Take the 3-Hour ID Challenge- revisited
Seeing that the first time I posted this challenge the thread was side-tracked by intellectual cowards who would rather argue from ID ignorance than to take 3 hours to learn the basics of ID reality.
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.
Only comments dealing with the topic will be allowed. It is therefore my prediction that either:
a) No anti-IDist takes the challenge (IOW I will get the same off-topic, irrelevant and refuted ID-ignorant responses as the first time the challenge was issued)
b) Those who do watch the videos cannot complete the challenge
IOW the comments section of this post will remain (virtually) empty.
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.
Only comments dealing with the topic will be allowed. It is therefore my prediction that either:
a) No anti-IDist takes the challenge (IOW I will get the same off-topic, irrelevant and refuted ID-ignorant responses as the first time the challenge was issued)
b) Those who do watch the videos cannot complete the challenge
IOW the comments section of this post will remain (virtually) empty.
posted by Joe G @ 11:33 AM
21 Comments:
At 7:11 PM,
Joe G said…
FishyFred sez:
I've watched both of them, and neither video even tries to put forth a scientific program of Intelligent Design.
It is obvious you miss the point entirely. Intelligent Design is about conducting scientific research and be able to draw a design inference IF that is what the data affords.
The data presented in BOTH videos is based on scientific research.
FishyFred sez:
It made no predictions, it spawned no research, it has done nothing.
Both videos made predictions. "The Privileged Planet" makes several. One being that if we find intelligent life (ETs) their planet will be much like ours.
FishyFred sez:
All I saw was shaky religious apologetics.
Any specifics? Because all I saw was scientists and philosphers presenting and discussing data. I didn't see anything remotely religious.
Also I read the "Rev" Lenny Flank's "response". If the rest are anything like his they ain't worth the time to read. If we used Lenny's logic the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because Dawkins, Dennett, Provine et al, tell us it is.
"The Privileged Planet" demonstrates that the design inference goes beyond biology and is evidenced in scientific fields such as cosmology, astro-biology, physics and chemistry (to name some).
You would also see that the alternative to ID- multiple atomic accidents, coupled with multiple chance collisions, coupled with multiple lucky events, all wrapped up in multiple universes- is just plain ridiculous.
In "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" as Dean Kenyon put it, you would found "something more intellectually satisfying" than the folly of life arising from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes.
I doubt FishyFred watched the videos. If he did it is obvious that either he didn't pay attention or didn't (couldn't) understand the material.
At 8:02 AM,
Joe G said…
Gee FishFred,
It was the SAME type of data presented in "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" that Antony Flew took into consideration when he changed hos world-view from atheist to IDist.
The data presented is what we currently know about DNA replication and translation, as well as the formation of the bac flag.
Who in their right mind would say the bac flag arose via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes? THAT is a religious stance for it takes a whopping amount of faith for that.
The collective credility of anti-IDists is in the negative. Heck you guys can't even tell us what makes an organism what it is. And when an experiment is proposed that will allow you to substantiate your claims you and your ilk run-away like intellectual cowards. Why is that? Why is it that not one evolutionist would even attempt an experiment that would demonstrate that a population of flagella-less bacterium can "evolve" into a population of bacterium with flagella?
Dean Kenyon's statement is besed on the data. If you don't like it then perhaps you should get off of your lazy butt and attempt to refute him.
And if life evolves differently in different environments why do we see so much diversity in differing environments?
This is just amazing. You say the video fails miserably but you offer absolutely ZERO data that would demonstrate anything of the kind.
As for research:
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.
In "The Privileged Planet" all of the data was based on scientific research. And it all bears on ID.
The part on solar eclipses was the best! Think about it- out of all the planets and moons in our solar system the ONLY place that has observers is the ONLY place to have perfect solar eclipses.
Guillermo Gonzalez, one of the authors of “The Privileged Planet” was a (Carl) Sagonite. However the book refutes Sagan.
It was Gonzalez’s paper “Wonderful Eclipses,” Astronomy & Geophysics 40, no. 3 (1999): 3.18- 3.20), that peaked the book’s co-author’s (Jay Richards) interest.
Gonzalez was part of a team of scientists working for NASA on a project trying to determine whether or not there is life “out there”.
Several peer-reviewed papers (G. Gonzalez, D. Brownlee, and P.D. Ward, “The Galactic Habitable Zone: Galactic Chemical Evolution”, Icarus 152 (2001):185-200) came from that scientific research.
The authors make predictions. For example if/ when we discover other complex life is found elsewhere in the universe, the many factors observed here will also be present there. And that life will be carbon based.
“The same narrow circumstances that allow for our existence also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”
“The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”
“There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”
“The combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one.
This is because the medium we live is, on one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block the view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime.” Hans Blumenberg- thoughts independent of the research done by Gonzalez.
Other G. Gonzalez papers that were the basis of the book (just skimming through the references):
“Stars, Planets, and Metals”, Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2003)101-120
“Rummaging Through Earth’s Attic for Remains of Ancient Life”, Icarus 160 (2002) 183-196
“Is the Sun Anomalous?”, Astronomy and Geophysics 40, no. 5 (1999):5.25-5.29
“Are Stars with Planets Anomalous?”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 308 (1999): 447-458
“Impact Reseeding During the Late Heavy Bombardment”, Icarus 162 (2003):38-46
“Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planets III: p Cancri Revisited”, Astronomy and Astrophysics 339 (1998): L29-L32
“Stellar Atmospheres of Nearby Young Solar Analogs”, New Astronomy 7 (2002): 211-226
And again, according to the NCSE sponsored PBS series "Evolution" there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time. Meaning the theory of evolution cannot make any useful predictions.
Since the videos we now know the minimal genome to get life is about 430 genes and their correponding proteins. IOW the more we know the more ID is the best explanation.
BTW at the end of the videos they were just demonstrating where the data leads. That is how all good scientists do it- they FOLLOW the data. Nothing religious about it.
Guillermo Gonzalez tells AP that “Darwinism does not mandate followers to adopt atheism; just as intelligent design doesn't require a belief in God.”
GG again:
" 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 8:12 AM,
Joe G said…
One thing I would like to make clear- issues with "the Church " or religions in general should not interfere with objective presentation of the evidence. As Justice Lewis Powell wrote in his concurrence to Edwards v. Aguillard, “(A) decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught ‘happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions’.”
IOW an idea or theory is NOT religious just because some parts of it coincide with some religious tenets.
Again by the logic of Lenny Flank and FishyFred the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory and as such violates the Establishment Clause.
Is that the road you want to go down?
At 10:56 AM,
Joe G said…
FishyFred said:
If there is life somewhere else, they could also claim to be in the best place for their life.
Ahhh, but WE can compare. It is also another prediction.
As put in chapter 16 of the book:
2) It’s inevitable. Whatever environment we found ourselves in, we would find examples conducive to its measurability.
“…we are able to compare the measurability of our environment with that of other environments. For the discoveries we have made, we can reflect on the conditions necessary for such discoveries, and then compare those conditions with conditions in other settings. For instance, it’s unquestionable that a relatively transparent atmosphere is more conducive to astronomical curiosity and discovery than is a murky (translucent) or opaque one. We know that, at least in our Solar System, such an atmosphere is rare.”
As I said we already know that we are the only planet or moon in the solar system with perfect solar eclipses and the wealth of useable & valuable scientific data that comes with them.
AND it just so happens that without a large stabilizing moon, one very low in metals so it won't disrupt our magnetic field, the Earth's rotation would be so unstable that poles would swap. There is even talk that the initial alleged earth-moon forming collision gave the Earth its rotation starting push.
That is two insurmountable problems:
1) No large moon, same rotation = a tumbling planet. Only an already existing advanced technological civilization could hope to survive such drastic changes.
2) No large earth-moon forming collision to start the rotation and form a molten core = a lifeless planet.
At 2:00 PM,
Joe G said…
A couple things right now. First I suggest FishyFred visit the Explaining the (Design) Explanatory Filter and ID PRATT List entries in this bog. Most of your nonsense is answered in those posts.
As for the "evolving a bacterial flagella" experiment, as I have already stated:
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 successful:
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.
IOW it is an experiment evolutionists should be all over. If Dr. Behe conducted it and it failed no one would notice or say he was just incompetent and that is why it failed.
What does "The Privileged Planet" and solar eclipses have to do with biology? The data shows that the design inference, ie Intelligent Design, extends beyond biology. It also predicts that if we find intelligent life else-where they will most likely have a similar scenario. And as I said- no large moon, no biology.
More later...
At 7:53 AM,
Joe G said…
AND it just so happens that without a large stabilizing moon, one very low in metals so it won't disrupt our magnetic field, the Earth's rotation would be so unstable that poles would swap. There is even talk that the initial alleged earth-moon forming collision gave the Earth its rotation starting push.
FishyFred:
Just FYI, our poles are probably going to swap in the next few centures.
What data do you base that on?
At 8:07 AM,
Joe G said…
Who in their right mind would say the bac flag arose via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes? THAT is a religious stance for it takes a whopping amount of faith for that.
FishyFred:
Argument from incredulity.
Actually it is an argument from reality. However it does appear that yours is an argument from credulity. IOW you BELIEVE unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes were responsible but you don't have any data to support your belief.
FishyFred:
Twenty years ago you would have replaced "bac flag" with "human eye."
It wouldn't matter. We would have the same result. There isn't any scientific data that demonstrates any eye could "evolve".
FishyFred:
Natural processes have been replacing supernatural processes as explanations for thousands of years.
But natural processes cannoit account for the origins of nature.
FishyFred:
There is no reason to throw "guided" into the equation, especially when you can't come up with a reliable indicator of what is and isn't "guided," and EF and CSI are completely useless in this regard.
Reality demonstrates the EF and CSI are very helpful- perhaps not to you and your ilk but nothiung ever will be- that is short of a meeting with the designer.
And 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?
FishyFred:
Do you realize that they are requiring that we eliminate not only all natural explanations that we have already thought of, but all that we MIGHT think of in the future?
Geez FF you don't seem to realize how science is done. Science does NOT require proof, which is what you arte asking for. Science is the best inference given the current data. Future data can either confirm or refute that inference.
Heck you guys can't even tell us what makes an organism what it is.
FishyFred:
With vague questions like that, it's no wonder you can't get any answers.
What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :
Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)
”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”
FishyFred:
There's only tens of thousands of scientific papers in support of evolution.
Present three of them and we will see if they are even relevant to the debate. Or we will see if you are a typical evo-deceiver.
Dean Kenyon's statement is besed on the data. If you don't like it then perhaps you should get off of your lazy butt and attempt to refute him.
FishyFred:
Perhaps you should tell me what "data" he is referring to.
The current scientific data that shows life could not arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes. The data that demonstrates that life is more than chemical reactions. The data that demonstrates information is the key to life.
At 8:17 AM,
Joe G said…
Raevmo:
There are plausible evolutionary pathways to flagella, despite their "irreducible complexity". That isn't conclusive evidence that they actually evolved that way, but it undermines ID's claim that it's impossible.
Ummm, neither ID nor IC states "it couldn't evolve". The debate is about the mechanism.
Also just about anything can work on paper. That doesn't mean squat to reality.
Raevmo:
One could try to wait in a lab for them to evolve (again) from bacteria without flagella, but that would take far too long to be practical. That's why nobody is taking up the "challenge". But feel free to do it yourself. Evos don't see it as much of a threat to their theory, so the onus is on you.
Nothing is a threat to the dogma of "evolution". That is the problem. Also it is funny how you take the onus off of those who can't substantiate their claims. That is the other problem with "evolution".
As I said if an IDist conducted the experiment nothing would come of the result. The bac flag experiment if successful:
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.
IOW this is a REAL chance for evos to get in the lab and substantiate their claims. Heck if they can't do that then what FishyFred said:
There's only tens of thousands of scientific papers in support of evolution. is nothing but a big lie.
At 7:47 AM,
Joe G said…
Raevmo:
Big changes, like evolving a flagella (flagellum?) from scratch, take big time (deep time, as SJG used to say), given what is known about natural mutation rates.
That's YOUR problem. YOU need something more than "this plus deep time will give us X". YOU need something that is scientifically testable.
For example what would falsify the claim that the bac flag "evolved" via some blindwatch-maker type process?
Also it isn't as much about time as it is about generations. Anyone familiar with evolution understands that.
Raevmo:
It ain’t gonna happen in a lab (perhaps unless you allow “unnatural” means to speed the process up a bit).
How do you know? Heck we can get 10,000 generations in 2 years.
Raevmo:
Smaller changes have been observed in the lab and in the field, even speciation (macro-evolution by the “official” definition).
And by that "definition" everyone is a macro-evolutionist, which makes the definition worthless.
Also as I said the debate is about the mechanism. Try to pay attention.
Raevmo:
If that’s not good enough for you, well, that’s your problem.
Reality demonstrates that anyone who sez it is good enough is FoS:
Extrapolating From Small Changes:
"In the end, appeals to small change + deep time are embraced merely as a matter of convenience, as it happens to be the primary way we can think about evolution at a time when we are just starting to come to grips with it. As we begin to better understand the process of evolution, I predict (1) will one day be viewed as a quaint understanding that served mostly to highlight just how much we didn't understand evolution."
“Also just about anything can work on paper. That doesn't mean squat to reality.”
Raevmo:
Now tell me to what extent ID has left the paper stage. Has a design event ever been documented?
Artificial selection is well documented. As is genetic engineering.
“And 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?”
Raevmo:
And what is that supposed to mean?
It's pretty straight-forward.
Raevmo:
“multiple atomic accidents” happen all the time, don’t they?
And they are ALWAYS destructive.
Raevmo:
Why the need for multiple universes and what does that have to do with evolution?
It doesn't have to have anything to do with "evolution". It ("The Privileged Planet") is the TOPIC of this thread. Try to follow along. Multi-verses are required in order to get one "universe" with tese properties.
“The current scientific data that shows life could not arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes. The data that demonstrates that life is more than chemical reactions. The data that demonstrates information is the key to life.”
Raevmo:
Where can I find those data?
You can start in the RNA World
Raevmo:
ID can explain everything and therefore nothing.
"Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism.
Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important."
At 7:49 AM,
Joe G said…
For those who can't follow along-
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.
At 1:03 PM,
Joe G said…
JT sez:
Let's see, I watched "Unlocking.." twice. Its description of some complex biologic systems is indeed based on observation and scientific research. It then jumps from this to the conclusion that these systems are so complex that they must have been designed.
There isn't any "jump". There is a careful consideration of the data. The design inference comes via that consideration.
However an experiment has been proposed. An experiment that would substantiate your claims and refute an ID icon.
So why is it that evos are steering clear of this experiment? What are they afraid of?
JT:
That is a leap of faith to me - and I say that without lying.
What wouldn't be a "leap of faith" to you?
Wouldn't it be a "leap of faith" to say X arose via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes, when there isn't ANY data that would suggest it could- only an assumption based on a world-view? Yes it would.
JT:
And we all know which "faith" is behind this leap and the ID push.
Gee how do YOU explain that the data presented in "Unlocking..." is the SAME data that convinced long time atheist Antony Flew that ID was the best explanation?
Some people will always try to conflate the implications of a theory with the theory itself. Even after the fact they are doing so is pointed out to them.
At 4:31 PM,
Joe G said…
Raevmo sez:
I will repeat once more that it will take too long to replicate the evolution of a flagellum de novo in the lab.
I am sure it could NEVER happen. And as I said- it is NOT about time, but about generations.
Raevmo sez:
There are two main reasons for this.
Yeah- one being it will never happen because it can't.
Raevmo sez:
First, it takes too many generations to gradually evolve a flagellum from scratch.
How do you know that?
Raevmo sez:
I'm talking hundreds or thousands of years (maybe much more).
What do you base that on? Show us the science.
Raevmo sez:
Not practical. I assume of course gradual evolution because very big mutations are extremely rare. Secondly, it is not very likely that the same structure would evolve again (I know, eyes have evolved multiple times, but always different in important ways) because evolution is a random process. It's like shuffling a deck of cards, observe the order of the cards, and then demand that I shuffle the deck until the same order shows up again. That would take many billions of years to happen. Not practical.
Ya see evos are always telling IDists to go into the lab. Yet it appears they are unwilling to follow their own advice. Typical.
Also it is interesting that science requires repeat-ability, yet you are saying we can't do that. Sounds like more ammo for my next blog entry.
BTW just throwing time at an issue is NOT scientific.
Raevmo sez:
Second comment: you know damned well that the overwhelming majority of ID-ers are people who hope to find proof of god's existence.
Actually I don't know the numbers. I am not one of those people. AND it doesn't matter what THEIR "hopes" are.
As Pasteur once said:
‘The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator’
Raevmo sez:
The scientific method simply has no use for postulating designers (and I don't mean human genetic engineers or plant breeders) because they can always be invoked whenever scientists get stuck with a problem.
That isn't how it works. Specified criteria has to be met BEFORE the design inference is invoked.
Raevmo sez:
It's intellectually lazy and unproductive.
That's just stupid. Do you realize how much work there is to do just to understand the design? THAT is what ID is all about- the detection AND understanding of the design.
Raevmo:
Even if in fact God had intervened, we could never prove it. Unless God would be so kind to tell us exactly where he has intervened in the past to speed up the scientific process a bit.
ID doesn't say anything about God, However we can and do detect the activity of intelligent agencies every day.
What is the barrier that prevents us from using tried & true methodology in every other field of life, including science, from being used in biology?
We CANNOT stop searching for the reality to our existence just because "God" could be involved. That defeats the purpose of science.
Now Raevmo- did you watch the videos or not? If you did then comment on them.
At 7:03 PM,
Joe G said…
Go here and select the videos.
My very agnostic friend just watched "Unlocking the Mystery of Life". He is currently is school to become a nurse and is considering further education in biology. We paused the video at various places and discussed what was just presented. He had already watched "The Privileged Planet".
Both videos just further peaked his interest in both biology and cosmology. Which when all is said and done, isn't a bad thing...
At 10:30 AM,
Joe G said…
To reiterate my point to JT-
Scott Minnich has been studying flagellum for about 20 years.
Dean Kenyon co-authored a textbook called "Biochemical Predestination". In the 60s and 70s HE was the Man when it came to origins of life scenarios.
IOW years of research are behind their design inference.
At 8:00 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g said:
"There isn't any "jump". There is a careful consideration of the data."
JT:
There is no data in "Unlocking..."!
Actually there is. There is the data that went into making the video. You know, (for example) the data that Drs Minnich and Kenyon gathered during all their years of research into the flagellum and the origins of life.
JT:
Then they jump to the grand conclusion that complexity implies design.
That is false. No one says complexity = design. No one in ID that is.
JT:
You were going to tell me how complexity implies design about a month ago.
I never said nor implied that complexity = design.
JT:
I totally dismiss anything Flew said because he is a godless athiest.
He's isn't an atheist now. Also it has nothing to do with what he said.
At 7:34 AM,
Joe G said…
JT:
I am sorry to break it to you but pretty animations are not "data". To say that there is data presented in "Unlocking.." is flat out dishonest.
Ummm, the "animations" areactually computer simulations based on the scientific data. Anyone with a basic understanding of the cell knows that.
Now let's look at who is being dishonest:
What I said earlier-
joe g:
Well it's specified complexity/ complex specified information. Also irreducible complexity is a specialized case of SC.
What was said yesterday:
JT:
Then they jump to the grand conclusion that complexity implies design.
joe g:
That is false. No one says complexity = design. No one in ID that is.
JT:
You were going to tell me how complexity implies design about a month ago.
joe g:
I never said nor implied that complexity = design.
Specified complexity is NOT the same as complexity.
Next we have this:
joe g:
Gee how do YOU explain that the data presented in "Unlocking..." is the SAME data that convinced long time atheist Antony Flew that ID was the best explanation?
JT:
I totally dismiss anything Flew said because he is a godless atheist.
joe g:
He's isn't an atheist now. Also it has nothing to do with what he said.
JT:
So the fact that he was an atheist has nothing to do with what he said.
The fact the he was an atheist doesnot invalidate what he said. IOW your position is bogus.
I could say I totally dismiss what you say because you are a dishonest person- as demonstrated in this post.
JT:
But you made it a point to mention it. More dishonesty. Your brothers and sisters in Christ must be proud.
Ummm, I am not a christian you dishonestly ignorant person.
At 8:14 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g:
Ummm, the "animations" areactually computer simulations based on the scientific data. Anyone with a basic understanding of the cell knows that.
JT:
Let's be correct, the DVD specifically calls them "animations" not "computer simulations based on data". An important difference there. An animation is a cartoon or artistic interpretation defined as an "artificial moving image". You can take up your disagreement with them.
What ever you want to call it JT. It still doesn't detract from the fact it is all based on the current scientific data.
joe g:
I never said nor implied that complexity = design.
Specified complexity is NOT the same as complexity.
JT:
But they are both complexity, specified or not.
Specified complexity is NOT the same ascomplexity. Period, end of story.
JT:
The DVD spends 2/3 of the time describing how complex some structures and processes are. Then Steve Meyer comes on and says: "And, yet, curiously, we make inferences to intelligence all the time. It’s part of our ordinary reasoning…to recognize the effects of intelligence." Curious indeed. If that is not an inference that complexity = design then I do not know what it is. But I did say that it was a slick DVD.
I watched it several times and I know that they didn't say nor imply that complexity = design.
joe g:
The fact the he was an atheist doesnot invalidate what he said.
JT:
I agree,
You agree? Then explain this:
JT:
I totally dismiss anything Flew said because he is a godless atheist.
How many sides of your mouth do you talk from at one time?
JT
but you still made it a point to mention that he was an atheist.
He was. That is until he saw the evidence for ID.
At 8:38 AM,
Joe G said…
James "Momma's bot" Wynne continues to expose his ignorance and stupidity.
I will set the record straight.
I came up with the idea about the 3-hour challenge. I also told others to use it to spread the word. It is working. I have shown the videos to many people who now understand that ID is NOT about religion and is in fact based on scientific research.
It should also be noted that not one person gas been able to say the opposite and substantiate that claim.
At 12:43 PM,
Joe G said…
As a matter of fact I urge everyone to either take the challenge or spread the word.
So far all anyti-IDists have been able to do is muster vague accusations and say things like "ID is religious because it is." or "The scientific data presented in the videos really isn't scientific and those 'scientists' are really actors."
Yet reality always steps in to demonstrate that in the case of "The Privileged Planet" several published papers came from the research that inspired the book & video. All the data presented comes from published papers.
As for "Unlocking the Mystery of Life", it is important to reiterate that Dean Kenyon co-authored the once widely accepted textbook pertaining to abiogenesis- "Biochemical Predestination"- it was his research into abiogenesis that led him to be an IDist.
The "animations" depict biological reality. What the scientists on the video are saying is that biological reality is best explained as a product of an intelligent agency. Why? Because it fits with what intelligent can do and have done. Nothing else has ever been observed to come close.
At 8:07 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Did you read the article at that link? It is obvious Jeffrys is clueless- observe:
"The Privileged Planet is based upon the odd notion that the more unsuitable our universe is for producing intelligent life, the more likely it is that our universe was "designed" to produce intelligent life by a "designer" of indeterminate nature;"
That is absolutely false. I have to wonder if this guy read the book or watched the video. Either that or he is too stupid to understand what he read or saw.
"put another way, supposedly the less likely it is that there could be a planet in our universe that supports intelligent life, then the more likely it is that the universe was "designed" to produce a particular intelligent life form -- us -- that can and will investigate the nature of the universe."
That was never stated nor implied by the book or the video.
"We know from experience that this is not how human beings, the only intelligent designers of which we have any experience, work."
Reality demonstrates we have more intelligent designers on tghis planet than just humans.
Right off the bat Jeffreys demonstrates he doesn't know what he is talking about.
And anyone who conflates ID with Creation is a moron.
At 8:15 AM,
Joe G said…
James, it is obvious that Jefferys either didn't read the book or didn't understand what he read.
Also I said he was a moron for trying to conflate ID and Creation. Only true imbeciles try to do that.
The Privileged Planet is based upon the odd notion that the more unsuitable our universe is for producing intelligent life, the more likely it is that our universe was "designed" to produce intelligent life by a "designer" of indeterminate nature;
Having read the book and watched the video I can say in full confidence “The Privileged Planet” is not based on that odd notion. It would be helpful to understand why William Jefferys would say such a thing. Reality demonstrates “The Privileged Planet” is based on the notion that “habitability = measure-ability”. As stated in the video:
“The same narrow circumstances that allow for our existence also offer the best over all conditions for making scientific discovery.”
...
Under this strategy, no details are specified about what we would expect to see if the "designer" existed, or why we would expect to see that and not something else. It is, as we shall see, not a scientific theory. It is instead nothing but the usual fallacious Argument from False Dichotomy.
That is false. “The Privileged Planet” makes testable predictions. Both complex specified information and irreducible complexity have been defined.
Of course, we know why ID creationists don't want to talk about the nature of the "designer".
Reality demonstrates that the only way to make any such determination in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design. That is why.
However we do know why you continue to conflate ID and Creation.
If they were to do so, they would undermine their claim that ID creationism has nothing to do with religion.
Perhaps you should tell us what ID has to do with religion.
They do admit the nature of their designer in private, among friends, but not before school boards or state boards of education.
And some evolutionists say that the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory.
Since the real point of ID is to slip religion surreptitiously into the public school classroom, they can't reveal the true nature of their "designer" in any arguments intended for public consumption (as this book is).
By that "logic" the real point of the theory of evolution is atheistic indoctrination.
In line with this political strategy, the authors of this book are similarly cagey about the nature of the designer (p 330).
Anti-IDists are pretty “cagey” about the origins of life, the origins of nature, the origins of information, the origins of energy, the origins of matter and the origins of the laws that govern this universe. It is also obvious that the origin of nature had be via some process outside of nature. Just because anti-IDists choose to remain silent on this obvious fact in no gives them a permission slip that excuses them from an explanation. Silence is not supporting evidence. And we all realize that, for example, life did not arise from non-living matter via some unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) process, that there would be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to that type of process. Given the data reported in “The Privileged Planet” it takes a lot of faith to be an anti-IDist these days.
Did Jefferys even deal with the data? No. Does Jefferys provide an alternative explanation for the data? No.
Post a Comment
<< Home