Intelligent Reasoning

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

Friday, February 24, 2006

Take the 3-hour Intelligent Design challenge

Thanks to a very good “Dr.” I just had a revelation-

Intelligent Design is today’s “Green Eggs and Ham”.

People don’t like it because they won’t even try it.

Here is the ID three-hour challenge:

Watch two videos- "The Privileged Planet" and "Unlocking the Mystery of Life", and then, if you can without lying, tell us why ID is not based on observation and scientific research, but is based on religious doctrines and faith.

posted by Joe G @ 12:56 PM  

78 Comments:

  • At 1:36 PM, Blogger Dan said…

    How about you just take either an introductory biology class, an advanced evolutionary biology class, or let go of your dogma?

     

  • At 1:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have. At one time I was going to be either a zoologist or marine biologist.

    I am an IDist because of the data. I also understand the dogma is all yours.

    It would also be nice if you could stay on-topic, and actually demonstrate you have an understanding of ID.

    It would be even better if you could substantiate your dogmatic views.

     

  • At 5:28 PM, Blogger egb said…

    Joe,

    I just learned about your website and love the opportunity to debate with an IDist.

    I consider myself someone that has extensively studied the "green eggs and ham" of ID. I have read a majority of Dembski's No Free Lunch and have read a lot by Behe and Philip Johnson. I have participated in some engaging email debates with Casey Luskin over at the Discovery Institute. So I guess that I feel like I have a pretty good handle on things.

    My remaining problem with ID is that it still assumes that we understand the supernatural. This is scientifically impossible. I think you would agree with that, right? I mean, how could we possibly know anything about the supernatural? If anything supernatural designed something that made it's way into the natural world, how could we just assume that it has the same properties of something that was designed by humans, for instance. Dembski came up with a unique way of detecting design but he nor anyone else can ever prove that supernatural design is the same as natural design.

    Let me explain in more detail:

    As we found out in the Dover trial, the designer of ID (the designer who is argued to be responsible for “molecular scale machinery”) must be outside of nature (i.e. supernatural).

    For example, in the decision, Judge Jones wrote:
    “Defendants’ expert witness ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID. First, Professor Behe has written that by ID he means “not designed by the laws of nature,” and that it is “implausible that the designer is a natural entity.”” (P-647 at 193; P-718 at 696, 700).
    There are many more examples if needed.

    So by applying the same design detection methodology as used in SETI or archaeology, ID requires the assumption that supernatural design is the same as natural design. How can we possibly make that assumption? How can we assume anything about the supernatural? This requires a ‘leap of faith’ assumption that supernatural design is the same as the design created by natural processes. No matter how much math and statistics Dembski can work up on detecting that sort of design, it still requires this ‘leap of faith’ assumption. (And, in my opinion, this assumption is directly linked with religious views.)

    This is why I do not accept ID as science. It's fine to believe that some supernatural force has an effect on the natural world (after all, I am a theistic evolutionist), but this cannot be proven by science. It's beyond the realm of what it can deal with. Please just accept that so we can all move on.

     

  • At 7:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi egbooth,

    ID doesn't say anything about the supernatural. Nothing in ID says the designer has to be outside of nature. You are confusing the implications of a theory with the theory itself.

    Dover in Review

    3. Judge Jones wrongly claims that intelligent design "requires supernatural creation." (p. 30, emphasis added)

    Contrary to Judge Jones, there was extensive evidence in the trial record and documents submitted in briefs that intelligent design does NOT "require supernatural creation."

    But Doesn't Intelligent Design Refer to Something Supernatural?

    "From an ID perspective, the natural-vs.-supernatural distinction is irrelevant. The real contrast is not between natural laws and miracles, but between undirected natural causes and intelligent ones."

    Let me explain- as I already have in other blogs- Natural processes only exist in nature. Therefore natural processes can't account for the origin of nature.

    IOW you can't define ID out of science without also doing the same to your scenario.

    The "leap of faith" comes in when you start believing our existence is due to multiple atomic accidents, coupled with multiple chance colloisions, coupled with multiple lucky events all wrapped in multiple metaphysical universes.

    And what about those "laws of nature"? Of Newton, Kepler, & Galileo in the book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline, Kline states that these scientist-mathematicians believed that "God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomenon."

    And what does Dr. Behe really have to say about the supernatural?

    "It is often said that science must avoid any conclusions which smack of the supernatural. But this seems to me to be both bad logic and bad science. Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted. Rather, it is an effort to make true statements about physical reality. It was only about sixty years ago that the expansion of the universe was first observed. This fact immediately suggested a singular event-that at some time in the distant past the universe began expanding from an extremely small size.

    To many people this inference was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event-the creation, the beginning of the universe. The prominent physicist A.S. Eddington probably spoke for many physicists in voicing his disgust with such a notion:

    “Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the intervention of a Creator will probably consider that a single winding-up at some remote epoch is not really the kind of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind.”"

    As for Einstein:
    "But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.”

    Let the evidence/data lead. That is what IDists say.

    Oh and as I saw in the Dover trial the judge decided the case before it was heard. Barbara Forrest lied on the witness stand and the judge didn't flinch. History will show that trial was the first farce of the century.

    However you can still salvage your position- just provide the positive data that supports it.

     

  • At 8:40 PM, Blogger egb said…

    Joe,

    I appreciate your comments. Allow me to respond.

    The contradiction is right there in the quotes from John West.

    He says, "From an ID perspective, the natural-vs.-supernatural distinction is irrelevant. The real contrast is not between natural laws and miracles, but between undirected natural causes and intelligent ones."

    So the two choices he gives are (correct me if I'm wrong) undirected natural causes or intelligent causes. I first disagree with his use of "undirected" (assuming he meant supernaturally undirected) as I do whenever an IDist uses it to explain evolution. Being a theistic evolutionist, I believe that anything in the natural world could be directed by a supernatural force but we cannot scientifically determine this. I also know that many pro-evolution scientists have said that evolution is undirected (e.g., Dawkins) but you have to realize that science cannot make this determination. This is why so many scientists in Ohio were trying to get the word "unguided" off of the school standards.

    Also, by West's wording, one cannot tell if intelligent causation is natural or supernatural. He does not make the distinction. He skirts around the issue once again.

    So my question for you Joe is whether or not this intelligent cause that leads to complex biochemi cal "machines" in organisms is natural or supernatural. If you say supernatural, then my last comment is correct and ID requires supernatural causation. If you say natural, then I will have to ask the follow-up question of what this natural cause is. And please don't say aliens.

    I know, I know...IDists are very careful about avoiding disclosing who the designer is so I'm not holding my breath for an answer from you.

    So let's move on to your quote:
    "Natural processes only exist in nature. Therefore natural processes can't account for the origin of nature."
    I fully agree. But I wonder what kind of significance this statement has. This is a purely metaphysical question. Once again, science can't handle this type of issue because it requires us to go beyond our realm of understanding (i.e. outside nature). I cannot make any scientific conclusion outside of nature. Can you?

    Your other quotes from Behe only reinforce the marriage between the supernatural and ID. The difference between the Big Bang theory and ID is that the BBT does not talk about causation whereas causation is the essence of intelligent design.

     

  • At 9:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Intelligent Design is about the design which exists in the physical world. There isn't anything supernatural about it.

    Tell us EGBooth, what parts of the videos discuss the super natural? Or can't you stay on-topic?

    And what part of:

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

    and

    "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?" Wm D

    don't you understand?

    As for identifying the designer, geez that has been handled to death. Suffice it to say the ONLY way to make any determination about the designer in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design. Heck we may find we owe our existence here on Earth to colonization from a system that was on the verge of dying. One that was already going when oursa was forming. And even though that just pushes the issue back, we have to go with the evidence/ data we have.

    And again "super" natural is irrelevant for reasons I mentioned.

    This is the problem your "logic" runs into.

    Science is the search for the truth, ie the reality to our existence via our (seemingly) never-ending quest for knowledge.

    If we are here from something outside of nature (and it stands to reason seeing nature couldn't have created itself) AND science is the search for our reality, then we have to follow the data regardless of the implications. If we do not then science isn't interested in reality and deserves to be out-sourced to other countries.

    "Natural processes only exist in nature. Therefore natural processes can't account for the origin of nature."

    EGBooth:
    I fully agree. But I wonder what kind of significance this statement has.

    It shows that NO ONE can escape non or super natural causation!

    Therefore if you say ID is out because it requires super natural causation, the alternative is also out for the very same reason.

    However that is part of the problem- the theory of evolution has to start with life and the specified complexity that requires explaining in the first place. And the BBT just "poofs" this universe into existence, and all the amazing coincidences are attributed- not to intentional design but multiple atomic accidents, coupled with multiple chance collisions, coupled with multiple lucky events all wrapped in multiple universes. Unbelievable that anyone would even attempt to support such a position as being scientific.

    What is there to study? How can we study what random accidents will bring? How can we research what mutations it took to get humans from our alleged non-human ancestors? It was all genetic accidents! Yeah that is helpful. Biology has been so enriched we still cringe at bacterium and viruses.

     

  • At 9:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW, EGBooth, science can make the determination- guided vs. unguided. That is pretty much the whole debate- the mechanism of evolution. Not knowing that and your failure to stay on-topic demonstrates you don't entirely understand ID.

    Now can you show me what it is about the videos that demonstrates ID is not based on scientific research but is rather faith-based?

    I should also take this opportunity to remind everyone that both intelligence AND design are natural processes.

     

  • At 10:06 PM, Blogger egb said…

    I'm sorry Joe. It seems like you're not in the mood to debate me. You claim that since I don't agree with you, that I don't understand ID. Well, I'm pretty confident that I do understand ID and I still disagree with you. I think that's how good debates usually go.

    It also seems like you're a little ticked off about me not saying anything about the videos. Maybe I misunderstood the point of this little exercise. I thought that you wanted to debate people who had knowledge of ID. If you think that the videos have information that's not found on the internet, then I will perhaps take a look at them. After all, I do enjoy understanding the other side when I debate.

    Also, I never claimed that the videos said anything about the supernatural. I would imagine they probably don't because the boys over at the Discovery Institute are some of the best PR workers I've ever seen. They really know how to dodge the supernatural implications of their theory.

    So with that little side-note, I'd like to continue the debate.

    Okay, so there are many applications of intelligent design that have been discussed in this forum and forums like this. Some examples include SETI, archaeology, Mt. Rushmore, and crime-scene investigations. Now the reason that intelligent design, when applied to these examples, is most definitely science is because there is the inherent assumption that the designer is natural. The entire design process (motive, mechanism, end-product, etc.) are assumed to be within the natural world. This makes sense. How could a detective get away with including a supernatural being on his/her list of possible suspects? So, Joe, do you agree with me that there is an inherent assumption to these sorts of intelligent design applications, otherwise they just wouldn't work?

    Okay, so now we have some people who are trying to apply this intelligent design methodology to biochemical "machines". However, what no longer exists is this assumption that every part of the design process is within the natural world. Therefore, this certain application is not scientific.

    Now, hold on one second. This doesn't mean that it's not possible for a supernatural intelligent designer to design these biochemical machines and implement them in our natural world. It only means that there is no way for science to determine this.

    As for your comments on the theory of evolution, I'm not going to waste my time defending the value of evolution research. I will let the scientific community speak for themselves.

    AAAS's scientific breakthrough of the year 2005: evolution in action
    http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/btoy2005/

    Medicine Needs Evolution
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/311/5764/1071

    www.talkorigins.org

    It's Friday night, I'm outta here!

     

  • At 8:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    One more time- EVERY theory has non or super natural implications! It can't be avoided! Nature didn't create itself. Natural processes only exist in nature and therefore could not account for the origins of nature.

    Say SETI detects a signal. They determine it is from an intelligent source. They send a signal to that point in the sky. A few days later they get a response!

    Do they if the signal originated via a super natural entity? No. How can they even know what type of entity is sending the signal?

    But OK- through many years of extremely hard work it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the source of the transmissions were of super natural origins. Does that mean the signal they detected didn't exist?

    Ya see Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur et al., all understood they were uncovering God's handi-work. However by your "logic" those great scientists weren't conducting science at all.

    BTW "evolution" isn't being debated. Now don't keep telling me you understand ID.

    Exactly what pro-ID literature have you read?

     

  • At 12:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    More on ID and the supernatural:

    Telic Thoughts:

    "As I have explained before, ID does not invoke the supernatural as there is no aspect or attribute of the supernatural that is required to make a design inference."

    and
    More Telic Thoughts

    "The common objection to invoking a natural designer to account for life on Earth is that the explanation leaves the origin of the natural designer unexplained. While I can appreciate the appeal of this argument, I continually fail to see how it works to rule out a natural designer."

    and here is a good one

    "If a “supernatural Designer” did indeed design DNA or a protein machine, then that fact would be a true fact about our world. The “supernatural Designer” would explain the origin of the DNA or protein machine, even if we couldn’t explain the origin of the ‘Designer.” (Of course, the whole issue of “explaining” something may not be as simplistic as people imagine). But Dawkins is telling us we would have to ignore this true fact about our world until we could also explain the origin of the “Designer.” So in the meantime, we would be obligated to incorporate false explanations into the Uber-Story we are trying to tell ourselves."


    Mike Gene is someone "on the fence"...

     

  • At 3:16 PM, Blogger egb said…

    Joe,

    I'm still confused as to what I don't understand about ID. Please explain. I recognize that the IDists claim to not invoke the supernatural. But I also recognize that they allow the option of supernatural causation to exist within their "scientific" framework. This is why it isn't science.

    I think we can both agree that what the IDists are trying to do is change the definition of science to allow for supernatural causation. This is a Pandora's box that could destroy science as we know it. The very same science that has bettered our civilization immensely.

    As for your quote regarding SETI,
    "But OK- through many years of extremely hard work it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the source of the transmissions were of super natural origins."

    What you are explaining here is impossible. You make it sound like there will be some national laboratory working in the future on the study of the supernatural. That is absolutely crazy. How could we ever "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that something has supernatural origins? Do you honestly believe that one day we will be able to explore the supernatural? How do you think we'll be able to do this?

     

  • At 3:38 PM, Blogger egb said…

    Joe,

    Ironically, in the same post that you quote Mike Gene from at Telic Thoughts (http://telicthoughts.com/?p=535), he explains that ID is not science.

    "So while I happily recognize Dickerson’s rule and how it is important in science, I also recognize that this means science cannot process the issues raised by ID (not to be confused with anti-evolutionism). If I want to know the best explanation for the origin of life that must restrict itself to purely physical and material causes, I will look to science and consider it. If I want to know whether life was designed or arose from purely physical and material causes, I’ll have to go beyond science since it is constrained by rules that dictate the latter as the answer."

    The only thing that I disagree with here is that science "dictates" that life arose from purely physical and material causes. It's possible that scientists who work on abiogenesis may one day discover that but it hasn't happened, yet and dictate is a loaded word.

    What say you to Mike's thoughts?

     

  • At 3:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ID isn't science.Biology is science. Physics is science. Chemistry is science. Astronomy is science. Astro-biology is science.

    The Design Inference is based on the scientific research from those sciences.

     

  • At 4:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    EGBooth:
    I'm still confused as to what I don't understand about ID. Please explain. I recognize that the IDists claim to not invoke the supernatural. But I also recognize that they allow the option of supernatural causation to exist within their "scientific" framework. This is why it isn't science.

    You haven't demonstrated that you know anything about ID. I have asked what pro-ID literature you have read or if you watched the videos- but you haven't responded.

    Also, as I have explained- no scenario- ID or NOT- can avoid a non or super natural causation. It just ain't possible. AND THAT is why West said what he did.

    EGBooth:
    [i]I think we can both agree that what the IDists are trying to do is change the definition of science to allow for supernatural causation.[/i]

    Actually I think you are a liar for even posting that.

    As for your quote regarding SETI,
    "But OK- through many years of extremely hard work it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the source of the transmissions were of super natural origins."


    EGBooth:
    What you are explaining here is impossible. You make it sound like there will be some national laboratory working in the future on the study of the supernatural. That is absolutely crazy. How could we ever "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that something has supernatural origins?

    Unbelievable! Can't you even follow along? That it was a supernatural origin is a given in the equation. It doesn't matter how.



    EGBooth:
    Do you honestly believe that one day we will be able to explore the supernatural? How do you think we'll be able to do this?

    Funny I never said nor implied such a thing.

    You obviously have reading comprehension issues as well as a "living in denial" issue. I cannot help you with either.

     

  • At 4:13 PM, Blogger egb said…

    Joe,

    Well, I'm happy that you agree that ID isn't science. Maybe you will come help those who are trying to keep it out of high school science classrooms. We would welcome you with open arms.

    I'm sorry that you think I have a "reading comprehension issue" and a "living in denial issue".

    Maybe you can explain to me your "hypocritical issue". You posted on your blog on the subject of "Why Intelligent Design is scientific". Now you're saying that "ID isn't science". Care to explain this little discrepancy?

    As far as your other quote, "You haven't demonstrated that you know anything about ID. I have asked what pro-ID literature you have read or if you watched the videos- but you haven't responded."

    Maybe you're also suffering from a little "reading comprehension issue". I said the following in my first post:
    "I have read a majority of Dembski's No Free Lunch and have read a lot by Behe and Philip Johnson. I have participated in some engaging email debates with Casey Luskin over at the Discovery Institute."
    Adding to that, I am a semi-regular reader of the following pro-ID websites:
    www.uncommondescent.com
    www.idthefuture.com
    www.evolutionnews.com

    As far as the videos go, I said this:
    "If you think that the videos have information that's not found on the internet, then I will perhaps take a look at them."
    I'll make it clearer than that: I have not seen those two videos.

     

  • At 1:36 AM, Blogger Joshua said…

    egbooth cracks me up. He says- ID IS about the supernatural, because I say so. I don't care what Dembski or Behe or West or anyone else said- they're all liars and I won't believe a word they say...they're only making these statements that say it's NOT supernatural just to cover their butts and get their religion into the science classroom.

    Wait, tell me what it is again that I don't understand about ID? YOU obviously don't want a debate Joe G!

    Here's an idea booth- you cannot debate someone if you're going to sit there and plug your ears and start screaming "LIAR LIAR LIAR!!! I WONT LISTEN TO ANYTHING YOU SAY, BECAUSE ITS A LIFE TO GET YOUR SNEAKY RELIGION IN SCIENCE! NAHHH NAHHHH!!!"

    Since you refuse to accept the word of the other side, without evidence to show the other side is lying or has reason to lie- you cannot even BEGIN to debate an issue.

    Luckily- you prove the point of this post by plugging your ears and refusing to listen to the other side. You think YOU are the one who gets to define ID, and then after denying the other side's ACTUAL definition, you close down and say- I won't speak of this, you're definition is a lie. If you'd actually LISTEN to the other side, you'd see that YOU are the one demanding the supernatural over and over, then asking- 'wait, what is it I don't get?'

     

  • At 7:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    EGBooth sez:
    Well, I'm happy that you agree that ID isn't science.

    This is what I said:

    ID isn't science.Biology is science. Physics is science. Chemistry is science. Astronomy is science. Astro-biology is science.

    The Design Inference is based on the scientific research from those sciences.

    IOW ID is scientific.

    EGBooth sez:
    Maybe you will come help those who are trying to keep it out of high school science classrooms.

    I will if you will help me get the un-scientific theory of evolution tossed out of science classrooms.

    EGBooth sez:
    I'm sorry that you think I have a "reading comprehension issue" and a "living in denial issue".

    That is what your posts demonstrate.

    EGBooth sez:
    Maybe you're also suffering from a little "reading comprehension issue". I said the following in my first post:
    "I have read a majority of Dembski's No Free Lunch and have read a lot by Behe and Philip Johnson. I have participated in some engaging email debates with Casey Luskin over at the Discovery Institute."

    I know what you posted. However your posts tell another story. Either you didn't understand what you had read or you read something into it that wasn't there.

    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 11:44 AM, Blogger egb said…

    I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

    joshua, you have to believe me, man. My technique, here, is not to insert my fingers in my ears and yell. I have tried to lay it out as clear as possible. There is an inherent and implicit assumption when intelligent design is applied to biochemical "machines". This assumption (which, of course the IDists don't like to mention) is that we aren't limiting causation to the natural world. That is why it isn't science. I'm not ignoring what the IDists say about their "theory"; I'm merely pointing out this implicit assumption, which negates it from scientific credibility. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that I'm ignoring what you and other IDists are saying. Please try and understand this. Thanks.

    And joe, I'm still really confused as how ID can be scientific but not science. Am I seriously the only one that interprets that as logically flawed?

     

  • At 7:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    EGBooth sez:
    And joe, I'm still really confused as how ID can be scientific but not science.

    I explained it it plain English. What part don't you understand?

    EGBooth sez:
    There is an inherent and implicit assumption when intelligent design is applied to biochemical "machines". This assumption (which, of course the IDists don't like to mention) is that we aren't limiting causation to the natural world.

    That is a lie. Both intelligence and design are natural processes.

    Also you are conflating a theory's implications with the theory itself.

    And just because EGBooth wishes to deny the fact that even his scenario "turtles down" to the non or super natural, ie has the SAME implicit assumption, should just demonstrate to everyone reading this blog that evos always revert to double-standards to try to make their case.

     

  • At 7:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    On Friday, February 03, 2006 in
    The Design Inference- Why it matters
    Joe G said, "I have stated that intelligence is that which can create counterflow...things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely."

    I am confused. Why are you responding to what I posted in one blog by posting in another blog? Or perhaps you are confused.

    OA sez:
    Either this is saying IDist's define "intelligence" as non-natural, or it's meaningless. Ergo the core of IntelligentD is non-natural.

    That doesn't follow from what I posted. Both intelligence and design are natural processes.

    Does OA think that nature, operating freely, could or would bring an automobile into existence? Or does OA think that auto designers are non-natural entities?

    Or perhaps OA just don't know what he/ she is talking about.

    Then OA asserts:
    ID is not science because there is no theory of ID that leads to fertile research programs

    How do you know that? What is the evidence that would substantiate your assertion?

    And perhaps OA can tell us about the fertile research programs based on unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes. That way we can compare what the anti-IDists are doing to what the IDists are doing.

    But anyway, just to refute OA's ignorance:

    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.

    Sounds like fertile research to me...

    Let the whining and flailing begin.

     

  • At 8:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Some interesting reading for EGBooth (and anyone else interested):

    Scientists should keep mind open

    and

    More propaganda about intelligent design :

    " Perhaps an example from the history of science can help to clarify the relationship between intelligent design and religion. Early in the 20th century, astronomers discovered evidence that the universe is finite in age, contradicting the then common belief that it was eternal. Noting the obvious positive theological implications of this finding, many scientists refused to accept the Big Bang theory, as it came to be called by one of its detractors.
    Today, we are in a similar situation with intelligent design, which is not based on religion but can have positive theological implications. Either from ignorance or from willful misrepresentation (I don't claim to know which), critics such as Hazen continue to confuse the implications of a theory with the theory itself."

     

  • At 12:32 PM, Blogger egb said…

    OccamsAftershave has done a great job at exposing the true core of ID with your own words, Joe.

    So you claim that "intelligence and design are natural processes." (BTW - intelligence isn't really a process but I think what you're trying to say is that intelligence is natural...correct?)

    So then, Joe, how can intelligence be defined as "things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely"?
    My translation...intelligence is non-natural.

    The only thing that I disagree with OccamsAftershave about is his quote, "The entire argument about supernatural/non-natural/natural is a ridiculous semantic swamp." IMO, this is the most important way to get ID out of curriculum discussions in public schools. If we can show administrators that ID is not science (or scientific) because it implicitly relies on the super or non-natural, then we win.

    And getting back to the implications issue, Joe. I think your comparison with Big Bang Theory is flawed once again. The reason that it is considered to be science (or scientific) is because it makes no assertion about who/what started the Big Bang (i.e. intelligence). Everything within the scientific theory is assumed to be within nature. The religious implications that you speak of are not a part of the scientific theory. However, for ID the non-natural implications are an integral part of the "theory". The intelligence itself is non-natural. Therefore, once again, ID is not science (or scientific).

    And one more thing, Joe. I have already put up several links to the critical importance of the theory of evolution to all of science. Why do you insist that there are no "fertile research programs" within evolutionary theory? That is absolutely ridiculous.

     

  • At 2:44 PM, Blogger Jim Wynne said…

    Joe,

    You might want to have a look here:

    http://jswynne.typepad.com/gropes/2006/02/an_inordinate_f.html

     

  • At 7:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    EGBooth sez:
    OccamsAftershave has done a great job at exposing the true core of ID with your own words, Joe.

    If you had read my response you would have read OA's alleged "great job" was really nothing at all.

    EGBooth:
    So you claim that "intelligence and design are natural processes." (BTW - intelligence isn't really a process but I think what you're trying to say is that intelligence is natural...correct?)

    Intelligence is a natural process. Design is a natural process.

    EGBooth:
    So then, Joe, how can intelligence be defined as "things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely"?

    Then answer the questions I posed to OA. Here they are AGAIN:

    Does EGBooth think that nature, operating freely, could or would bring an automobile into existence?
    Or does EGBooth think that auto designers are non-natural entities?

    EGBooth:
    My translation...intelligence is non-natural.

    Reality refutes you once again.

    EGBooth:
    The only thing that I disagree with OccamsAftershave about is his quote, "The entire argument about supernatural/non-natural/natural is a ridiculous semantic swamp." IMO, this is the most important way to get ID out of curriculum discussions in public schools. If we can show administrators that ID is not science (or scientific) because it implicitly relies on the super or non-natural, then we win.

    That stupidity has been refuted several times in this thread alone.

    As Gonzalez sais:
    "Today, we are in a similar situation with intelligent design, which is not based on religion but can have positive theological implications. Either from ignorance or from willful misrepresentation (I don't claim to know which), critics such as Hazen continue to confuse the implications of a theory with the theory itself."

    So which is EGBooth? Ignorant or willfully misrepresenting reality?

    EGBooth:
    And getting back to the implications issue, Joe. I think your comparison with Big Bang Theory is flawed once again.

    But reality demonstrates the comparison is spot on.

    EGBooth:
    The reason that it is considered to be science (or scientific) is because it makes no assertion about who/what started the Big Bang (i.e. intelligence).

    According to YOU that doesn't matter. All that matters, according to YOU, are the implications.

    EGBooth:
    Everything within the scientific theory is assumed to be within nature.

    How can you get away with doing that considering reality but yet you hold ID to a different standard?

    EGBooth:
    The religious implications that you speak of are not a part of the scientific theory. However, for ID the non-natural implications are an integral part of the "theory".

    And once again I remind EVERYONE that non-natural implications are an intergral part of every scenario as natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature and nature could not have created itself.

    EGBooth:
    The intelligence itself is non-natural. Therefore, once again, ID is not science (or scientific).

    We don't know whether or not the intelligence is non-natural. We won't know until the design has been thoroughly studied. And IF science is interested in reality it wouldn't matter to science anyway.

    EGBooth:
    And one more thing, Joe. I have already put up several links to the critical importance of the theory of evolution to all of science.

    How can a theory with so many gaps and with so little actual knowledge be of any importance?

    EGBooth:
    Why do you insist that there are no "fertile research programs" within evolutionary theory? That is absolutely ridiculous.

    It would help if you responded to what I actually posted. That you did not makes to look ridiculous.

    This is what I posted:

    And perhaps OA can tell us about the fertile research programs based on unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes. That way we can compare what the anti-IDists are doing to what the IDists are doing.

     

  • At 7:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thanks to Joshua and Sabre. Please keep the posts coming...

     

  • At 8:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why is it that evos can't even follow along?

    Why is it that not one anti-IDist stayed on-topic?

    Why is it that two anti-IDists posted responses to one blog in another blog?

    To Jim Wynne:

    I have to look for my hip-waders before I can respond to the incredible amount of BS you posted on your blog.

    Next time it would be more better if you respond in the blog you are responding to.

     

  • At 9:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jim,

    You obviously have serious issues. The blog you were responding to is Answering ID Critics yet you posted your response in this blog.

    As for common descent- I accept what the scientific data affords.

    IF you can provide the scientific data that demonstrates a population of non-humans can "evolve" (over many generations) into a population of humans then the premisde would be scientifically sound. Otherwise it is just a matter of faith. And I don't accept much of anything on faith.

    If you want to continue to post here (and I don't mind the criticism) PLEASE post in the proper blog- that is all I am saying. It would also be nice if you could stay on-topic.

    However we can deal with tthe following here and now:

    Jim:
    Elsewhere on his blog Joe argues that ID doesn't require the designer to be supernatural, but that's just stupid.

    I have provided plenty of data that demonstrates that ID does not invoke the supernatural. What is your problem- couldn’t you understand it? Just read this thread.

     

  • At 9:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oh and Jim-

    Reality will demonstrate the "inane drivel" is all yours.

    It is obvious that you don't have a clue to ID reality.

    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 11:20 AM, Blogger Doctor Logic said…

    egbooth,

    You are not taking crazy pills.

    There's just some confusion as to the definition of the term naturalism.

    SETI is a reasonable scientific endeavor because of its naturalistic assumptions about the aliens. They use radios and carrier waves because they have finite energy resources, have limited ability to travel the intervening distances, and don't know in advance where we are. In contrast, supernatural beings would have no such limitations, so would not need radios, let alone carrier waves. They would just use telepathy or any of a billion other impossible methods to communicate. Oh, and they would speak Earth languages.

    I do want to go back to your first comment in which you said your "remaining problem" with ID is its reliance on the supernatural. I don't think this is ID's only remaining problem. After all, there is a possibility of naturalistic design of life (however far-fetched). Not that I've debated any IDists who really thought the designer was naturalistic. If IDists called it Alien Design, they would be laughed out of the room by their own suporters.

    ID's bigger problem is its failure to make theories that generate positive predictions, i.e., something other than the prediction that we won't find an alternative explanation.

    Dembski's hypothesizes that "CSI" is an indicator of design, CSI being a highly complex mathematical measure of how much something "looks" designed. However, he proposes no way to verify that something exhibiting CSI is actually designed as opposed to just looking designed. IOW, there's no theory of design, manufacture or purpose that is experimentally verifiable. This is what I call a Floopdedoo hypothesis. It's not enough to cook up a formula that is a function of observations. To be science, you must make a testable prediction about that formula, e.g., that the formula is for a conserved quantity, etc.

    In the case of an object exhibiting CSI, the only prediction that can be made is that it will be observed to be designed by humans (as verified by means other than CSI - like watching someone design and manufacture the object) or else its origin will remain unexplained (i.e., there will be gaps). Of course, this isn't a scientific prediction about observations. Rather, it is a prediction that science will fail to find explanations.

     

  • At 11:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JT:
    I must have had a defective copy of the DVD however because the part explaining how complexity implies design by some intelligence was missing.

    It's in my copy.

     

  • At 11:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jim W:
    What you don't seem to understand is that positing an unidentified Designer doesn't do anything to answer the question of complexity. It only adds another layer of complexity.

    And what YOU don't seem to understand that any alternative to ID is just plain moronic. Or Should I ask what it is about the following that you DON't understand:

    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?

    Jim W:
    You can't simultaneously contend that the Designer isn't supernatural and not explain the origin of the Designer. Or is it turtles all the way down?

    And YOU can't say the universe had a beginning, which means it had a cause, and then say we can ignore the cause just because we want to.

    As for the origin of the designer that has been covered in another post.

    Again the challenge stands-

    Watch the videos and then tell me that ID is not based on scientific research but rather ID is based on religious text.

    Failure to do that just further exposes your "argument from ignorance" which is all the theory of evolution is anyway.

     

  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Sh!T! I may have lost a post-

    Doctor Logic it wasn't intentional and hopefully your post will show up because it contained easily refute-able nonsense-

    Also the good Doc's post may be in another thread and I just haven't looked...

     

  • At 12:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OK I found it and published it.

    DL:
    SETI is a reasonable scientific endeavor because of its naturalistic assumptions about the aliens.

    What does that mean? Does that mean the alleged signal transmitters could not be super natural? No.

    IOW it doesn't matter what assumptions we make about ET, all we really need to know is whether or not we can determine real design from design that is only illusory.

    EGB couldn't follow along. I will see if DL can:

    Say SETI detects a signal. They determine it is from an intelligent source. They send a signal to that point in the sky. A few days later they get a response!

    Do they care if the signal originated via a super natural entity? No. How can they even know what type of entity is sending the signal?

    But OK- through many years of extremely hard work it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the source of the transmissions were of super natural origins.

    Does that mean the signal they detected didn't exist?


    Real life demonstrates we can determine real design from the illusory.

    DL:
    ID's bigger problem is its failure to make theories that generate positive predictions, i.e., something other than the prediction that we won't find an alternative explanation.

    As I have already stated, "The Privileged Planet" makes several predictions. Also even Dan Dennett tells us "there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time." Which makes me wonder about the predictive powers of the theory of evolution.

    DL:
    Dembski's hypothesizes that "CSI" is an indicator of design, CSI being a highly complex mathematical measure of how much something "looks" designed. However, he proposes no way to verify that something exhibiting CSI is actually designed as opposed to just looking designed.

    This misses the point completely. What Dembski is saying is that if something "looks" designed, enough that it fits his specific criteria, then we should at least be able to investigate the possibility that it was the result of intentional design. However you and your ilk won't even allow that! To further your ill-conceived position YOU can't even tell us how it was determined the obvious design observed in nature is illusory!


    To further expose more double-standrads:

    How can one test the premise thta a population of non-humans "evolved" into a population of humans via some blind watchmaker-type process?

    What research demonstrates that such a transformation is even possible?

    How can one falsify the premise that any particular biochemical system, or organism, was the result of some blind watchmaker-type process?

     

  • At 5:22 PM, Blogger egb said…

    Whoah, a bunch of comments to respond to. First...

    Sabre wrote:

    "The designer’s intelligence may indeed be beyond our ability to comprehend, as you suggest. If that is the case, than design detection techniques based on our human understanding of intelligent causes may indeed fail to pick them up. However, that would not cause false positives in detection, only false negatives! Let me repeat: this would cause false negatives, not false positives. By definition we will not detect what we’re not looking for. However, a positive design inference would still be valid."

    I'm sorry, Sabre. While your argument is well-written and understandable, false positives are completely possible under this scenario. You're still assuming that this designer's intelligence, which "may indeed be beyond our ability to comprehend", is detectable. But if it's something that we are unable to comprehend, how the heck are we supposed to be able to detect it's design? IOW, what looks like human designed intelligence may not look anything like non-human (and I mean non-natural) designed intelligence. The point is we can't know what non-natural designed intelligence looks like because we are unable to observe anything outside of nature.

    The CSI that Dembski detects in a LEGOS castle that I built as a kid cannot be compared with the CSI that Dembski detects in a bacterial flagellum because the latter is based on knowing what the footprint of non-natural intelligence looks like.

    But we still are faced with this issue of ‘what are these false positives, then?’ Well, it turns out that even though Dembski claims that you can NEVER get false positives using his methodology, don’t you think it’s entirely possible that Dembski left something out of his algorithm? To claim that his methodology NEVER gives out false positives is pretty bold. Go here: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/06/icons_of_id_exp.html
    for more discussion about this.

    And Sabre, I haven’t forgotten your argument that reads that I am “personally unable to imagine a natural actor capable of doing the designing.” Well, allow me to open the door to suggestions. I’d love to hear them. “Aliens could have done it” is always a laugh. How about “time-traveling bio-tech lab technicians”? The reason I just assumed a non-natural designer above is because I keep on hearing quotes from people like Joe G who claim that this intelligent design has to be “things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely”. BTW, Joe G, I never got a response about that one. You just answered my question with another question.

     

  • At 5:30 PM, Blogger egb said…

    Let me answer Joe G next.

    You asked "Does EGBooth think that nature, operating freely, could or would bring an automobile into existence?
    Or does EGBooth think that auto designers are non-natural entities?"

    I'm quite confused by these two questions. When you say "nature, operating freely" do you include human work in that? I sure hope that the work I do is natural and free. So let me try my best.

    Yes, humans, as natural and free beings, bring automobiles into existence.
    No, auto designers are human and are therefore natural.

     

  • At 5:42 PM, Blogger egb said…

    Joe G said:

    "And once again I remind EVERYONE that non-natural implications are an intergral part of every scenario as natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature and nature could not have created itself."

    Well the quote that this is a response to was talking about scientific theories so...I will have to disagree with you here. Non-natural implications are not integral to scientific theories. What does the theory of gravity imply about the non-natural? What does atomic theory imply about the non-natural? Sh!t, what does the theory of evolution imply about the non-natural? My answer...nothing.

    I think you could use a little refresher on the nature of science. http://darwin.nap.edu/html/evolution98/evol3.html

    The argument that "natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature and nature could not have created itself" is not a scientific one. It is perfectly logical as I have pointed out but belongs in the Zen pit not in scientific discussion. You have to recognize the limits of science.

     

  • At 5:53 PM, Blogger egb said…

    Sorry for the multiple posts, here. Just a couple more things.

    Joe G wrote about SETI:

    "But OK- through many years of extremely hard work it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the source of the transmissions were of super natural origins."

    Once again, Joe, science cannot prove that anything is supernatural. No matter how much "extremely hard work" is conducted. I'm sorry...it's hopeless. That doesn't mean that you cannot be a religious person (maybe this is a good time to mention that I'm a theistic evolutionist), it just means that you can't call upon science to research anything related to the supernatural.

    And finally, Joe G says to doctor logic:
    "What Dembski is saying is that if something "looks" designed, enough that it fits his specific criteria, then we should at least be able to investigate the possibility that it was the result of intentional design. However you and your ilk won't even allow that!"

    Wrong! This is a free country and anyone can investigate anything they want to. What I am opposed to is the teaching of bad science or non-scientific theories to public school students in science class.

     

  • At 6:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JT,

    First you need to calm down. Posts only appear AFTER they are approved. Usually I only have time to do so twice a day.

    But anyway...

    JT:
    My copy only said that some things are so complex that they must have been designed by an intelligence.

    I bet it said more than that. I will watch it again later and get back to you.

    JT:
    What does your copy say? Since my copy is defective, I would appreciate you explaining what I missed. How does complexity imply design?

    Well it's specified complexity/ complex specified information. Also irreducible complexity is a specialized case of SC.

    CSI has only been observed to originate from an intelligent source.

    JT:
    Also you forgot to answer my question "Does the other DVD explore who the designer might be?"

    ID doesn't care about the designer. ID is about the design.

     

  • At 6:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You asked "Does EGBooth think that nature, operating freely, could or would bring an automobile into existence?
    Or does EGBooth think that auto designers are non-natural entities?"

    EGBooth:
    I'm quite confused by these two questions.

    I am sure you are.

    EGBooth:
    When you say "nature, operating freely" do you include human work in that?

    No.

    EGBooth:
    I sure hope that the work I do is natural and free.

    Buy a vowel. Natural can mean existing in nature OR produced by nature. The work you do may exist in nature (therefore it is natural) but it wasn't produced by nature- YOU produced it.

    It is no wonder that anti-IDists exist. With the low level of academics displayed here it is no wonder the USA is losing its edge on the rest of the world when it comes to science.

     

  • At 6:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe G wrote about SETI:

    "But OK- through many years of extremely hard work it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the source of the transmissions were of super natural origins."

    EGBooth:
    Once again, Joe, science cannot prove that anything is supernatural.

    Are you obtuse? You must be.

    IT'S A GIVEN IN THE EQUATION. PERIOD END-OF-STORY.

    EGBooth:
    No matter how much "extremely hard work" is conducted. I'm sorry...it's hopeless. That doesn't mean that you cannot be a religious person (maybe this is a good time to mention that I'm a theistic evolutionist), it just means that you can't call upon science to research anything related to the supernatural.

    Given that you can't even follow along I doubt you ability and capability to conduct scientific research or to even recognoze it if it were put in front of you.

    And finally, Joe G says to doctor logic:
    "What Dembski is saying is that if something "looks" designed, enough that it fits his specific criteria, then we should at least be able to investigate the possibility that it was the result of intentional design. However you and your ilk won't even allow that!"

    EGBooth:
    Wrong!

    Reality demonstrates I am right.

    EGBooth:
    This is a free country and anyone can investigate anything they want to.

    You are a prime example. Just look at your anti-ID nonsense. People like you won't let scientists infer design. No matter what you will ALWAYS say it isn't scientific.

    EGBooth:
    What I am opposed to is the teaching of bad science or non-scientific theories to public school students in science class.

    Then get the theory of evolution out of the science classrooms. It can't be tested. It can't be falsified> and according to Dennett it can't make any real predictions.

     

  • At 6:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "And once again I remind EVERYONE that non-natural implications are an intergral part of every scenario as natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature and nature could not have created itself."

    EGBooth:
    Well the quote that this is a response to was talking about scientific theories so...I will have to disagree with you here. Non-natural implications are not integral to scientific theories.

    Excuse me but non-natural implications are the reality of our existence. They can't be avoided for the exact reasons I gave. Now deal with it or admit you are employing double-standards.

    EGBooth:
    What does the theory of gravity imply about the non-natural?

    That's easy:

    Of Newton, Kepler, & Galileo in the book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline, Kline states that these scientist-mathematicians believed that "God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomenon."

    EGBooth:
    What does atomic theory imply about the non-natural?

    Ditto- you should watch the videos.

    EGBooth:
    Sh!t, what does the theory of evolution imply about the non-natural? My answer...nothing.

    As I have already told you the theory of evolution is a cop-out because it starts with life already existing. IOW it starts with a level of specified complexity that requires an explanation in the first place. It should also be noted that if life did not arise from non-living matter there would be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose soley via those type of processes.

    EGBooth:
    The argument that "natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature and nature could not have created itself" is not a scientific one.

    It is reality. IF science wants to contend with the real world you just can't ignore reality.

     

  • At 10:08 PM, Blogger Doctor Logic said…

    JoeG,

    Let me explain where I'm coming from.

    It is vital to define what we mean by natural versus supernatural.

    By my definition, the naturalism is based on two assumptions. The first is that the world is consistent. The second is that the world follows fixed rules of cause and effect (logical or temporal).

    These axioms are important because they place limits on our knowledge. We can never have knowledge of supernatural causes because the logical propositions about them can be simultaneously true and false (inconsistency), and because the effects of those causes need never follow any rule (acausality). We would never be able to link an experience to any supernatural fact.

    This does not prove that the world is totally consistent, nor does it prove that the world is causal. However, we can never know anything about the non-natural parts of the world. If there is a supernatural, it will be manifest as inexplicable events, and we will never know if they were supernatural or whether we just hadn't yet found their naturalistic explanation.

    You may have different definitions, and if you do, we should synchronize our meanings. For example, maybe your version of supernatural causes are actually naturalistic under my definition.

    As you can see, under my definitions, it makes no sense to admit supernatural causation into the scientific process because there can be no logical models of the underlying laws of supernatural causation. In science, indeed, in general, supernatural events always appear to be unexplained since knowledge of their causes is impossible. "Supernatural explanation" is an oxymoron.

    If you have alternative definitions of natural and supernatural, that's okay, as long as you have a definite recipe for deciding which is which.

     

  • At 11:00 PM, Blogger Will said…

    What I cannot understand about ID is that you can posit an "Intelligent Designer" but then claim that your theory is not about the designer.

    What about natural laws that lead to particular results? Do you define that as intelligent design? Because the mere appearance of design does not indicate design. Every second things happen that appear to have been designed but are the result of natural processes. So how do you decide what is designed and what's not?

     

  • At 7:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    FG:
    What I cannot understand about ID is that you can posit an "Intelligent Designer" but then claim that your theory is not about the designer.

    That is false. Perhaps you should pay attention and actually read what I post.

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

    and

    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? Dembski

    FG:
    What about natural laws that lead to particular results?

    As I just posted in response to EGBooth:

    Of Newton, Kepler, & Galileo in the book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline, Kline states that these scientist-mathematicians believed that "God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomenon."

    FG:
    Because the mere appearance of design does not indicate design.

    The "mere" appearance of design is enough to warrant an investigation as to whather it is real design.

    FG:
    Every second things happen that appear to have been designed but are the result of natural processes.

    Like what?

    FG:
    So how do you decide what is designed and what's not?

    As I have stated several times- scientists and laypeople alike make thatt decision daily. IDists have laid down specific criteria that has to be met before we infer design.

    What is the criteria you use to determine the design is illusory?

    And why do evos avoid that question at all costs?

     

  • At 7:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    EGBooth has taken his ball and gone home. However I want to expand on his inane ability to conflate and bloviate.

    In our vocabulary we have the word artifact. We use that word to differentiate between what nature can do if it operated freely and what humans can do when using what is found in nature.

    The fact that we have and use such a word refutes EGBooth's post:

    When you say "nature, operating freely" do you include human work in that? I sure hope that the work I do is natural and free.

    Moving on, I would have thought that before posting people would have read my entire blog, or at least my opening posts. EGBooth would have read the following:

    "In any case, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, debate about methodological rules of
    science often forms part of the practice of science, especially during times when established paradigms are being challenged. Those who reject the "teach the controversy" model on the grounds that ID violates the current rules of scientific practice only beg the question. The present regime of methodological rules cannot prevent the controversy for the simple reason that those rules may
    themselves be one of the subjects of scientific controversy."
    page xxv of Darwinism, Design and Public Education

     

  • At 7:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To Doctor Logic:

    ID does not say anything about the supernatural. Again you are confusing ID's possible implications with ID.

    All IDists say is that if the data leads us to the metaphysical then so-be-it. That is how science should operate- by following the data.

    As Gonzalez sais:
    "Today, we are in a similar situation with intelligent design, which is not based on religion but can have positive theological implications. Either from ignorance or from willful misrepresentation (I don't claim to know which), critics such as Hazen continue to confuse the implications of a theory with the theory itself."

     

  • At 8:44 AM, Blogger Doctor Logic said…

    JoeG,

    You said earlier in the thread...
    "It shows that NO ONE can escape non or super natural causation!

    Therefore if you say ID is out because it requires super natural causation, the alternative is also out for the very same reason."

    You have totally ignored my highly constructive post. You can't pretend that the definition of naturalism is irrelevant to a discussion of what is and isn't science.

    Disappointing. I thought there was a chance you were more than a Behe/Dembski sycophant.

     

  • At 11:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Doctor Logic,

    You say:
    You have totally ignored my highly constructive post.

    Perhaps you posted that one in some other blog. I didn't read a "highly constructed post" from you or any other anti-IDist in my blog.

    DL:
    You can't pretend that the definition of naturalism is irrelevant to a discussion of what is and isn't science.

    Your definition of naturalism is useless.

    Try this one:

    naturalism

    Naturalism is a metaphysical theory which holds that all phenomena can be explained mechanistically in terms of natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes and laws. Naturalism posits that the universe is a vast "machine" or "organism," devoid of general purpose and indifferent to human needs and desires.

    That definition fails for reasons I already gave.

    YOUR definition:
    By my definition, the naturalism is based on two assumptions. The first is that the world is consistent. The second is that the world follows fixed rules of cause and effect (logical or temporal).

    failed to be substantiated by anything I can find.

    Einstein said- "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." IOW it was unexpected and therefore refutes your claim that world is consistent and follows fixed rules.

    As I have already posted:

    Of Newton, Kepler, & Galileo in the book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline, Kline states that these scientist-mathematicians believed that "God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomenon."

    IOW it looks like the alleged axioms for naturalism are in reality the axioms for ID. Go figure...

    Perhaps you should take the time to actually learn what it is you are debating against. Take the challenge, watch the videos and then tell us why ID is not based on scientific research, but is based on some religious text.

     

  • At 12:58 PM, Blogger Will said…

    What is the criteria you use to determine the design is illusory?

    And why do evos avoid that question at all costs?

    We've already talked on this blog about the bacterial flagella, something that appeared to be designed. It has been shown that it can evolve from something simpler. Therefore, the apparent design is illusory.

    Likewise, the bloodclotting system: here's a link and here's a quote:

    "...studies over the last 10 years have shown that many animals lack some of the steps humans use for blood clotting—a sign that the system is not irreducibly complex....

    They found that the sea squirt, which cannot clot blood, nevertheless has most of the chemical parts needed to build a clotting system."

    Blood clotting system: apparently designed. New evidence shows the "design" is illusory.

    How many more examples do you need?

     

  • At 9:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What is the criteria you use to determine the design is illusory?

    And why do evos avoid that question at all costs?

    FG:
    We've already talked on this blog about the bacterial flagella, something that appeared to be designed. It has been shown that it can evolve from something simpler.

    That is a lie. Tell me if what you said were remotely true why wasn't that data used in the "Dover" trial? I will tell you why, because IDist Scott Minnich is a bac flag expert.

    FG:
    Therefore, the apparent design is illusory.

    Only in the minds of the very few.

    Blood clotting- agaoin what is the data that demonstrates it arose ("evolved") via some blind watchmaker-type process? That there "appears" to be simpler systems does not tell us anything about a mechanism.

    And one more time I will remind you that being IC does not mean it could not have evolved. The debate is about the mechanism.

    Now Dr. Behe has proposed an experiment to test the premise that a population of bacteria without flagelum could evolve into a population with flagelum. Why is it that evos are avoiding that experiment like it was the bird flu?

     

  • At 4:13 AM, Blogger Will said…

    That is a lie. Tell me if what you said were remotely true why wasn't that data used in the "Dover" trial? I will tell you why, because IDist Scott Minnich is a bac flag expert.

    I guess you are calling me a liar because you don't believe the evidence presented on this blog that bacterial flagella can evolve.

    If you don't feel like wading through all those comments, here are the links that were presented:

    Maybe you should start here
    A paper by Nick Matzke
    EvoWiki on the Evolution of Bacterial Flagella
    A quick and dirty look at a likely evolutionary pathway for the flagella

    Finally:

    It doesn't matter if the evidence was used in the Dover trial or not. That's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.

    Now, if it were relevant, I might respond by mentioning that Michael Behe, the originator of the concept of irreducible complexity, did admit in the Dover trial that there was absolutely no evidence in peer reviewed literature that bacterial flagella are irreducibly complex. But that is irrelevant, so I won't mention it.

     

  • At 7:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Again FG where is the experiment?

    Any dolt knows that just about anything can "work" on paper.

    Matzke has been refuted. He can't even get hos paper through peer-review. Miller has been refuted- he also couldn't get a paper on the bac flag through peer-review. Musgrave- ditto.

    However an experiment has been proposed. Why is that all evolutionitwits are avoiding the experiment like it is the bird flu?

    I say it is because they are intellectual cowards and mental midgets.

    BTW it is very relevant that the any alleged data for the "evolution" of the bac flag wasn't presented in the "Dover" trial. The ACLU would have used it had it existed. Just look at the crap they did use. LoL!

     

  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger Doctor Logic said…

    Sabre,

    I think it’s safe to assume that we agree on this: if there is indeed a designing intelligence responsible for bringing about life on this planet, the scientific evidence cannot tell us the identity or ultimate nature of that designer.

    No, this isn't safe to assume. Why would you claim this? Is it because you think the designer is God? And why call it design if it's just magic? Does magic involve design? If a genie makes a beautiful female companion for me, did he design her? Is he a supragenius at physics?

    Design is a class of computing processes. If you want to claim that somethnig is designed and manufactured, then you have to demonstrate evidence of those processes.

    Science requires that you have an explanatory theory. ID doesn't have one. What ID claims is that the odds that something evolved using an unguided process are so low that only the alternative could be true.

    However, no one knows what the odds are, and the alternatives include the supernatural (i.e., inexplicable events). For all we know, the natural formation of life could be so probable as to be inevitable. We won't know the odds until we have an intimate understanding of biochemistry. Today, we cannot even solve the protein folding problem. If we could build life forms from scratch, we would have a better idea of what goes into their construction, but we cannot do this.

    So your question about detecting design fails at step one. Design isn't a property like mass or velocity. Design is a form of history. If you have a predictive theory about that history (e.g., you predict we'll find manufacturing facilities), then it can be scientific. However, you've already nixed this in your prior assumption that we can't know anything about the designer.

    In other words, what's the difference between Intelligent Design and Magic Design? Both meta-predict that we won't ever find naturalistic explanations for complex structures, but predict no actual observations.

    And is Magic Design scientific? Or is it just the statement that we don't know what happened?

     

  • At 9:16 AM, Blogger Doctor Logic said…

    Now Dr. Behe has proposed an experiment to test the premise that a population of bacteria without flagelum could evolve into a population with flagelum. Why is it that evos are avoiding that experiment like it was the bird flu?

    Why doesn't that bozo Behe do his own bloomin' experiment? No one is stopping him. Or are the DI's millions just for PR? (answer: yes)

    It's not my job to spend my life disproving the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot and the claim that the moon is made of cream cheese.

     

  • At 12:38 PM, Blogger Will said…

    Joe and Sabre:


    Point 1:

    No one has submitted a peer reviewed paper that proves that the BacFlag is not irreducibly complex. Likewise, no one has submitted a peer reviewed paper that proves that it is IC. Peer review, in this case, is irrelevant unless you have some sort of double standard.

    Point 2: (Mostly for Sabre)

    Behe gives the following definition of irreducible complexity:

    "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. (p. 39 Darwin's Black Box)"


    The Type III secretion system is a similar to the flagella. It is only missing a few proteins. It is functional. Thus, add or change a few proteins (entirely possible within the framework of natural selection) and the ttss could easily become a flagella. Thus: you have a functional system that is a possible precursor to the flagella. Behe says: "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." Thus: bacflag not IC!

    You (or someone who has given you information) are parsing words.

    Point 3:

    Sabre, you say:

    "This then poses an insurmountable challenge for Darwinian evolution, where evolution proceeds in incremental steps, where each step must present an improvement for natural selection to act upon."

    You need to read up on the mechanisms of natural selection. Improvement is not necessary for evolutionary change to take place. Evolutionary pressures can favor some changes over others, but there can be many changes that are not beneficial but don't lead to the die off of a species. Changes accumulate over time to form new stuff. That's evolution. Some of the new stuff is beneficial, and when species start to die off, some species find that their particular adaptation is highly beneficial and they survive.

    This is the case with the blood clotting system. In one paper about mice, we find that mice who are missing certain parts of the blood clotting system have some problems - but the system still functions as a blood clotting system. Remember what Behe said: "the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

    Well, that's not what happens. Although there are problems, the blood clotting system still works for the mice without all the proteins in other systems - it just causes problems for them.


    Point 4:

    The Dover trial is irrelevant to the question of whether the BacFlag is IC or not. Sorry. That trial was about the scientific validity of ID in general and the religious motivations of its proponents.

     

  • At 7:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To Doctor Logic,

    The experiment Dr. Behe proposed would substantiate the claims of anti-IDists. He proposed it so they could get of their collective arses and actually do something as opposed to pissing and moaning.

    Ya see IF Dr. Behe conducts the experiment and nothing happens the evolutionitwits would just cry "foul" and say Behe is an idiot that couldn't conduct an experiment if his life depended on it.

    However IF those evolutionitwits weren't intellectual cowards they would seize the ooportunity to not only substantiate their claims but in the same experiment wipe out an ID icon.

     

  • At 7:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To Future Geek,

    As Sabre has posted and as science has demonstrated, IF anything the TTSS devolved from the bac flag.
    Also as Dr. Behe stated and you were made aware of:

    Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions

    BTW this very thing (co-option from the TTSS) in the video- "Unlocking the Mystery of Life"

    The following is based on real ignorance:

    FG:
    The Type III secretion system is a similar to the flagella. It is only missing a few proteins.

    Reality demonsrtates the opposite- that only 9 or 10 of the proteins are homologous (the TTSS being comprised of 10 protein products). Leaving about 30-40 that aren't even there. Then you need reconfiguration instructions...

    And another lie:

    FG:
    In one paper about mice, we find that mice who are missing certain parts of the blood clotting system have some problems - but the system still functions as a blood clotting system.

    The system didn't function:

    In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade

     

  • At 7:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To JT,

    Perhaps you should read all of my opening posts and follow and read the links.

    The ONLY possible way to make any inference about the designer in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design. That is just a fact of life.

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

    I will start a new thread about the video...

     

  • At 8:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    My thanks to Krauze @ Telic Thoughts for the following:


    Robert Macnab, writing in the Journal of Bacteriology, noted that, since “[f]lagella are very ancient organelles, predating by far the targets for bacterial pathogenesis”, it’s reasonable to conclude that “the rest of the type III pathways must have evolved from the flagellar one.” (1999, 7152) Mecsas and Strauss write: “The bacterial flagellum exists in a wide range of eubacteria and some archaebacteria, which indicates that it probably emerged well before gram-negative bacteria, the hosts of the type III virulence factor secretion systems identified thus far.” (1996, 280) Other researchers taking this position are Stephens and Shapiro (1996) and Nguyen, et al. (2000). In fact, the only dissenting voices comes from Gohpna, Ron and Graur (2003), and they’re arguing that the TTSS and the bacterial flagellum are both descended from a third system.

     

  • At 10:10 AM, Blogger Doppelganger said…

    "I am an IDist because of the data."

    What data?

     

  • At 11:31 AM, Blogger Will said…

    From evowiki:

    " Admittedly, all currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems are for injecting toxins into eukaryotic cells, and are therefore presumably descended from the flagellum, which is likely older than eukaryotes. However, the Type III transport system still proves that the flagellum did not have to come about all at once as Behe argues, as a subset of components has a selectable function." from http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Evolution_of_flagella

    The claim is that IC cannot have evolved from something else. A reasonable explanation of how it could have evolved is enough to disprove IC, given that the only proof for IC is "appears designed."

    As for the Doolittle and Bugge papers, I don't have access to those papers. I can only go by what I have read. My statements were based on a summary of Doolittle's findings.

    I have since read the two papers by Bugge that Behe references. Let me amend my statement:

    Mice without certain aspects of the blood clotting cascade have various health problems. However, they can survive and reproduce even with these deficiencies.

    Does that disprove IC?

    Who cares?

    There is plenty more research on the evolution of the blood clotting system in addition to what Doolittle wrote. Go here for starters.

    For example, from another paper by doolittle:

    "The blood coagulation scheme for the puffer fish, Fugu rubripes, has been reconstructed on the basis of orthologs of genes for mammalian blood clotting factors being present in its genome. As expected, clotting follows the same fundamental pattern as has been observed in other vertebrates, even though genes for some clotting factors found in mammals are absent and some others are present in more than one gene copy."

    In other words, parts are missing but the function remains. Not IC.

     

  • At 12:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Only an absolutely dishonest person would take "evowiki" over peer-reviewed published papers.

    Then FG wrongly states:
    The claim is that IC cannot have evolved from something else.

    I have already told you that the debate is not that it didn't evolve. The debate is about the mechanism.

    FG:
    A reasonable explanation of how it could have evolved is enough to disprove IC, given that the only proof for IC is "appears designed."

    Another BS response. A "reasonable explanation" for one person doesn't mean it is so for all people. That is why data is required.

    Also if something "appears" designed that should be enough to warrant an investigation as to whether or not it was.

     

  • At 1:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "I am an IDist because of the data."

    Doppleganger asks:
    What data?

    The data presented in the videos would be a good start...

     

  • At 3:10 PM, Blogger Will said…

    The evowiki page i offered has links to peer reviewed papers. seems you didn't look at what I sent. In fact, the other paper by doolittle is in a peer reviewed publication.

    Who's being intellectually dishonest?

     

  • At 3:24 PM, Blogger Doppelganger said…

    "The data presented in the videos would be a good start... "

    I've seen 'Unlocking...' - at least as much as I could stomach. I did not see any data being presented. Maybe you can sum it up, I must have missed it.

    And what exactly are you using PP for? The ID of the Universe?

     

  • At 7:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "The data presented in the videos would be a good start... "

    Doppleganger:
    I've seen 'Unlocking...' - at least as much as I could stomach.

    That's funny because you said the SAME thing about "The Privileged Planet" video over at the Kansas Citizens DB. Which tells me that a) either you are making it up or b) you couldn't stand having your faith challenged.

    Doppleganger:
    I did not see any data being presented. Maybe you can sum it up, I must have missed it.

    Nope. I did my own research into the theory of evolution. You can do your own research into ID.

    Doppleganger:
    And what exactly are you using PP for? The ID of the Universe?

    As I have already posted- To demonstrate that the design inference extends beyond biology.

     

  • At 7:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    FG:
    The evowiki page i offered has links to peer reviewed papers. seems you didn't look at what I sent.

    The following papers deal DIRECTLY with the issue:

    Robert Macnab, writing in the Journal of Bacteriology, noted that, since “[f]lagella are very ancient organelles, predating by far the targets for bacterial pathogenesis”, it’s reasonable to conclude that “the rest of the type III pathways must have evolved from the flagellar one.” (1999, 7152) Mecsas and Strauss write: “The bacterial flagellum exists in a wide range of eubacteria and some archaebacteria, which indicates that it probably emerged well before gram-negative bacteria, the hosts of the type III virulence factor secretion systems identified thus far.” (1996, 280) Other researchers taking this position are Stephens and Shapiro (1996) and Nguyen, et al. (2000). In fact, the only dissenting voices comes from Gohpna, Ron and Graur (2003), and they’re arguing that the TTSS and the bacterial flagellum are both descended from a third system.

    And THEY paint a very different picture. I wonder why evowiki would not include these very relevant papers?

    Did you read Doolittle's paper? Can you point out the mechanism he discusses in detail?

     

  • At 9:32 AM, Blogger Doctor Logic said…

    Sabre,

    “What ID claims is that the odds that something evolved using an unguided process are so low that only the alternative could be true.”

    This is a strawman definition. Perhaps you missed it in your research on ID (and in this thread, since the point has been made and remade), but ID is a positive inference of design in a system, based on the properties of said system.

    ID is NOT a positive scientific inference. We are absolutely positive that some things look like designed things, but looking designed and being designed are two different things. Pandas look like bears, but they're not bears. The gut is a poor scientific instrument.

    What CSI is doing is creating a metric function that returns true on human designed artifacts and on some natural and biological systems. The hypothesis is that CSI is an indicator of design. Now ID has to prove this hypothesis. IMO, it is disproven by genetic algorithms, but suppose it weren't. How would you experimentally validate your CSI hypothesis? The answer is that you must have a detailed theory of ID that has some experimental predictions, which ID does not do.

    Suppose I create some highly mathematical function that returns true on both elephants and nuclear reactors. There's no scientific reason why I cannot hypothesize that elephants can suffer nuclear meltdowns. The test of my hypothesis is in the detailed theories of how elephants and reactors work, and what kind of a process a meltdown is. For example, I will need a theory that explains under what conditions elephants suffer meltdowns, so I can try to induce one.

    There are trillions of metric functions you can make between classes of different things, and even more hypotheses you can make about the meaning of those metrics. The validation of each hypothesis is always by some specific experiment. ID lacks such an experiment. Furthermore, it will never have such an experiment until it comes up with a theory detailing what it means for something to be designed versus to be magically poofed into existence (which is what most IDists actually think did happen).

     

  • At 10:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    DL asserts:
    ID is NOT a positive scientific inference.

    Then watch the videos and tell us why it isn't. Just saying it isn't is meaningless.

    DL then states:
    IMO, it is disproven by genetic algorithms, but suppose it weren't.

    Show us any algorithm arising via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes. Just the word algorithm strongly implies intelligence and purpose.

    Then DL asks for an ID experiment. I already covered that-

    If scientists went into a lab and genetically engineered a bac flag wouldthat mean that ID is "proven"? No.

    Why don't evos go into the lab and conduct an experiment that would demonstrate the bac flag could evolve via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes?

    Also "The Privileged Planet" makes scientific predictions...

     

  • At 1:37 AM, Blogger Doctor Logic said…

    joe_g,

    Why don't evos go into the lab and conduct an experiment that would demonstrate the bac flag could evolve via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes?

    You're not helping your case. If anything, you're illustrating my point with perfection.

    You again propose that the evidence for ID is our inability to simulate macroevolution or replicate it in a lab. In other words, your evidence is in the gaps. Your only prediction that we won't find a scientific explanation.

    I would like to introduce a new theory of origins called Magic Origins. No just-so stories about evolution, or intelligent aliens. In Magic Origins, the universe just popped into existence by magic at some point in the past.

    Of all mechanisms, we know that magic can do this (by its very definition). No one has demonstrated that any intelligence could have possibly engineered something on the scale of life or our universe. All we have seen so far is microengineering, not macroengineering.

    Furthermore, there's no evidence that there is any such designer. If there were, why don't the ID supporters go into the lab and demonstrate something simple, e.g., that humans can design multicellular life from scratch? We already know that the evos can't do it. The ID supporters are no better. Intelligence and design require immense resources, the likes of which have never been observed. The odds against an intelligence designing what we see are immense. I mean, the world looks so magical, how can it be a mere machine?

     

  • At 9:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why don't evos go into the lab and conduct an experiment that would demonstrate the bac flag could evolve via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes?

    DL sez:
    You're not helping your case. If anything, you're illustrating my point with perfection.

    So your point is that you don't understand logic & reasoning. I get it.

    Dl sez:
    You again propose that the evidence for ID is our inability to simulate macroevolution or replicate it in a lab.

    That is false and I already explained it.Why can't you follow along?

    That experiment would substantiate the claims of evolutionists! IOW it is YOUR experiment to support YOUR claims.

    DL:
    Your only prediction that we won't find a scientific explanation.

    Intelligent Design is a scientific explanation. That explanation works OK in many other areas of investigation. Why is taboo in biology?

    By DL's "logic" if a group of scientists went into the lab and genetically engineered a bac flag that would mean that all bac flags are the product of intelligent design.

     

  • At 10:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just so everyone is clear on this:

    The experiment proposed by Dr. Behe- an experiment to show that a population of bacteria sin flagella can "evolve" into a population of bacteria con flagella (without human genetic engineering) would if succesful:

    A) Substantiate the claims of evolutionists
    B) Falsify a huge ID icon

    If it fails:

    A) ID would not "win"
    B) It could only add more pressure to the evo camp to find a way to substantiate their claims. IOW it would expose the double-standards- That IDists need to go into the labs but evos don't.

     

  • At 3:28 PM, Blogger Doppelganger said…

    I never claimed to have seen any of The Privileged Planet. Please stop misrepresenting me. I have claimed ot have seen part of 'Unlocking...' because I have - the Christian TV station that I get was showing it a few months ago. It was no challenge to my faith because I have none. It was a challenge to my stomach, because to see people lying through their teeth made me a little queesy.


    Doppleganger:
    I did not see any data being presented. Maybe you can sum it up, I must have missed it.

    Nope. I did my own research into the theory of evolution. You can do your own research into ID.

    I havwe researched ID. I have read DBB, Icons, Demnski's essays, Johnson's books, etc. I have seen no data.

    Doppleganger:
    And what exactly are you using PP for? The ID of the Universe?

    As I have already posted- To demonstrate that the design inference extends beyond biology.

    Since the design inference has yet to be applied to biology, aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself?

     

  • At 8:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Doppleganger:
    I never claimed to have seen any of The Privileged Planet. Please stop misrepresenting me.

    Over at KCFS we were discussing "The Privileged Planet" when YOU jumped in and stated you watched part of it but couldn't stomach it. We were NOT discussing "Unlocking..." and YOU never made it clear which video you watched. As I said the discussion was ll about "TPP".

    Doppleganger:
    It was a challenge to my stomach, because to see people lying through their teeth made me a little queesy.

    What lies? Please present one lie.

    It is funny that a known liar would say someone else is lying...

    As I have already posted- To demonstrate that the design inference extends beyond biology.

    Doppleganger asks:
    Since the design inference has yet to be applied to biology, aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself?

    The inference has been successfully applied in biology. Hiding your head in the sand will not make it go away.

     

  • At 3:07 PM, Blogger beervolcano said…

    Joe g: Does OA think that nature, operating freely, could or would bring an automobile into existence? Or does OA think that auto designers are non-natural entities?

    Does this mean that automobiles are supernatural?

    In one breath you say that intelligence is natural, then in another you say that intelligence does what nature can't.

    Which is it?



    egooth: The reason that it is considered to be science (or scientific) is because it makes no assertion about who/what started the Big Bang (i.e. intelligence). Everything within the scientific theory is assumed to be within nature.

    Looks like egbooth is having the same problem. Everytime intelligence is brought up, it is as an alternative to "nature."



    Also, anyone reading this thread can tell who is belligerent and who is being level headed.

     

  • At 9:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Another country chimes in:

    Joe g: Does OA think that nature, operating freely, could or would bring an automobile into existence? Or does OA think that auto designers are non-natural entities?

    Berrvolcano asks:
    Does this mean that automobiles are supernatural?

    I have already covered that. Automobiles are an artifact, which means that nature required the help of humans, ie an intelligent agency.

    Beervolcano:
    In one breath you say that intelligence is natural, then in another you say that intelligence does what nature can't.

    Which is it?

    Those aren't exclusive. Did you go to high school? Were you graduated?

    Can nature design and manufacture a car wothout any help? No. Can humans, with the help of the compounds found in nature, design and manufacture a car? Yes. Is the intelligence we humans have (perhaps not the anti-IDists) natural or supernatural?



    egooth: The reason that it is considered to be science (or scientific) is because it makes no assertion about who/what started the Big Bang (i.e. intelligence). Everything within the scientific theory is assumed to be within nature.

    Berrvolcano:
    Looks like egbooth is having the same problem. Everytime intelligence is brought up, it is as an alternative to "nature."

    That happens to those who cannot think for themselves. Experience demonstrates that intelligent agencies can do that which nature, operating freely, cannot and would not do.

    Why do you think we have a word like "artifact" in our vocabulary? To differentiate between nature and man-made objects.


    Beervolcano:
    Also, anyone reading this thread can tell who is belligerent and who is being level headed.

    They can also tell who is being an absolute imbecile.

    BTW "natural" can mean that which exists in nature and/ or that which was produced by nature. Cars exist in nature but were not produced by nature.

     

  • At 7:19 PM, Blogger Smokey said…

    Joe wrote:
    "But anyway, just to refute OA's ignorance:..."

    Ignorance? Have you read any of Minnich's papers, Joe, or are you ignorant?

    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.

    "Sounds like fertile research to me..."

    Not really, Joe. Minnich went six years without being a senior author on a paper. That's a pathetic level of productivity.

    Now, please explain how the design paradigm was involved in his latest paper, because I don't see diddly about design:

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16622228

    His senior-author paper from 6 years ago is even more obviously descriptive:

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=10940048

     

  • At 8:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe wrote:
    "But anyway, just to refute OA's ignorance:..."

    Smokey:
    Ignorance?

    That's right- I said it, I meant it and I supported it.

    Smokey:
    Have you read any of Minnich's papers, Joe, or are you ignorant?

    I have read some of his papers and I know I am ignorant of some things. However I don't wear my ignorance as some kind of badge-of-honor like OA does.

    Smokey:
    Not really, Joe. Minnich went six years without being a senior author on a paper. That's a pathetic level of productivity.

    Your ignorance is showing- science is not about producing papers.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home