Intelligent Reasoning: The options to our existence- Why ID is scientific part 3

Friday, June 09, 2006

The options to our existence- Why ID is scientific part 3

When people say that ID is un-scientific it is obvious they do NOT understand science, nor do they understand the options to our existence. The options to our existence are as follows:

1) Unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes- ie sheer dumb luck-> the basic anti-ID position
2) Intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes
3) a combination of 1 & 2

For those anti-IDists who would say "guided by natural selection", I remind you that NS does NOT have a goal in mind and is said to be blind and without pupose. How many blind and purpose-less guides do you know?

The evidence is we exist. The evidence says that only life begets life. Therefore any premise that disregards that fact is, in reality, science-fiction.

Is there any greater science stopper than "sheer dumb luck"? I don't think so. Evolutionism relies on "sheer dumb luck". Evolutionitwits can't tell us and have no intention of finding out what alleged mutations caused what changes in any specific population. IOW they don't know and they know there isn't any way to know in their scenario.

Now if science is the search for the truth, ie the reality behind our existence, then to hitch all wagons on "sheer dumb luck", in light of what we do know, is nothing but sheer stupidity. Why we allowed this to happen is not my concern. Changing it is.

12 Comments:

At 12:23 PM, Joe G said…

Raevmo:
What exactly do you mean by "Sheer dumb luck"?

Are you related to Clinton?

Start with the following-

The Deniable Darwin:

Sheer Dumb Luck

""CHANCE ALONE," the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod once wrote, "is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation."

The sentiment expressed by these words has come to vex evolutionary biologists. "This belief," Richard Dawkins writes, "that Darwinian evolution is 'random,' is not merely false. It is the exact opposite of the truth." But Monod is right and Dawkins wrong. Chance lies at the beating heart of evolutionary theory, just as it lies at the beating heart of thermodynamics.

It is the second law of thermodynamics that holds dominion over the temporal organization of the universe, and what the law has to say we find verified by ordinary experience at every turn. Things fall apart. Energy, like talent, tends to squander itself. Liquids go from hot to lukewarm. And so does love. Disorder and despair overwhelm the human enterprise, filling our rooms and our lives with clutter. Decay is unyielding. Things go from bad to worse. And overall, they go only from bad to worse.

These grim certainties the second law abbreviates in the solemn and awful declaration that the entropy of the universe is tending toward a maximum. The final state in which entropy is maximized is simply more likely than any other state. The disintegration of my face reflects nothing more compelling than the odds. Sheer dumb luck.

But if things fall apart, they also come together. Life appears to offer at least a temporary rebuke to the second law of thermodynamics. Although biologists are unanimous in arguing that evolution has no goal, fixed from the first, it remains true nonetheless that living creatures have organized themselves into ever more elaborate and flexible structures. If their complexity is increasing, the entropy that surrounds them is decreasing. Whatever the universe-as-a-whole may be doing -- time fusing incomprehensibly with space, the great stars exploding indignantly -- biologically things have gone from bad to better, the show organized, or so it would seem, as a counterexample to the prevailing winds of fate.

How so? The question has historically been the pivot on which the assumption of religious belief has turned. How so? "God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."' That is how so. And who on the basis of experience would be inclined to disagree? The structures of life are complex, and complex structures get made in this, the purely human world, only by a process of deliberate design. An act of intelligence is required to bring even a thimble into being; why should the artifacts of life be different?

Darwin's theory of evolution rejects this counsel of experience and intuition. Instead, the theory forges, at least in spirit, a perverse connection with the second law itself, arguing that precisely the same force that explains one turn of the cosmic wheel explains another: sheer dumb luck.

If the universe is for reasons of sheer dumb luck committed ultimately to a state of cosmic listlessness, it is also by sheer dumb luck that life first emerged on earth, the chemicals in the pre-biotic seas or soup illuminated and then invigorated by a fateful flash of lightning. It is again by sheer dumb luck that the first self-reproducing systems were created. The dense and ropy chains of RNA -- they were created by sheer dumb luck, and sheer dumb luck drove the primitive chemicals of life to form a living cell. It is sheer dumb luck that alters the genetic message so that, from infernal nonsense, meaning for a moment emerges; and sheer dumb luck again that endows life with its opportunities, the space of possibilities over which natural selection plays, sheer dumb luck creating the mammalian eye and the marsupial pouch, sheer dumb luck again endowing the elephant's sensitive nose with nerves and the orchid's translucent petal with blush.

Amazing. Sheer dumb luck."

Raevmo:
For all you know the universe is entirely deterministic and the emergence of life is inevitable.

And what, besides sheer dumb luck, would explain that?

Raevmo:
But you didn't explain why ID is scientific.

That should have been self-evident.

However the January Archives should also help.

Raevmo:
What is scientific?

That which seeks the reality behind the existence of what is being explained.

Raevmo:
What experiment could reject some part of ID theory?

The experiment proposed by Dr. Behe during the "Dover trial" would do nicely. The same experiment discussed in this blog.

What experiment could rejecy some part of evolutionism?

What would falsify the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via some blind-watchmaker-type process from a population that didn't have flagella?
At 1:43 AM, Steve said…

The entire premise of the post is flawed. It basically amounts to: the observed outcome is really unlikely therefore it couldn't have happend by chance. However, this is just nonsense.

Suppose we were to flip a coin 1,000 times and record the sequence of heads and tails. The probability of observing that specific sequence is 1 in 2^1000, or a really damn small number.

Using the "logic" of this post we posit sheer dumb luck in getting that squence and conclude we couldn't have gotten it by flipping a coin...even though we did just that.

In short, Joe G. as presupposed an outcome (humans) and then works backwords saying, "Wow, what an amazingly small probability--therefore creation of one sort or another."

Basically bad math compounded with bad science and bad logic.
At 9:25 AM, Joe G said…

Raevmo:
I would say that "sheer dumb luck" is at the basis of mutation and recombination that creates novelty.

We could say that about the point mutations which occur via copying errors, but no one really knows how or why recombinations occur- just that they do.

Raevmo:
But selection is deterministic in the sense that it only allows those novelties to persist that increase survival and/or reproduction.

But there is no way to determine what will be selected for at any point in time. Then there is the "luck" factor. As in how many survive just because they were lucky?

Raevmo:
Moreover, the properties of matter may well be such that the emergence of life from non-living matter is inevitable, even though the detailed properties of life may be random to some extent.

"May well be"? Is that your argument? If it is science does not support your premise. Science tells us only life begets life.

Raevmo:
I'm surprised you can't think yourself of any way to disprove evolutionsism. Is evolutionism that convincing?

It is that untestable and unfalsiable.

Raevmo:
How about a fully formed flagellum system emerging within a day in a population of bacteria without such a system?

How would that affect evolutionism? By the standards provided by Darwin himself the bac flag alone should be enough but alas it is not. Therefore I seriouslly doubt that a bac flag emerging in one day would do anything. What would prevent stochastic processes from assembling the correct parts in one day, which would be hundreds of generations?
At 9:53 AM, Joe G said…

Steve:
The entire premise of the post is flawed.

Seeing that your reasoning is flawed I have no doubt you really think so.

Steve:
It basically amounts to: the observed outcome is really unlikely therefore it couldn't have happend by chance.

Wrong again, as usual. You really don't understand ID or the debate although you keep insisting that you do. Your posts betray you.

Steve:
Suppose we were to flip a coin 1,000 times and record the sequence of heads and tails. The probability of observing that specific sequence is 1 in 2^1000, or a really damn small number.

This has already been refuted too many times to count. If the outcome was specified in advance Steve would have a point.

However "sheer dumb luck" is what gave us the outcome in Steve's "experiment". Can Steve repeat his "experiment" and come up with the same outcome? If not that confirms my premise.

Does Steve have a point? Besides the one on top of his bitty little head...

Steve:
In short, Joe G. as presupposed an outcome (humans) and then works backwords saying,

That is false. Only someone bent on lying would even suggest such a thing.
In short Steve is totally clueless as anyone who knows anything about ID can see.
At 2:11 PM, Steve said…

Wrong again, as usual. You really don't understand ID or the debate although you keep insisting that you do. Your posts betray you.

I'm sorry Joe, but this is really the whole premise of your "sheer dumb luck" post here. You work backwards from the outcome, note the "sheer dumb luckness" of the outcome based on this and conclude creation.

This has already been refuted too many times to count. If the outcome was specified in advance Steve would have a point.

But that is just it, why should we think that humans or any other evolutionary outocme is "specified in advance"? We don't have any reason to think this, and plenty of reasons to think the opposite.

However "sheer dumb luck" is what gave us the outcome in Steve's "experiment". Can Steve repeat his "experiment" and come up with the same outcome? If not that confirms my premise.

Sure, given enough trials, the probability that I wont repeat that sequence becomes vanishingly small.

"May well be"? Is that your argument? If it is science does not support your premise. Science tells us only life begets life.

I love this...so where did the first life come from? Why from the designer. Of course, the designer is either not living which violates the above assumption or it is living which leads to the question of, "Who designed the designer?" At which point the hand-waving and nonsense are trotted out along with the insults and name calling.

Tell us again, how ID doesn't entail the supernatural. I'm sure if you insult all of us enough eventually we'll believe you.
At 8:01 AM, Joe G said…

Steve:
I'm sorry Joe, but this is really the whole premise of your "sheer dumb luck" post here.

No it isn't. Just because YOU can insist you "know" what my premise is, and you have done this and been shown to be wrong several times already, does not make it so.

Steve:
You work backwards from the outcome, note the "sheer dumb luckness" of the outcome based on this and conclude creation.

Science is conducted on what we do observe, and then we do have to figure out how what we observe(d) came to being.

Steve:
But that is just it, why should we think that humans or any other evolutionary outocme is "specified in advance"?

If it isn't specified in advance then it is the result of sheer dumb luck.

"May well be"? Is that your argument? If it is science does not support your premise. Science tells us only life begets life.

Steve:
I love this...so where did the first life come from?

If we go with what science tells us we would be forced to infer that life is eternal.

Steve:
Tell us again, how ID doesn't entail the supernatural.

As I have already psoted too many times to count- IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO THE SUPER NATURAL<. Not even the anti-ID side can escape it. And that is why educated people understand the debate in terms of the options listed in the OP.
At 1:37 PM, Steve said…

If we go with what science tells us we would be forced to infer that life is eternal.

But the universe is not eternal, hence this conclusion is faulty.

As I have already psoted too many times to count- IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO THE SUPER NATURAL<. Not even the anti-ID side can escape it. And that is why educated people understand the debate in terms of the options listed in the OP.

Only because you limit yourself to the "life only begets life" premise. There is evidence that indicates life could form from non-life. Heck even Gonzalez' The Privileged Planet points in this direction. The anthropic principle says the universe is "life friendly"--i.e. it is friendly towards to the formation of life.

If it isn't specified in advance then it is the result of sheer dumb luck.

Yeah so? You make it sound like this is some sort of fatal retort to my argument. My argument isn't that humans aren't the product of an unlikely series of events, but that pointing to that series of unlikely events as evidence for design is sloppy thinking. I know it is a subtle point, but do try to get my argument right. For example, you state that "sheer dumb luck" is a "science stopper".

The real science stopper here is the refusal to discuss the designer. See, frequently scientists use the Bayesian method to evaluate competing hypotheses. In this case we have,

Prob(ET|Humans) = [Prob(Humans|ET)Prob(ET)]/Prob(Humans)

Prob(ID|Humans) = [Prob(Humans|ID)Prob(ID)]/Prob(Humans)

Now, in regards to the first equation we can evaluate the probability,

Prob(Humans|ET).

But we cannot evaluate,

Prob(Humans|ID).

Why? Because every single IDCist out there refuses to discuss the designer. Joe G. has a new post why such discussions are irrelevant.

For example, suppose Joe G. wants to argue that,

Prob(Humans|ID) >> 0 (i.e. much greater than zero).

This implies that the designer wanted humans to be around. This implicitly argues to the designers motivations. But these are suppose to be irrelevant and hence we can't make the above claim. Further, since we know nothing if ID's process we can't say the above anyways even if we knew the designer wanted humans to be around.

By the same token we can't argue that

Prob(Humans|ID) << 0.

For precisely the same reasons.

In short, without discussing the designer there is no way to resolve this issue. Scientists for the most part have ruled out ID and a supernatural designer since they have found that over time such an a posteriori assumption results in very, very productive research programs.

But not Joe G., he wants to argue that merely that something is uncertain is a science stopper. Even something that has a probability of 0.999999999999999999999999 is "a science stopper" since it isn't specified a priori.

But watch, Joe G. will not respond to any of this substantively and will say, "You are FOS!!!" or some provide other truly devastating critique such as claiming to have knowledge about the shape of my head.

Go to it Joe G., impress us all with your stunning wit and humor.
At 12:10 PM, Joe G said…

If we go with what science tells us we would be forced to infer that life is eternal.

Steve:
But the universe is not eternal, hence this conclusion is faulty.

Only if life needs this universe. Which has not been demonstrated.

As I have already psoted too many times to count- IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO THE SUPER NATURAL. Not even the anti-ID side can escape it. And that is why educated people understand the debate in terms of the options listed in the OP.

Steve:
Only because you limit yourself to the "life only begets life" premise.

THAT is what the scientific data dictates. Therefore to say otherwise is science-fiction.

Is it a fault to limit oneself to the scientific data? No. Evolutionitwits don't want that though because if everyone did just that then evolutionism would die.

Steve:
There is evidence that indicates life could form from non-life.

That is a lie. A big fat lie.

Steve:
Heck even Gonzalez' The Privileged Planet points in this direction.

That is another lie. I take it that lying is all you have left.

Steve:
The anthropic principle says the universe is "life friendly"--i.e. it is friendly towards to the formation of life.

And he follows it up with a blatant misreprentation! Nothing in that pronciple is geared towards the formation of life. It is geared toward the sustaining of life.

Steve:
My argument isn't that humans aren't the product of an unlikely series of events, but that pointing to that series of unlikely events as evidence for design is sloppy thinking.

Then it is a good thing that is NOT what I or any IDists do. Had you known ANYTHING about ID you would have known that.

Dr Behe:
"The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself-not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day."

“Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.
In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed” Pg. 72 of "Darwinism, Design and Public Education"

Steve:
The real science stopper here is the refusal to discuss the designer.

Spoken like a true scientifically illiterate turd.

It isn't that any refuses to discuss the designer. It IS that we cannot do so without first following the data. THAT is how it works in the real world.

Steve,

what is it about the following articles that you don't understand?

The Designer's Identity:
"Suffice it to say, I have little patience with the "identify the designer" rhetoric. It's not just an example of sloppy thinking. It's a form of sloppy thinking that gunks up any sincere interest in design. It turns an attempt to adhere to logical, responsible thinking into a sinister motive. So perhaps, there is a better question to ask. Why do ID critics refuse to publicly acknowledge that it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)?"

ID and mechanisms:
"To say that ID has no proposed mechanism means only that we don't specifically know how ID was implemented. So what? Do we have any good reason to think that if ID was implemented at the origin of life (for example), then we should be able to determine how ID was implemented? Of course not. The truth of ID does not entail the ability to describe the process of design. Thus, the inability to describe the actual process that was implemented is essentially meaningless apart from its rhetorical appeal."

ID and mechanisms 2
"While it sounds reasonable to demand ID theorists provide the “mechanisms” behind intelligent design, we must remember that in cases of direct intervention, such a mechanism is otherwise known as a protocol, recipe, blueprint, and means to implement the protocol, recipe, or blueprint. Yet can we really derive this type of information from studying the thing in question coupled with the regularities of Nature?"
At 1:48 PM, Steve said…

That is a lie. A big fat lie.

No. You might like to think this, but the Miller-Urey and the subsequent follow on experiments suggest that it is at least possible that life could have arisen from non-life.

Further, even the supernatural implies that life comes from non-life. After all this universe is not eternal as scientific evidence posits that the universe came into existence. Now, unless we come up with some whacked out view that life can exist without a place to exist, then the conclusion follows.

Only by subscribing to Joe G.'s bizzare notions that life transcends the begining of the universe can one get out of this problem.

Finally, this entire notion is way, way outside the bounds of evoltuionary theory--although don't expect Joe G. to admit this. Evolutionary theory is a theory to explain how living organisms change over time, not how living organisms came into existence, how the universe came into existence, etc.

And he follows it up with a blatant misreprentation! Nothing in that pronciple is geared towards the formation of life. It is geared toward the sustaining of life.

What does the Anthorpic Principle state: that certain phsyical constants are in ranges that are conducive to life as we know it. Hence, the universe is "friendly" towards life as we know it. So, no misrepresentation here.

In fact, upon observing the Anthropic Principle it actually increase (or at the very least does not decrease) the probability of natural mechanism being the explanation for life in the universe. The proof is very simple and elegant (about 3 lines) and was done by Ikeda and Jefferys.

Then it is a good thing that is NOT what I or any IDists do. Had you known ANYTHING about ID you would have known that.

That is, at least in part, what IDCists like Dembski do. You on the other hand have even dropped Dembski's criterion of specification. You simply note the "complexity"--i.e. small probability--and conclude design.

Spoken like a true scientifically illiterate turd.

It isn't that any refuses to discuss the designer. It IS that we cannot do so without first following the data. THAT is how it works in the real world.

That is not how science works. You don't just blindly follow the data. To do so will lead to many wrong conclusions as correlation is not causation. First you observe something, come up with an hypothesis to explain what was observed. The derive testable implications of that hypothesis, gather data and test the hypothesis. Then if the data supports the hypothesis you might look at refinements to explain what is observed in even greater detail.

If the data doesn't support the hypothesis, you consider alternative hypotheses. Blindly following the data will lead to lots of dead-ends and erroneous conclusions. For example, I can create 101 random sequences of lenght 100. I can then select one variable as the explanatory variable and run 100 regressions. If my rejection region (using classical statistics) is 5% I'll get about 5 statistically significant results. However, all the correlations are completely spurious and without any meaning. This can happen even with actual data that isn't generated by random number generators. Hence the conlcusion that correlation is not causation.

So, what does all this mean in regards to the issue of who is the designer, what are its motivations etc.? It goes to the hypothesis. For example, suppose the designer has little knowledge of biochemistry. Then the hypothesis that the designer designed the flagellum becomes much, much less likely. But we can't know this unless discussions about the designer are entertained.

Note that with evolutionary theory the process is described prior to any testing. Then once the process is described then testable propositions are derived and those are compared to the data. None of this happens with ID. It can't happen because we don't know the process.

For example, some claim that ID implies little or no junk DNA? Why? Well, because DNA is like a code, and good code has little extraneous and useless code in it. But this implies something about the designer--e.g. the designer is a good code writer. But how do we know this? Maybe it is true, but not one single IDCist out there will admit to this. Confront them with a question about the designer and they wave their hands like Joe G. They spend endless amounts of time writing screeds like the ones that Joe G. links too.

Bottom line: IDC is not science. It can't be by design.

Now that is ironic.

By the way Joe G. from one of your quotes,

So what? Do we have any good reason to think that if ID was implemented at the origin of life (for example), then we should be able to determine how ID was implemented?

Whoops, guess they didn't get your memo that Life is eternal and somehow transcends this universe. I suggest you e-mail Dembski about this post haste.
At 5:15 PM, Joe G said…

Steve:
There is evidence that indicates life could form from non-life.

That is a lie. A big fat lie.

Steve:
No. You might like to think this, but the Miller-Urey and the subsequent follow on experiments suggest that it is at least possible that life could have arisen from non-life.

LoL! Only Steve would think that one lie can be supported by another. Miller-Urey and all subsequent experiments have been an utter failure as far as origins of life are concerned. That is a fact.

Steve:
Further, even the supernatural implies that life comes from non-life.

Only in your bitty little mind. It could very well be that what is now termed "the supernatural" is life eternal.

And as I am saying, IF we apply the Socratic Principle, ie follow the evidence..., and seeing that the ONLY scientific evidence we do have is only life begets life (no amount of lies from Steve can change that fact) then we have no choice but to infer life is eternal. OR we could try to refute that notion, which hasn't gone so well.

And he follows it up with a blatant misreprentation! Nothing in that pronciple is geared towards the formation of life. It is geared toward the sustaining of life.

Steve:
What does the Anthorpic Principle state: that certain phsyical constants are in ranges that are conducive to life as we know it. Hence, the universe is "friendly" towards life as we know it. So, no misrepresentation here.

But YOU said "F formation of life" which IS a misrepresentation.

Steve:
The anthropic principle says the universe is "life friendly"--i.e. it is friendly towards to the formation of life.

You are one dishonest little prick.

Then it is a good thing that is NOT what I or any IDists do. Had you known ANYTHING about ID you would have known that.

Steve:
That is, at least in part, what IDCists like Dembski do.

Now Stevie moves the goalposts. "In part" had NOTHING to do with what I was responding to.

Steve:
You on the other hand have even dropped Dembski's criterion of specification. You simply note the "complexity"--i.e. small probability--and conclude design.

Eat me. The design infernce is based on more than complexity. The EF requires and combination of complexity AND specification.

It isn't that any refuses to discuss the designer. It IS that we cannot do so without first following the data. THAT is how it works in the real world.

Steve:
That is not how science works. You don't just blindly follow the data.

Science works by following the data. Period. I NEVER said anything about "blindly".

Your village called. They miss you.

Steve:
Note that with evolutionary theory the process is described prior to any testing.

When is the testing going to get started? Dr Behe has propsed an experiment that would confirm evolutionism and refute an ID icon. Yet ALL evolutionitwits are avoiding such an experiment an instead are telling the IDists to do it! Such intellectual cowardice should not go unnoticed, but it has. Can you imagine what would happen if an IDist conducted such an experiment? Nothing at all. If the experiment failed anti-IDists would blame the IDist.

Only a complete imbecile would think one needs to know anything about the designer BEFORE one can infer design and set out to understand that design. REALITY demonstrates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the design is by studying the design in question. If we knew the designer and the process we wouldn't have a design inference- it would be a given.

Steve:
For example, some claim that ID implies little or no junk DNA?

Who? Provide a reference.

Bottom line- ID is science, for obvious reasons.

And it is note-worthy that Steve has failed, in all his posts, to provide ANY data that would substantiate the anti-ID position of option #1.

Raw spewage is not scientific data. However I take it that is all Steve can muster.
At 9:20 AM, Joe G said…

Raevmo:
You keep mentioning Behe's proposed experiment to falsify ID and confirm evolutionism: just keep watching some bacteria until they evolve flag.

As I should. It demonstrates the intellectual cowardice of anti-IDists.

Raevmo:
So why don't YOU or your ID friends perform this experiment?

How many times do I have to answer that? Here it is again:

The experiment proposed by Dr, Behe would confirm evolutionism and refute an ID icon. Therefore if IDists conduct the experiment NO ONE would believe the outcomeif a flagellum did not "evolve". IOW it is an experiment that obviously evolutionitwits should be conducting. And even then a failure to "evolve" a flagellum wouldn't mean anything to them.

Judge Jones:
(13) As a further example, the test for ID proposed by both Professors Behe and Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory; however, no-one inside or outside of the IDM, including those who propose the test, has conducted it. (P-718; 18:125-27 (Behe); 22:102-06 (Behe)).

Dr. Behe:
If I conducted such an experiment and no flagellum were evolved, what Darwinist would believe me? What Darwinist would take that as evidence for my claims that Darwinism is wrong
Whether Intelligent Design is Science: Behe’s Response to Kitzmiller
-8-
and ID is right? As I testified to the Court, Kenneth Miller claimed there was experimental evidence showing that complex biochemical systems could evolve by random mutation and natural selection, and he pointed to the work of Barry Hall on the lac operon. I explained in great detail to the Court why Miller was exaggerating, was incorrect, and made claims that Barry Hall himself never did. However, no Darwinist I am aware of subsequently took Hall’s experiments as evidence against Darwinism. Neither did the Court mention it in its opinion.
The flagellum experiment the Court described above is one that, if successful, would strongly affirm Darwinian claims, and so should have been attempted long ago by one or more of the many, many adherents of Darwinism in the scientific community. That none of them has tried such an experiment, and that similar experiments that were tried on other molecular systems have failed, should count heavily against their theory.
At 12:53 AM, Steve said…

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Intelligent Reasoning

Friday, June 09, 2006

The options to our existence- Why ID is scientific part 3

12 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts