Why it is a good thing to question the materialistic anti-ID position

The following sums up the materialistic anti-ID position:

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true?

I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents.

It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.--CS Lewis

added via edit:

Over on the ARN Discussion Board Bertvan has linked to this site. A few anti-IDists have responded with babbling nonsense so I will clarify (again)-

The materialistic anti-ID position is nothing more than "sheer-dumb-luck" and that includes the laws that govern our physical realm. The Earth/ Moon system? The "scientific" explanation is that an accidental collision between the proto-Earth and a giant imapctor- sheer-dumb-luck. Also if another accidental collision didn't occur we wouldn't be here! That is because that other impact wiped out the dinosaurs which allowed mammals to further evolve. Sheer-dumb-luck at its finest.

Mutations? Genetic accidents- no goals or plans involved. Natural selection? Blind and without a purpose.

The conclusion Don Provan should draw is that his materialistic anti-ID position is a science-stopper. Relying on sheer dumb luck is un-scientific as it cannot be objectively tested. Saying something evolved without knowing whether or not any mechanism can account for the evolution is also a science stopper and also untestable.

How is CS Lewis using the word "accident"?

anything that happens by chance without an apparent cause

The ONLY Possible Connection between ID and the Bible

If the Bible were somehow totally confirmed IDists would just say:

OK that explains what we have been observing. We should have followed Newton’s lead- that is science is a way of understanding the handiwork of the Creator.

And if the Bible were somehow totally refuted IDists will then say:

Ya see- we told you not to put all your apples on that collection of books. Now would you like to get back under the tent?

Is there a theory of Intelligent Design? ("I love it so!")

Many people ask if there is a theory of Intelligent Design. To which I respond, "Is there a theory of Archaeology?"

Intelligent Design, also called the design inference, is just that, a reasoned inference from the data.

IOW ID is an observation, which can be used as an underlying assumption from which to start the research. And as we all (should) know, it does make a difference to an investigation whether or not the object(s) in question arose via an intelligent cause or via nature, operating freely.

“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 "Dawinism, Design and Public Education"

We already have processes in place that we use to detect design:

Del Ratzsch in his book Nature, Design and Science discusses “counterflow as referring to things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely.”

Anthropologists use this type of process when detecting artifacts. Markings (marking does not pertain to the sound made by dogs with a harelip) on a rock that are contrary to what scientists deem nature acting alone could/ would not do, as compared to what we know intelligent agencies have done and can do is what determines the categorization of an object- artifact or just another rock.
Archaeologists checking for inscriptions would employ similar methodology- as Del puts it “an artifact is anything embodying counterflow.”

(Paraphrasing Del)If you come upon a group of trees in exact rows, each row the same distance from the next and each tree in the row the same distance from the next tree in the row, although nature acting alone could have produced such a pattern, our minds would instinctively infer the pattern was the result of intentional design.

Sometimes design is mind correlative. That is when what we observe fits some identifiable/ recognizable pattern- Nasca, Peru. (Or in organisms, the presence of the insulin protein in bacteria.)

Using William Dembski’s Design Explanatory Filter is also a good tool for a starting inference. (We know science is not about proof. The DEF is not about proving design. The DEF is about the design inference. As with any inference the design inference can be falsified. Pulsars were once thought to be signals from ETs. Further research falsified that inference. The properly applied DEF would have not allowed design to be the initial inference.) The DEF can give initial false negatives. IOW something that is designed can fall into the categories of chance and/ or law. That is why design theorists don’t say just give up once design is or isn’t the initial inference. And with all inferences future research can either confirm it or refute it.

The ONE alleged false positive I have read was from Del’s aforementioned book pertaining to a tumbleweed getting blown across the road directly through a hole in a fence. Wind currents explain that phenomenon. IOW the DEF was not properly applied.

So the question is what is it that prevents tried-n-true design detection techniques from being applied to biological organisms?

More Evidence for ID in Biology: Cells with "Zip Codes"

Anatomic Demarcation by Positional Variation in Fibroblast Gene Expression Programs

Synopsis

A major question in developmental biology is, How do cells know where they are in the body? For example, skin cells on the scalp know to produce hair, and the skin cells on the palms of the hand know not to make hair. Overall, there are thousands of different cell types and each has a unique job that is important to overall organ function. It is critical that, as we grow and develop, each of these different cells passes on the proper function from generation to generation to maintain organ function. In this study, the authors present a model that explains how cells know where they are in the body. By comparing cells from 43 unique positions that finely map the entire human body, the authors discovered that cells utilize a ZIP-code system to identify the cell's position in the human body. The ZIP code for Stanford is 94305, and each digit hones in on the location of a place in the United States; similarly, cells know their location by using a code of genes. For example, a cell on the hand expresses a set of genes that locate the cell on the top half of the body (anterior) and another set of genes that locates the cell as being far away from the body or distal and a third set of genes that identifies the cell on the outside of the body (not internal). Thus, each set of genes narrows in on the cell's location, just like a ZIP code. These findings have important implications for the etiology of many diseases, wound healing, and tissue engineering.

Research pertaining to cellular differentiation just got a little bit more exciting.

How long before one of the CSI shows adopts this? "Look Grissom we have skin cells from his butt."

Of Paternal Family Trees, Nested Hierarchy, and a Y Chromosome Cladogram

In the OP of another thread I posted the following challenge:

I challenge anyone to search for "paternal family tree and nested hierarchy" to see if Zachriel's bogus example comes up and is used by anyone except Zachriel- someone with expertise in the subject would be nice. Good luck.

Zachriel actually posted the following link in an attempt to meet that challenge:

Out of Africa and back again: nested cladistic analysis of human Y chromosome variation

Unlike Zachriel, I read what my opponents reference. Perhaps Zachriel didn't understand the challenge. The other option would be a combination of stupidity, ignorance and dishonesty.

I specifically asked for an example of a "paternal family tree and nested hierarchy".

If we had the DNA of the males from say 10 generations, could we, by looking at the Y chromosome alone, then properly place the DNA in the correct sequence of descent- that is starting with the one and properly filling in each subsequent level? Absolutely not. A son's Y chromosome could be an exact copy of his father's. One son could get a point mutation that is reverted in his son. And the list goes on.

So the challenge remains:

I challenge anyone to search for "paternal family tree and nested hierarchy" to see if Zachriel's bogus example comes up and is used by anyone except Zachriel- someone with expertise in the subject would be nice. Good luck.

Please keep in mind a summary of the principles of hierarchy theory

A Note to the San Diego Chargers (dee-dee-dee)

It does not matter how much physical talent you collect if you place stupid players in key positions.

A muffed punt- Rule 1) SECURE the football THAT is your only objective at that point.

After a great defensive play- Rule 1) Do NOT get all uppity about doing your job.

Your opponent has a 4th and 5 situation- Rule 1) KNOCK the ball to the ground- do NOT attempt an interception.

And LT, if you don't want the opposition dancing on your team's logo, all you have to do is to win the game. Because if your teammates are going to run their mouths, that logo will be danced on if they do not back it up.

Smart players- that is what gave the Patriots 3 Super Bowl victories. Players reflect coaching...

Cupcake Special

-
This is a special post for all of those evo-cupcakes out there who think they are special.

Congrats, you are!

Zachriel needs to get a life

Zachriel is relegated to quote-mining for out-of-context soundbites:

Look what Joe G said

It is true- that I will not listen to blipey. The reasoning is sound- time and again blipey has demonstrated that he is dishonest. Not only that but the best he can do is to pick on non-existent mistakes in my posts.


(It bothers me that many people use the words "where" and "at" together, but that must drive the blipmeister up a wall)

If wishes could come true

Over on the Antievolution discussion board, "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank states the following:

ID/creationism is a political fight. Politics is a business full of knives. This isn't a badminton match -- it's a boxing match. Punches will be thrown, teeth will be knocked out, and blood will spatter the walls. One side will win and walk away, one side won't.

This is funny because "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank is a pencil-neck geek who would get throttled in any physical altercation.

However Lenny and I am on the same page- ya see I want a fight. And if Lenny feels up to it I will start with him and work my way through the evolutionitwits like a hot knife through butter.

What say thee, Lenny?

The design inference- in peer-review (HT Evolution News & Views)

Often it is claimed by anti-IDists that ID does not appear in peer-reviewed journals.

IDists counter with articles in peer-review that support the design inference. Articles such as the following:

Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors

and

Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds

Anti-IDists tried to counter that claim by saying the scientist involved does not share the same inference as IDists do. However that counterclaim now stands refuted:

I have in fact confirmed that these papers add to the evidence for ID. I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails "severe sequence constraints". The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design. In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design.--Douglas Axe

(for the original Evolution News and Views article go HERE)

How difficult is it to understand?

Reality demonstrates the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer or the specific design processes involved, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

And guess what?

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

And yes the design inference does force us to ask other questions. ID is not preventing anyone from looking into them. However that also demonstrates that ID is NOT a scientific dead-end plus gives us the impetus to drive the research.

Preventive Maintenance & Global Warming: Reversing the trend

6H2O + 6CO2 ----------> C6H12O6 + 6O2

That's right- photosynthesis. We make artificial plants- that is massive structures (as space allows) run by solar power that suck in the air via man-made stomata, mix it with water and mimic the reaction that is photosynthesis. Then have the O2 exit other man-made stomata.

Place these facilities near factories, cities, yada, yada, yada

Then sell the sugar...

Why Nested Hierarchy is NOT evidence for the ToE nor Common Descent

The main reason why nested hierarchy is not evidence for the theory of evolution nor Common Descent is that neither would be phased if it wasn't observed. That is obvious because nested hierarchy is not observed throughout the diversity of living organisms on this planet.

Denton page 129:

Cladism takes no account at all of any evolutionary claim regarding the genealogy or derivation of any particular species or group. Cladists aim only to discover the pattern of nature as it actually is.

page 131:

"Yet, direct evidence for evolution only resides in the existence of unambiguous sequential arrangements, and these are never present in ordered hierarchic schemes."

IOW If life descended (along uncrossed lines) from a common ancestor, it would form an unambiguous sequential arrangement, which are never present in ordered hierarchic schemes.

But that point is moot because we know that lines can be crossed, that is that traits can be gained and lost only to reappear later.

In fact, a nested hierarchy is the almost inevitable result of descent with modification, if no transfer of traits between branches of descent is possible.

With the ToE and Common Descent a transfer of traits is possible between branches. I will also note that any such nested hierarchy referred by EvoWiki would not conform to the rules of hierarchy.

And seeing that Nested Hierarchy was and still is used as evidence for a Common Design since before Charles Darwin, one would think that evolutionitwits would get their own evidence as opposed from just co-opting their opposition's evidence and scheme and re-labeling it.

ADDED VIA EDIT:

And finally the only way that nested hierarchy could be used as evidence for either the ToE or Common Descent is if and only if, it was observed in the diversity of living organisms and there alone. However we know that is not true.

Zachriel provided the following:

The nested hierarchy is a pattern. Like all patterns, it can be defined mathematically and exists outside of biology. A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.

Now I am sure that bit will be lost on Alan, Zachriel and their ilk. But that is to be expected. It is a prediction that follows from their condition. And what may that condition be?

See for yourself

Note to Alan Fox- your comment was lost

Alan I just tried to publish your last comment but I received a blogger error and now your comment is gone.

Could you please re-post it?

(I had to laugh at your projection on the ARN discussion board. For the record I will debate you on any topic pertaining to the ID vs ToE debate. Perhaps my fingers are in my ears, but that is to protect my brain from the assaults by evolutionary imbeciles, like yourself.)

When the shit flows it flows freely

OK ok I got curious and visted Alan's blog. Nothing new. Just more of the same strokers doing what they do best.

Alan's less than cordial invitation

I said my piece over on Alan's blog and I feel contaminated somehow. My 4 year old understands science better than that ilk.

Zachriel:
And yet, not a single one of Joe's arguments address the syllogism. "If life descended (along uncrossed lines) from a common ancestor, it would form a nested hierarchy pattern (of descendent relationships)" is a mathematical truism.*

Ummm, I have more than dealt with that bit of nonsense. Ya see with the theory of evolution nothing prevents lines from being crossed, uncrossed and recrossed. Traits can be gained and traits can be lost- only to be regained.

And coming out of the single-celled bush there isn't any way one would expect order- because as I said the theory doesn't predict metazoans in the first place.

Yes the theory can live with NH but that was never the point.

Zachriel:
The rest of his argument concerns the detection of such a nested hierarchy and the implications if such a pattern is found. I would be happy to engage this argument if Joe wishes, but it makes no sense to discuss the empirical evidence for this pattern if he doesn't even understand how to recognize it.

My offer to debate Zachriel on this is still open.

He submits his opening and I will then submit mine.

And this little bit is total BS:

Joe: "Nested Hierarchy is [not] a prediction of the theory of evolution- pro & con- that would include ALL living organisms"

I said:
"Nested Hierarchy is a prediction of the theory of evolution- pro & con- that would include ALL living organisms"

is duly noted.

I take the con, Zachriel takes the pro. Or at least Zachriel should put his position in writing so we all know what it is. My position hasn't changed since before I started blogging- The theory of evolution does not predict nested hierarchy.

Zachriel continues with his bluff with:
These two statements are not equivalent.

Joe: "Zachriel concedes the point- the theory of evolution does NOT predict a nested hierarchy."

Joe: "Nested Hierarchy is [not] a prediction of the theory of evolution- pro & con- that would include ALL living organisms"

With that I should get the right to punch Zachriel in the head. MY words were:

Nested Hierarchy is a prediction of the theory of evolution- pro & con- that would include ALL living organisms.

Zachriel:
The nested hierarchy of morphology and genomics is an observation AND a prediction.

Nested hierarchy was never predicted but it is observed. It isn't observed for single-celled organisms, does that mean it wasn't predicted for them?

Zachriel:
We observe a pattern, then predict it will continue to apply, perhaps in somewhat different circumstances.

And if we didn't observe the pattern of nested hierarchy the theory of evolution would not miss a beat. Accomodating observations should NEVER be conflated with predicting what we will observe.

Yes Zachriel, your job is done. And I thank you for demonstrating you have absolutely no clue...


*I have dealt with this bit of dishonesty before but I will do it again here. Zachriel just twisted the following:
Nested Hierarchy

In fact, a nested hierarchy is the almost inevitable result of descent with modification, if no transfer of traits between branches of descent is possible.

Not quite what Zachriel stated, is it?

And although that same site also claims:

The most obvious explanation for the observed nested hierarchy of taxonomic categories is evolution.

That doesn't make sense in light of the fact we don't observe nested hierarchy throughout the kingdoms. It also doesn't make sense because we know traits can be lost and gained and convergent evolution is real.

And just to remind everyone:

A Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory

What I think about the "Kitzmiller vs. Dover" decision

After reading the transcripts of the trial and the judge's decision it is obvious to me that the decision would have been very different if:

A) The Dover school board had not been religiously motivated

and

B) They actually understood Intelligent Design (it was pretty obvious they knew very little about ID)


It's time I start looking into what it takes to get on a local school board...

Evidence? for Common Descent (revisited)

The last time I posted this Zachriel responded with the following:

If life descended from a common ancestor, it would form a nested hierarchy pattern.

However we now know that is incorrect. So here it is again.

“Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances.” Henry Schaeffer, director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia

“Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing; it may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different.” Sherlock Holmes

“Change the way you look at things and the things you look at change.” Unknown

Common descent, that being that all of life’s diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown last universal common ancestor via descent with modification, is based on indirect, i.e. circumstantial, evidence. It cannot be objectively tested. It cannot be repeated. It cannot be verified. The concept isn’t even of any practical use. Yet it endures as a scientific concept. And people wonder what has happened to science education.

“The validity of the evolutionary interpretation of homology would have been greatly strengthened if embryological and genetic research could have shown that homologous structures were specified by homologous genes. Such homology would indeed be strongly suggestive of “true relationship; of inheritance from a common ancestor”. But it has become clear that the principle cannot be extended in this way. Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology. The failure to find a genetic and embryological basis for homology was discussed by Sir Gavin de Beer, British embryologist and past Director of the British Museum of Natural History, in a succinct monograph Homology, a Unresolved Problem.” Michael Denton

“The concept of homology is absolutely fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution- yet in truth we cannot explain it at all in terms of present day biological theory.” Sir Alistor Hardy

Fossil record:

How was the fossil record formed?

Was it formed by one or a series of catstrophies? Was it formed by slow and gradual sedimentray deposition? Or was it a combination? For any combination scenario how can we tell which sediments were laid down via some catastrophy and which were deposited via some gradual process?

Exposing the Evolutionist’s Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record

Fossils can’t tell us anything about a mechanism.
Fossils can’t tell the difference between phenotypic plasticity and a mutation which causes a phenotypic change.
Fossils can’t tell the difference between divergent and convergent evolution.
Fossils can’t tell us anything about how the species originated. Just that it existed.
Not every organism that has lived gets fossilized. IOW absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Fossilization requires a rapid burial of the organism to protect it from scavengers and weathering.
Fossilization does not require millions of years.

Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.87 2006

The first issue I have with that article is the definitions of micro and macro evolution:

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.

Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution of genes and microevolution is within-species evolution of genes.

The issues are:
1) Species is a vague/ ambiguous concept at best
2) Creationists have accepted that the "Created Kinds" were most likely close to today's classification of Genus. Meaning with the above definitions even YECs are macroevolutionists. IOW there isn't any distinction.

The following offers a better insight into the debate:

glossary

evolution, biological n.
1) “microevolution”—the name used by many evolutionists to describe genetic variation, the empirically observed phenomenon in which exisiting potential variations within the gene pool of a population of organisms are manifested or suppressed among members of that population over a series of generations. Often simplistically (and erroneously) invoked as “proof” of “macro evolution”; 2) macroevolution—the theory/belief that biological population changes take (and have taken) place (typically via mutations and natural selection) on a large enough scale to produce entirely new structural features and organs, resulting in entirely new species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla within the biological world, by generating the requisite (new) genetic information. Many evolutionists have used “macro-evolution” and “Neo-Darwinism” as synonymous for the past 150 years.

A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”

The ERV argument for CD is especially weak. We are expected to believe that an ERV will hang around at the same chromosomal position and in intact enough to be recognizable as an ERV for millions of generations, all the while other genetic changes are occurring that will bring about the morphological differences in the diverging species. Now why would a useless piece of genetic material be afforded that type of preservation? Why would it be kept at all?

Do evolutionists understand the process of meiosis? The ERV argument tells me they do not.

To finish there isn't any data that demonstrates a population of bacteria can evolve into anything but bacteria.
There isn't any data that demonstrates a population of single-celled organisms can evolve into something other than single-celled organisms.
And there isn't any data that demonstrates any mutation/ selection process can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.
IOW the theory of evolution just requires faith- faith in Father Time, Mother Nature and the blind watchmaker.

Zachriel concedes the point- the theory of evolution does NOT predict a nested hierarchy

Thank you Zachriel. That was a great way to end 2006 and start 2007!

joe g: "Nested Hierarchy a prediction of the theory of evolution- pro & con- that would include ALL living organisms"

Zachriel said:
Well, I'll take the con side, then.

And that has been my side since the beginning...

Testing and (potential) falsification: ID vs. evolutionism

Over on Uncommon Descent, GilDodgen presents the following: In the DVD Case For A Creator, in the Q&A section, Michael Behe was asked, How would you respond to the claim that intelligent design theory is not falsifiable? Behe responded:

The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments. Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis. I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.

Zachriel's original position on nested hierarchy and the theory of evolution

Seeing that Zachriel is choosing to try to change the past:

And just so that everyone is clear, the following was Zachriel's position before reality smacked him upside his head:

Zachriel said:
If life descended from a common ancestor, it would form a nested hierarchy pattern.

Then once reality smacked him upside his head he switched to (in the same thread):

The nested hierarchy doesn't necessarily apply to the evolution of eukaryotes, hence common descent may not be the appropriate model, but perhaps endosymbiosis .

However if NH doesn't apply to the evolution of eukaryotes- basically all life excluding prokaryotes and viruses (if you consider viruses as life)- then what does it apply to? Or did Zachriel not understand what a eukaryote refers to?

And he thinks he can lecture me? LoL!!!