Intelligent Reasoning

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

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Reciprocating Bill Admits his Position is Not Scientific

-
That's right when I told RB what would refute ID- demonstrating tat blind, undirected (chemical) processes can account for what IDists call CSI and/ or IC he said:
There is a possible "refutation" of ID, although that refutation is not an empirical test in the sense of it being a scientific procedure that a researcher or researchers can implement to test an hypothesis (and its enclosing theoretical framework) by modus tolens.

And yet refuting ID merely means that his position has to actually produce some positive evidence.

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.


Well RB, even though you are a chicken-shit intellectual coward you did manage to admit your position is total bullshit.

Thumbs high for that. Nicely done.

51 Comments:

  • At 10:18 PM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    The best refutation of your post is to re-post my remarks, which you clearly fail to grasp.

    I think we are making progress here.

    I referred to "tests" or "empirical tests" of specific hypotheses. I intend this in the sense of a procedure that may be followed by a researcher that has the potential to disconfirm one's hypothesis. Such tests are possible when one's hypothesis (and the theory within which it is framed) is constructed in such a way that it has specific entailments. By modus tolens, observations that fail to conform to those entailments may challenge or even disconfirm the hypotheses. Those that conform to the entailments increase one's confidence in the fidelity of one's theoretical model. When an hypothesis can be tested in this way, it can be said to be a scientific hypothesis.

    I take it from the above that Joe would also call this sort of procedure a "test" or a "positive test." The hypotheses articulated in the abstracts I posted above are indeed tested in this manner. And it is certainly in this sense that I stated that ID offers no empirical tests of its thesis. It cannot, because it's mechanism is devoid of content.

    Joe responds that there is, nevertheless, at least one potential refutation of ID - taking care to insist that a "refutation" is not the same as a "test." His candidate for a "refutation" is that ID would be refuted were biology to attain a naturalistic account of the complex and adapted systems that characterize living organisms (expressed in the idiosyncratic language of ID, namely "IC" and "CSI"). As Joe says, "ID makes specific claims- as I have posted- and one of those clams is that blind, undirected (chemical) processes cannot produce CSI nor IC…if one demonstrates that blind, undirected (chemical) processes can do that then ID would be refuted."

     
  • At 10:18 PM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    Not tested. Refuted.

    The "procedure" for obtaining this refutation is to continue to pursue research with in the framework of evolutionary biology, just as it is being pursued today, indefinitely, perhaps for centuries. At such time that natural, unguided pathways to the complex structures Joe characterizes as displaying "IC" or "CSI" are fully articulated, ID is "refuted" and should be abandoned.

    Now, as I note above, Joe takes pains to argue that this event would not be a "test" or a "positive test" of ID, and upon reflection I am inclined to agree. This isn't a procedure that a researcher or researchers can run, such that observations gathered thereby have bearing upon the truth value of ID by means of modus tolens. There are no such procedures, as I argue above, a deficit traceable to the assiduously sustained emptiness of its "mechanism." Nor is this a procedure to which ID can make the slightest contribution, as this refutation refers only to research conducted from within a framework that excludes teleological causation, and indeed it would proceed absolutely unchanged even were ID never conceived. So even as we allow that this would "refute" ID, it remains true that ID remains impotent as a guide to empirical research efforts.

    So I accept Joe's distinction. There is a possible "refutation" of ID, although that refutation is not an empirical test in the sense of it being a scientific procedure that a researcher or researchers can implement to test an hypothesis (and its enclosing theoretical framework) by modus tolens. ID remains scientifically flacid, and useless, and incapable of empirical test, although it may indeed one day be "refuted."

    Of course, for the vast majority of scientists this happened 150 years ago.

     
  • At 7:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    R Bill:
    The best refutation of your post is to re-post my remarks, which you clearly fail to grasp.

    I am glad that you think so.

    Ya see Bill the best way to expose your retardation is by re-posting your unsupported ignorance.

    You prattle on as if yo are saing something but upon inspction al yor posts are devoid of content = empty.

    You cn't support yor position and you sure as hell don't understand science.

     
  • At 7:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    R Bill:
    The best refutation of your post is to re-post my remarks, which you clearly fail to grasp.

    The best refutation of your posts is to re-post them thereby exposing the fact that they do not address anything I have said. And upon inspection actually support my claims.

    Ya see R Bill all those papers you posted to try to refute my claim ended up supporting it.

    Nicely done moron...

     
  • At 12:44 PM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    Ultimately all the science with bearing on these questions is conducted within the framework of evolutionary biology, as ID offers no testable entailments and contributes nothing to ongoing research. This reflects the emptiness of ID's proposed mechanism, a reality reflected in the fact that no research, including even "design detection," is being conducted from within the framework of ID. A theoretical viewpoint that is inherently unable to guidance to empirical research and is not pursued even by its own advocates is not a scientific viewpoint.

     
  • At 1:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    R Bill:
    Ultimately all the science with bearing on these questions is conducted within the framework of evolutionary biology,

    That means either within the framework of equivocation or within the framework that is devoid of context = empty. IOW R Bill is full of shit.

    R Bill:
    as ID offers no testable entailments and contributes nothing to ongoing research.

    Actually ID offers both. And no amount of your bullshit and lies will change that fact.

    R Bill:
    This reflects the emptiness of ID's proposed mechanism, a reality reflected in the fact that no research, including even "design detection," is being conducted from within the framework of ID.

    Ummm that is done within the framework of science. Also the only framework that explains overlapping genes, alternative (gene) splicing, transcription and translation with their proof-reading and error-correction, is ID.

    IOW nothing in biology makes any sense except in the light of Intelligent Design.

    R Bill:
    A theoretical viewpoint that is inherently unable to guidance to empirical research and is not pursued even by its own advocates is not a scientific viewpoint.

    And THAT is your position in a nutshell- unable to guide empirical research and not pursued by its own advocates. That much is evidenced by the utter failure of its advocates to produce any positive evidence for it.

    Thanks Bill, your continued blathering just further exposes the emptiness of your position.

     
  • At 5:34 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Also the only framework that explains overlapping genes, alternative (gene) splicing, transcription and translation with their proof-reading and error-correction, is ID.

    Fine. So you've explained them.

    Now, where are the medical breakthroughs?

     
  • At 5:36 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium that can't digest citrate, or knock out the genes for citrate digestion in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a citrate digestion system. 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.

     
  • At 5:44 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    That much is evidenced by the utter failure of its advocates to produce any positive evidence for it.

    What is "it"?

     
  • At 7:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Now, where are the medical breakthroughs?

    Your position doesn't offer any medical breakthroughs. Your position doesn't offer anything at all.

     
  • At 7:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That much is evidenced by the utter failure of its advocates to produce any positive evidence for it.

    OM:
    What is "it"?

    Their position, which is your position.

    It is devoid of content = empty, just like your head.

     
  • At 7:41 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Your position doesn't offer any medical breakthroughs.

    That's not what I asked. In fact, that would be expected if "my position" is as useless as you make out. You've established that.

    What I'm asking is where are the medical breakthroughs that come from an understanding of overlapping genes, alternative (gene) splicing, transcription and translation with their proof-reading and error-correction from an ID perspective?

    If "my position" does or does not have any such breakthroughs is irrelevant.

    What are the advances in medical science that have arisen from understanding those items you listed from the ID perspective?

     
  • At 7:41 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Their position, which is your position.

    State it.

     
  • At 7:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM quoting ?:
    Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium that can't digest citrate, or knock out the genes for citrate digestion in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a citrate digestion system.

    Ummm asshole no one did that.

    The machinery for citrate digestion was already in place. All that happened was the citrate was allowed through the membrane.

    No one knocked out any genes.

    IOW OM you are an ignorant mother fucker.

    But I am sure you think that you are clever. Just look at atbc where you totally fucked up what I said about Iraq...

     
  • At 7:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    What I'm asking is where are the medical breakthroughs that come from an understanding of overlapping genes, alternative (gene) splicing, transcription and translation with their proof-reading and error-correction from an ID perspective?

    Spoken like a real asshole.

     
  • At 7:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Their position, which is your position.

    OM:
    State it.

    Already have.

    What the fuck is your problem besides being an ignorant asshole?

     
  • At 8:00 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    The machinery for citrate digestion was already in place

    Why would your designer create machinery for citrate digestion when citrate could not reach that machinery?

    All that happened was the citrate was allowed through the membrane.

    Yes, adaptation to the environment. Presumably you think they were "designed to adapt" but in that case perhaps you'd care to explain why when they re-cultured some of the preserved bacteria the mutation re-occurred, but only from bacteria cultured from generation 20,000 and up.

    If they were "designed to adapt" as you'll no doubt claim, why were bacteria previous to generation 20,000 not able to do so?

    No one knocked out any genes.
    Who said they did?

     
  • At 8:01 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Spoken like a real asshole.

    So, I'll take that to mean "I can't point to any medical advances made because of insight gained from an ID perspective."

     
  • At 8:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Why would your designer create machinery for citrate digestion when citrate could not reach that machinery?

    Obviously it can.

    OM:
    Yes, adaptation to the environment.

    So what? Not even YEC argues that organisms cannot adapt.

    No one knocked out any genes.

    OM:
    Who said they did?

    Your mangled quote.

     
  • At 8:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    "I can't point to any medical advances made because of insight gained from an ID perspective."

    Whatever- you can't point to any advances made by your position- and you have had plenty of time and resources.

    I take it that bothers you...

     
  • At 8:23 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Whatever- you can't point to any advances made by your position- and you have had plenty of time and resources.

    Indeed, "whatever". I could point to many advances, but you'll dispute them all for spurious reasons.

    But that's not the point. The point is rather that you are conceding that there are no medical advances that have arisen from the ID viewpoint. And that's good enough for me. I mean, if you could cite some you would, but you can't can you?

    And you've had plenty of time and resources too, in fact the last 2000 years or so to come up with something, anything, that could only have been derived from an ID point of view. But nothing.....

     
  • At 8:25 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Obviously it can.

    Not until it adapts to the environment it finds itself in.

    So what? Not even YEC argues that organisms cannot adapt.

    If they can adapt to one change, why can't they adapt to another? And another? And another? Until, after many such adaptations they are a different species to the original?

    And did you miss my question? I'll repeat it just in case:

    Presumably you think they were "designed to adapt" but in that case perhaps you'd care to explain why when they re-cultured some of the preserved bacteria the mutation re-occurred, but only from bacteria cultured from generation 20,000 and up.

    If they were "designed to adapt" as you'll no doubt claim, why were bacteria previous to generation 20,000 not able to do so?


    I'll give you some time to think of an answer.

     
  • At 8:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    I could point to many advances, but you'll dispute them all for spurious reasons.

    Liar- you could only point out spurious advances and I bet not one has anything to do with an accumulation of genetic accidents nor blind, undirected chemical processes.

    You are full of shit.

    OM:
    The point is rather that you are conceding that there are no medical advances that have arisen from the ID viewpoint.

    Except I am not in any position to concede anything.

    However you have conceded your position is total bullshit and I can live with that.

     
  • At 8:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    If they can adapt to one change, why can't they adapt to another?

    Why do you think that if you act like a two-year old that is an actual argument?

     
  • At 8:35 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Liar- you could only point out spurious advances and I bet not one has anything to do with an accumulation of genetic accidents nor blind, undirected chemical processes.


    Not true. But in any case, I'm asking *you* for some medical advances that ID has provided. For the sake of argument I'm willing to concede that there are no such advances from my position.

    So, do you have any or not?

    Except I am not in any position to concede anything.

    If you like it or not, that's exactly what you have done by not providing such a reference.

    If "my position" has no advances and ID has no advances then it's a no score draw tie. If ID is the better explanation, as you claim it is, then how is it better if it cannot provide any such advances?

    However you have conceded your position is total bullshit and I can live with that.

    Great, for the sake of argument I agree. But the point is what you say in the title of the blog "Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning"

    What data are you promoting ID with? So far, you've provided none at all, i.e. no medical advances. Yet you refuse to concede the point.

     
  • At 8:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Except I am not in any position to concede anything.

    OM:
    If you like it or not, that's exactly what you have done by not providing such a reference.

    That's not true- and as a matter of fact that demonstrates that you are an ignornt freak.

    OM:
    What data are you promoting ID with?

    The scientifc data and I have written plenty about it too.

     
  • At 8:57 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    That's not true- and as a matter of fact that demonstrates that you are an ignornt freak.

    Citation to a medical advance that ID has provided please.

     
  • At 9:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Citation to a medical advance that ID has provided please.

    If I don't answer that does not mean there aren't any.

    That is my point that you are obviously too stupid to understand.

     
  • At 9:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Perhaps OM should contact this guy:

    Jerry Bergman, with a Ph.D. in biology, has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology at Northwest State College in Archbold, Ohio, for over 17 years. Now completing his 9th degree, Dr Bergman is a graduate of Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, the University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has more than 600 publications in 12 languages and 20 books and monographs. He has also taught at the Medical College of Ohio where was a research associate in the Department of Experimental Pathology, and he also taught six years at the University of Toledo, and seven years at Bowing Green State University.

     
  • At 9:05 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    If I don't answer that does not mean there aren't any.

    It does if you are claiming that there are such examples, but when asked cannot name any.

    And why would you not link to any if you actually know they exist?

    Perhaps the reason is simpler?

    There are actually none you can name, but you don't want to say that. Is that it?

     
  • At 9:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    It does if you are claiming that there are such examples, but when asked cannot name any.

    Did I make such a claim?

    Provide the reference.

     
  • At 9:07 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Perhaps OM should contact this guy:

    Joe, ID supporters who know a lot about biology do not medical advances make. I did not ask for Id supporters with multiple degrees, if that guy goes onto make medical breakthroughs using insights gained from ID I'm sure we'll all be hearing about it. So far, it's simply not happened, not from him, not from anybody.

    It's obvious then that you can't point to a single instance of a medical breakthrough generated by anybody using the ID perspective.

    IOW this conversation is over! And you lost!

     
  • At 9:08 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Did I make such a claim?

    Provide the reference.,


    So you are now admitting that there are no medical breakthroughs generated from an ID perspective?

    Fine, that's all I wanted to hear you say.

     
  • At 9:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Joe, ID supporters who know a lot about biology do not medical advances make.

    The guy went to a MEDICAL COLLEGE you moron.

    OM:
    So far, it's simply not happened, not from him, not from anybody.

    How do you know?

    You appear to be as ignorant as a piece of shit- so how do you know?

    OM:
    It's obvious then that you can't point to a single instance of a medical breakthrough generated by anybody using the ID perspective.

    Well there was this guy named Pasteur who did quite a bit in the name of Creation...

     
  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So you are now admitting that there are no medical breakthroughs generated from an ID perspective?

    Where/ when did I say that?

    But thanks for admitting that you are a dishonest evotard- is there are other kind?

     
  • At 9:22 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Where/ when did I say that?

    You said it by not being able to provide any citations to such.

    I used "inference" to determine it. I expect you'd agree with that as "inference" is a big part of ID!

     
  • At 9:26 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    The guy went to a MEDICAL COLLEGE you moron.

    Many people do. So what? Just because you go to medical college does not mean you'll be creating any research advances.

    How do you know?

    You appear to be as ignorant as a piece of shit- so how do you know?


    I know because

    A) You cannot reference any examples of medical breakthroughs coming from an ID informed perspective
    B) If there were such advances ID blogs would be all over it and I'd know. We'd all know.

    Well there was this guy named Pasteur who did quite a bit in the name of Creation...
    Sure, but he stuck to science for his science. Being religious does not preclude you from causing scientific breakthroughs. Neither does a secular mindset.

    Newton is another example. Ardent believer but none of that interfered with his science. Newtons laws of motion do not reference "the designer".

    Unfortunately that's not something Dembski has yet to manage.

     
  • At 9:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    You said it by not being able to provide any citations to such.

    IOW I didn't say it.

     
  • At 9:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Newton is another example. Ardent believer but none of that interfered with his science. Newtons laws of motion do not reference "the designer".

    Read his Principia :

    This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

    You lose asshole.

     
  • At 9:38 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    IOW I didn't say it.

    What you don't say can often be as important as what you do say.

    All you have to do to shut me up is provide a reference to an ID sourced medical breakthrough!

     
  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Max Planck:

    "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."

     
  • At 9:42 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    You lose asshole.

    That's not Newton's laws of motion though is it?

    IOW you lost!

    First law: Every body remains in a state of rest or uniform motion (constant velocity) unless it is acted upon by an external unbalanced force.

    Second law: A body of mass m subject to a force F undergoes an acceleration a that has the same direction as the force and a magnitude that is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass.

    Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.


    And Joe's forth Law

    And the designer makes it all happen

    This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

    That's called opinion. Quite different from his laws of motion (hint - the clue is in the name).

     
  • At 9:42 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    We must assume

    If assumption satisfies you, then so be it. I prefer evidence.

     
  • At 9:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    I prefer evidence.

    Liar.

     
  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

    OM:
    That's called opinion.

    Based on the evidence and reseach.

    IOW his opinion actually means something.

     
  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Max Planck:
    "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."

    Based on years of scientific research.

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

    Om:
    What you don't say can often be as important as what you do say.

    That means that you are a fucking piece of shit- because of what you say and don't say.

    Sweet...

     
  • At 9:50 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Based on years of scientific research.,

    So why the use of the word "assume" then? You don't assume things you have evidence for. There's kinda no need.

     
  • At 9:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So why the use of the word "assume" then?

    Because assume and infer are interchangeable in a scientific context.

     
  • At 10:01 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Because assume and infer are interchangeable in a scientific context.

    Citation please.

     
  • At 11:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Buy a dictionary- they are synonyms...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home