3 options to our existence and only 1 excludes ID...

    Daniel:
    And I've read The Privileged Planet - it's theologically-driven speculation of astronomy, by an astronomer and a theologian, not on biology.

    LoL! "The Privileged Planet" demonstrates that the design inference extends beyond biology and is supported by different scientific fields.

    Gonzalez is an astro-biologist:

    Guillermo Gonzalez, one of the authors of “The Privileged Planet” was a (Carl) Sagonite. However the book refutes Sagan.
    It was Gonzalez’s paper “Wonderful Eclipses,” Astronomy & Geophysics 40, no. 3 (1999): 3.18- 3.20), that peaked the book’s co-author’s (Jay Richards) interest.
    Gonzalez was part of a team of scientists working for NASA on a project trying to determine whether or not there is life “out there”.
    At least one peer-reviewed paper (G. Gonzalez, D. Brownlee, and P.D. Ward, “The Galactic Habitable Zone: Galactic Chemical Evolution”, [I]Icarus[/I] 152 (2001):185-200) came from that scientific research.
    The authors make predictions. For example if/ when we discover other complex life is found elsewhere in the universe, the many factors observed here will also be present there. And that life will be carbon based.

    “The same narrow circumstances that allow for our existence also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”

    “The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”

    “There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”

    “The combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one.

    This is because the medium we live is, on one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block the view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime.” Hans Blumenberg- thoughts independent of the research done by Gonzalez.

    Other G. Gonzalez papers that were the basis of the book (just skimming through the references):
    “Stars, Planets, and Metals”, Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2003)101-120
    “Rummaging Through Earth’s Attic for Remains of Ancient Life”, Icarus 160 (2002) 183-196
    “Is the Sun Anomalous?”, Astronomy and Geophysics 40, no. 5 (1999):5.25-5.29
    “Are Stars with Planets Anomalous?”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 308 (1999): 447-458
    “Impact Reseeding During the Late Heavy Bombardment”, Icarus 162 (2003):38-46
    “Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planets III: p Cancri Revisited”, Astronomy and Astrophysics 339 (1998): L29-L32
    “Stellar Atmospheres of Nearby Young Solar Analogs”, New Astronomy 7 (2002): 211-226

    If TPP isn't based on scientific research, nothing is.

    Daniel:
    As for your criticisms of the "Blind Watchmaker" thesis - if life is the product of "intelligent, purposeful" change, perhaps you could show us the blueprints for the design, or the footprints of the designer's divine intervention...

    You have serious problems. I have already told you several times that the ONLY way to get a possible/ reasonable inference to the questions you ask is by studying the design.

    Perhaps you could tell us what mutations were responsible for the alleged evolution of humans from non-humans. Or are double-standards the best you have?

     
  • At 10:15 AM, Blogger Doppelganger said…

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

    (That one sentence alone refutes what many anti-IDists, including Professors Scott L. Page (aka huxter, pangloss, doppleganger) of Norwich Univ. in Vermont and Joe Meert of the University of Florida, say about ID- that ID is just about the detecting of the design and once the design is detected there isn't anything else to do. These are also dealt with in my ID PRATT List blog.)


    Actually, that sentence seems to actually confirm what Joe Meert and I (along with just about anyone that is not an ID advocate) think about ID.
    Please tell us - after design is detected, what happens then? Apparently, you think there is more to it. Yet when we look at ID advocates that claim to be scientists, they suddenly seem to stop doing research when they claim to have detected design, or like Dembski, to have never done any.
    A bunch of go-nowhere essays by Mike Gene does not an established science make.

     
  • At 10:16 AM, Blogger Doppelganger said…

    "LoL! "The Privileged Planet" demonstrates that the design inference extends beyond biology and is supported by different scientific fields."

    Funny - I am still waiting to see the design inference IN biology...

     
  • At 12:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

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

    Doppleganger:
    Actually, that sentence seems to actually confirm what Joe Meert and I (along with just about anyone that is not an ID advocate) think about ID.

    Only if you ignore the sentence completely. Which is a typical ploy for you.

    Doppleganger:
    Please tell us - after design is detected, what happens then?

    You study it (just as Dembski stated). Which is just like scientists are doing with Stonehenge- they study it so they can come to understand it. Duh.

    So what does one do when you claim "it evolved"? Is there any research that would demonstrate it did? No. Can we trace the mutations? No.

    However, as I posted in another thread:

    Scott Minnich


    Biochemist Michael Behe used the flagella to illustrate the concept of irreducible complexity and Minnich takes the argument to the next level crediting the design paradigm to leading to new insights in his lab research at the University of Idaho.

    Now please demonstrate your intellectual cowardice by asking me to point out exactly what Dr. Minnich is doing as opposed to asking him yourself.

    A bunch of unintelligent rants by you will not make ID go away.

    Considering the alternative to ID is multiple atomic accidents, coupled with multiple chance collisions, coupled with multiple lucky events, all wrapped up in multiple universes, who in their right mind would say that ID isn't scientific?

     
  • At 1:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "LoL! "The Privileged Planet" demonstrates that the design inference extends beyond biology and is supported by different scientific fields."

    Doppleganger:
    Funny - I am still waiting to see the design inference IN biology...

    The design part is already taken care of. From Darwin to Crick to Dawkins the design is there (IN biology).

    The debate, then, is to what do we attribute the design:
    Is it an intentional artifact of an intelligent agency?
    Or is it illusory? (just a figment of some imagination)

    For inferring intentional design, ID theorists have put down strict criteria. It is pretty basic actually- if what we observe meets that criteria then we infer design. If it doesn't we don't.

    Then future research could either confirm or refute that inference.

    However for inferring the design is illusory the criteria appears to be the very un-scientific, "I refuse to allow the design inference therefore the design is illusory."

     
  • At 3:27 PM, Blogger Doppelganger said…

    "Doppleganger:
    Funny - I am still waiting to see the design inference IN biology...

    John Paul:
    The design part is already taken care of. From Darwin to Crick to Dawkins the design is there (IN biology)."

    SO, the evidence for design in biology is metaphorical language?ssertion?

     
  • At 3:28 PM, Blogger Doppelganger said…

    "For inferring intentional design, ID theorists have put down strict criteria. It is pretty basic actually- if what we observe meets that criteria then we infer design. If it doesn't we don't."


    These strict criteria - have they ever even been used by ID advocates in biology?
    If so, can you provide an example?

     
  • At 7:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The design part is already taken care of. From Darwin to Crick to Dawkins the design is there (IN biology)."

    Doppleganger asks:
    SO, the evidence for design in biology is metaphorical language?ssertion?

    Nope it exists. It isn't a matter of convenience that we label what we observe under the microscope as "biological machines". We label them because that is what they are.

    The debate, then, is to what do we attribute the design:
    Is it an intentional artifact of an intelligent agency?
    Or is it illusory? (just a figment of some imagination)

    For inferring intentional design, ID theorists have put down strict criteria. It is pretty basic actually- if what we observe meets that criteria then we infer design. If it doesn't we don't.

    Then future research could either confirm or refute that inference.

    However for inferring the design is illusory the criteria appears to be the very un-scientific, "I refuse to allow the design inference therefore the design is illusory."

     
  • At 7:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "For inferring intentional design, ID theorists have put down strict criteria. It is pretty basic actually- if what we observe meets that criteria then we infer design. If it doesn't we don't."

    Doppleganger asks:
    These strict criteria - have they ever even been used by ID advocates in biology?

    Yes. That is the reason why there are IDists who are biologists, geneticists and biochemists- because what they observe under the microscope fits their criteria.

    Now it is your turn to start answering questions. You can start with the unanswered question in this thread...

     
  • At 3:31 PM, Blogger Doppelganger said…

    Doppleganger asks:
    These strict criteria - have they ever even been used by ID advocates in biology?

    Yes. That is the reason why there are IDists who are biologists, geneticists and biochemists- because what they observe under the microscope fits their criteria.


    I don't think so.

    Now it is your turn to start answering questions. You can start with the unanswered question in this thread...


    I'll pass, thanks.

    I've seen you operate.

     
  • At 7:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes. That is the reason why there are IDists who are biologists, geneticists and biochemists- because what they observe under the microscope fits their criteria.

    Doppleganger:
    I don't think so.

    It doesn't matter what you think. Those are the facts.

    Now it is your turn to start answering questions. You can start with the unanswered question in this thread...

    Doppleganger:
    I'll pass, thanks.

    Of course you will. That is the MO of all intellectual cowards.

    Tyical Scotty Page- all bluster no muster...

     
  • At 7:33 PM, Blogger Smokey said…

    Joe wrote:
    "In this day and age in which information is virtually at our finger tips, it amazes me how little most critics of Intelligent Design actually know about it."

    In a day and age when gigabytes of sequence information and the tools to analyze them are freely available, it amazes me how little most critics of evolutionary theory know about relationships between sequences, particularly those encoding members of huge protein families that span phyla and kingdoms.

    How much do you know, Joe? Can you point to an ID analysis of a protein family?

    "In the following essay I will try to help those critics, as well anyone else who may care, understand ID reality."

    The reality of ID is all spin, no new data.

    "As for myself I have always stated that ID is about the detection AND understanding of (the) design. What do other IDists say:

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

    So why doesn't Dembski apply his equations to a real biological system? How much data has Dembski generated?

    "(That one sentence alone refutes what many anti-IDists, including Professors Scott L. Page (aka huxter, pangloss, doppleganger) of Norwich Univ. in Vermont and Joe Meert of the University of Florida, say about ID- that ID is just about the detecting of the design and once the design is detected there isn't anything else to do. These are also dealt with in my ID PRATT List blog.)"

    It confirms it, because Dembski produces no new data.

    "How would one understand the design? By studying it."

    I agree! Now, why is Dembski blogging and writing books full of equations for lay people instead of studying designs and producing new data?

    "I believe that is what scientists are doing and have done, with Stonehenge (for example)."

    When real scientists study design, testing hypotheses about the identities of the designers are an integral part of their studies, as are hypotheses about the methods of design as well as the implementations of the design.

    ID proponents ignore these, and claim that they are off limits.

     
  • At 9:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe wrote:
    "In this day and age in which information is virtually at our finger tips, it amazes me how little most critics of Intelligent Design actually know about it."


    Smokey:
    In a day and age when gigabytes of sequence information and the tools to analyze them are freely available, it amazes me how little most critics of evolutionary theory know about relationships between sequences, particularly those encoding members of huge protein families that span phyla and kingdoms.

    Relationships between sequences can be due to Common Design.

    Smokey:
    How much do you know, Joe? Can you point to an ID analysis of a protein family?

    Can you point to a blind watchmaker analysis of a protein family?

    In the following essay I will try to help those critics, as well anyone else who may care, understand ID reality."

    Smokey:
    The reality of ID is all spin, no new data.

    How would you know?

    "As for myself I have always stated that ID is about the detection AND understanding of (the) design. What do other IDists say:

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


    Smokey:
    So why doesn't Dembski apply his equations to a real biological system? How much data has Dembski generated?

    Geez Scott, why are you asking me what Wm Dembski is doing?

    "(That one sentence alone refutes what many anti-IDists, including Professors Scott L. Page (aka huxter, pangloss, doppleganger) of Norwich Univ. in Vermont and Joe Meert of the University of Florida, say about ID- that ID is just about the detecting of the design and once the design is detected there isn't anything else to do. These are also dealt with in my ID PRATT List blog.)"

    Smokey:
    It confirms it, because Dembski produces no new data.

    How do you know? Or are accusations the best you still have?

    "How would one understand the design? By studying it."

    Smokey:
    I agree! Now, why is Dembski blogging and writing books full of equations for lay people instead of studying designs and producing new data?

    How do you know what he or any IDist is doing?

    "I believe that is what scientists are doing and have done, with Stonehenge (for example)."

    Smokey:
    When real scientists study design, testing hypotheses about the identities of the designers are an integral part of their studies, as are hypotheses about the methods of design as well as the implementations of the design.

    Reference please. Stonehenge alone refutes your premise- we don't know whi designed it, who built it, what was it for- nothing. So by your (il)logic Stonehenge was the result of stochastic processes.

    Smokey:
    ID proponents ignore these, and claim that they are off limits.

    That is a lie. So we have gone full circle- all the information available and Pagey still has to resort to being a retarded liar.

    I even blogged on this. Wm Dembski even wrote about it- and I blogged on that.

    The designer and the process are separate questions- that is separate from the detection and understanding of (study). Just like abiogenesis is separate from evolution.

    However that is one of the reasons ID is scientific- it forces us to ask those questions- which is another refutation of those insisting ID is a research dead-end.

     
  • At 3:22 PM, Blogger Smokey said…

    Joe wrote:
    "Relationships between sequences can be due to Common Design."

    How so? There sure aren't any known cases of relationships between designed objects that can be placed into NHs that can be overlaid upon independently-derived NHs of their components.

    "Can you point to a blind watchmaker analysis of a protein family?"

    If you mean an evolutionary analysis, I can point to hundreds, if not thousands. In fact, you can use the free tools and sequences to produce one yourself, but we both know you have no interest in real inquiry.

    "How would you know [that ID is all spin, no data]?"

    Because there are no new data and plenty of spinning of data acquired by others.

    "Geez Scott, why are you asking me what Wm Dembski is doing?"

    Because you just cited him as an authority. Can you point to a single new datum that Dembski has generated in his entire career of bamboozlement?

    "How do you know [that Dembski produces no new data]?"

    Because I've looked for them. Why do you ask inane questions? If you think I'm wrong, point me to some data. A single datum will do.

    "How do you know what he or any IDist is doing?"

    Because I read their blogs and books. How do you know?

    Smokey:
    When real scientists study design, testing hypotheses about the identities of the designers are an integral part of their studies, as are hypotheses about the methods of design as well as the implementations of the design.

    "Reference please."

    MYSTERY MAN OF STONEHENGE., Stone, Richard, Smithsonian, 00377333, Aug2005, Vol. 36, Issue 5

    "Stonehenge alone refutes your premise- we don't know whi designed it, who built it, what was it for- nothing."

    You're spectacularly wrong. Moreover, I didn't say we had to KNOW. Reread what I wrote and respond to that, instead of responding to what you wish that I wrote. I wrote that "testing hypotheses about the identities of the designers are an integral part of their studies," and that's what scientists do when they study designed objects. Now, why are hypotheses about the identity of the designer off limits in ID pseudoscience?

    "So by your (il)logic Stonehenge was the result of stochastic processes."

    Nice try, but when you start with a false premise, you're not using my logic.

    Smokey:
    ID proponents ignore these, and claim that they are off limits.

    "That is a lie."

    How so?

    "So we have gone full circle- all the information available and Pagey still has to resort to being a retarded liar."

    Pagey?

    "I even blogged on this. Wm Dembski even wrote about it- and I blogged on that."

    Reference please.

    "The designer and the process are separate questions- that is separate from the detection and understanding of (study)."

    But the designer and the process are completely intertwined in any scientific study of objects known to be designed, so your analogy fails.

    "Just like abiogenesis is separate from evolution."

    Another bad analogy. Abiogenesis is separate from evolution because they are separate events.

    "However that is one of the reasons ID is scientific- it forces us to ask those questions-"

    Then why isn't anyone trying to answer them by producing new data?

    "... which is another refutation of those insisting ID is a research dead-end."

    It's a research dead end because no ID advocate is testing an ID hypothesis.

     
  • At 5:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Smokey:
    It's a research dead end because no ID advocate is testing an ID hypothesis.

    You just spew bald accusations as if they mean something. Unbelievable.

    Just because you don't have access to who is doing what doesn't carry any weight around here.

    Smokey:
    There sure aren't any known cases of relationships between designed objects that can be placed into NHs that can be overlaid upon independently-derived NHs of their components.

    There sure aren't any known cases of relationships between non-designed objects that can be placed into NHs that can be overlaid upon independently-derived NHs of their components.

    Can you point to a blind watchmaker analysis of a protein family?"

    Smokey:
    If you mean an evolutionary analysis, I can point to hundreds, if not thousands.

    No, tat is not what I mean at all. Evolution isn't being debated.

    "Geez Scott, why are you asking me what Wm Dembski is doing?"

    Smokey:
    Because you just cited him as an authority.

    He is an authority- but why are you asking ME what HE is doing? That stinks of intellectual cowardice.

    And ONE MORE TIME- the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer or the process, in the absence of direct observation, is BY STUDYING THE DESIGN IN QUESTION.

    What part about that don't you understand?

    That is how they did it with Stonehenge and they really still don't know.

    So that proves my point- that being that we do NOT have to know anything about the process or the designer(s) BEFORE detecting and studying it.

    "The designer and the process are separate questions- that is separate from the detection and understanding of (study)."

    Smokey:
    But the designer and the process are completely intertwined in any scientific study of objects known to be designed, so your analogy fails.

    Reality demonstrates thay can be and usually are separated. In some places the determination of homicide, for example, is separate from who and why. How is determined by thorough investigation.

    In many cases they have to be separated to keep from confusion.

    Reference "No Free Lunch" page 110-112- that is where Wm Dembski wrote about the separate questions- the detection and study from the process.

    Just like abiogenesis is separate from evolution.

    Smokey:
    Another bad analogy. Abiogenesis is separate from evolution because they are separate events.

    LoL! Just how are they separate events? They are directly connected! Ya see if living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via stochastic/ blind watchmaker-type processes there wouldn't be any reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those types of processes.


    "However that is one of the reasons ID is scientific- it forces us to ask those questions-"

    Smokey:
    Then why isn't anyone trying to answer them by producing new data?

    Two reasons right off the top of my head- they are too busy dealing with IDiots like you and those questions are irrelevant to ID and ID is their focus.

    Just for comparison almost 150 years since "On the Origins of Species..." was published we still don't know how to scientifically account for the differences observed between humans and chimps.

    Sure boneheads assert accumulation of selected muations, but those bastards never support their assertion.

    So wtf are they publishing about?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home