Is Id Science?

[Mordecai]

So my statement that science is falsifiable is incorrect? Am I to understand, then, that science should be unfalsifiable? Either way, you didn't answer my question: how is ID falsifiable?

At this point, as far as I'm concerned, the one or two statements that were false in your post were SO false, in my mind, it made ALL of it false. (Hyperbole is the operable word here). For one, ID is falsifiable if one can prove that a flagellum is not irreducible. ID may also be falsifiable if it can be proven that increases in functional information in the genome can occur through random forces and that this occurs often enough to explain, for example, the Cambrian "Information Explosion." Sadly, no scientist has ever identified a single random change that can increase functional information in a creature. No such mutation has ever been observed. And for Darwinism to be FEASIBLE, creatures must have one-million possible, consecutive one-step mutations that will signify an increase in functional information. By the way, it's not even known whether or not a single-step mutation even can increase functional information.

As for ID and creationism, here's a quote from wiki:

...which can only mean that the system was created whole. Which is creationism. It may not be New Earth Creationism, but it's creationism nonetheless.

Who cares what Wiki says if it's not logical. Creationism already has a definition and Intelligent Design doesn't fall under it. By this wiki line of reasoning, you are a fundamentalist wacko, because there is a very wacky fundamental-flaw in your argument. (The operable word here is equivocation).

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

How Einstein might have proposed Relativity, with the mindset of an IDer:

Einstein: Weve all known that Newtons ideas on Gravity are fundementally flawed for some time now. We have the Mercury discrepency staring us in the face! But no fear, I now have the answer. The missing piece of the puzzle that explains the deficiencies in current understanding.

Random Scientist: Ohh! Sounds great. What is this new theory?

Einstein: Its called Relativity. You see, it occoured to me as I was thinking about electricity. We know that electrical currents find it harder to flow through some materials than others. And this property is known as resistance. Now, seeing an electrical current as analogous to gravity, doesnt it make sense that there could be some property of the universe that opposes gravity? Ive called this property Relativity. High relativities can interfere with gravity to the extent that it demonstratably alters its effects. However, it would appear that most objects have quite low relativities, and are therefore not affected to any discernable degree.

Random Scientist: Ok - Sure. I suppose its possible...

Einstein: See what I did there? I used a known real-world example, and applied it to the related situation of gravity! Thats how science works dont ya know...

Random Scientist: Yes, very nice Einstien. So, what are some of the details of Relativity?

Einstein: That it is a property that can resist gravity, and that it clearly is required due to the deficiencies in our current understanding of gravity. I just said that didnt I?

Random Scientist: Well - are you saying thats all the detail you have? Exactly why does Newtonian gravity seems to be fairly accurate in most cases, except in the singular case of Mercury? What is special about Mercury?

Einstein: Well, obviously there is SOMETHING about Mercury that has some relation to Relativity. Maybe its close proximity to the Sun. Maybe its physical composition. Maybe its colour. But really, we perhaps shoulnt assume that Relativity could be detected in the usual materialistic manner.

Random Scientist: Really? I always thought...

Einstien: Heh, really. The philosophy of science is not set in stone, no matter what some close-minded materialist may claim. Sure, I have a pet theory about what Relativity could be - its a vague idea about space and time being a single continuum that can be bent by matter, or something like that. But to be honest, its a little far fetched, and Im not sure Id want to risk my reputation on such a wild claim! Id certainly not try and construct predictions that could be falsified over it!

Look, all that really matters is that we KNOW something must account for the Mercury discrepancy. We know Newtonian gravity is flawed. And just as electrical current is opposed by resistance, gravity is - likewise - opposed by Relativity! it doesnt matter what the exact nature of Relativity is. It could be to do with Mercurys physical composition I suppose. Maybe we should send out a probe or two and see if we can find something unusual. If we can find something odd in its makeup, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that the high relativity level of Mercury is down to those unique elements. But - again - if no outstanding difference is found, then it doesnt matter. Remember, I havent actually defined exactly what relativity is!. Some might say I should really have to for it to be true science, but what do they know?!

Random SCientist: Right. So what your saying is wherever I see a discepancy between Newtonian gravitation and reality, it is down to this thing called Relativity. Some kind of property that opposes gravity. I could attempt to look for it, but I might not nessesarily find it. But that doesnt matter, because we know there is a gap in our current understanding of gravity. And besides, we have the real world example of resistance opposing electrical current that is a sound analogy. Have I got it about right?

Einstein: Yeap, thats about it. Brilliant isnt it! To be honest, I find this concept of Relativity really awe-inspring. Its this nice, mysterious thing that cannot nessesarily be quantifed. It could be curved space-time. It could be the physical properties of planets. It could have been deliberatly been set-up by God for a laugh. Or it could be space pixies!

Random Scientist: Heh.

Einstein: Yeah, that space pixies bit was funny huh?

Random Scientist: Oh right. I was laughing at the God part...

[Mighty Curelom]

For one, ID is falsifiable if one can prove that a flagellum is not irreducible.

But that's not quite true, is it? The flagellum isn't the first "irreducibly complex" system IDists have proposed. Before the flagellum, the irreducibly complex system du jour was the eye. It's since become passe to use the eye as an example of irreducible complexity because it's been pointed out by exasperated scientists how the eye could have evolved gradually--that, in fact, there are several examples of living organisms with "half an eye." So what makes you think that if or when an evolutionary pathway for the flagellum is proposed, ID theorists and proponents such as yourself are going to admit defeat?

[Mordecai]

But that's not quite true, is it? The flagellum isn't the first "irreducibly complex" system IDists have proposed. Before the flagellum, the irreducibly complex system du jour was the eye. It's since become passe to use the eye as an example of irreducible complexity because it's been pointed out by exasperated scientists how the eye could have evolved gradually--that, in fact, there are several examples of living organisms with "half an eye." So what makes you think that if or when an evolutionary pathway for the flagellum is proposed, ID theorists and proponents such as yourself are going to admit defeat?

Actually, there is no evidence that the eye is not irreducibly complex. The proteins in the eye, the molecular machines that produce them, the nerve cells and the genetic code are all vastly more complex than Darwin imagined. We're not advanced enough to prove the eye is reducible or irreducible. The form, at least, does appear to have parts that can be broken down to simpler parts and the fossil record reflects this. But then again, now that science has come along more, it's not even CLOSE to as simple as previously thought. The flagellum, on the other hand, is tiny enough and is broken down in such apparently straightforward terms that it is simple enough for people to be able to debate it. Not only that, eyes in five (I think) different phyla developed parallel to each other, and have been proven to have the EXACT same gene sequences controlling them!! The chances of that happening randomly? Anyone's guess. You should read The Hidden Face of God or Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, where the eye is discussed in enough to detail to illustrate my point.

[Weezer]

You're begging the question (unlike me... we can't possibly detect consciousness, for example, yet we see the results of it empirically). You're assuming that God can't be detected indirectly.

What question am I begging? I never said that God can't be detected indirectly, although I'm not aware of any successful scientific attempt to do so.

If you see consciousness as immaterial, then "materialist" scientists must be claiming that consciousness can't be studied. Can you name a scientist who claims this?

Also, materialism is a strawman? You must be joking. Some of these scientists continually attack ID, calling it creationism and insisting that it violates the "fundamental principle of science," which is materialism i.e. that there is no God that science can study. What else would you call that type of attack?

The problem is equivocation on the concept of materialism. You and Sherlock are talking about phenomena that have empirically detectable effects, and you apply the label "immaterial" to them. Some people would say that such phenomena are material by definition. The question is: What scientist says that such phenomena cannot be studied? Can you or Sherlock name a single one? If not, then you're fighting a strawman.

[Mordecai]

How Einstein might have proposed Relativity, with the mindset of an IDer:

Einstein: Weve all known that Newtons ideas on Gravity are fundementally flawed for some time now. We have the Mercury discrepency staring us in the face! But no fear, I now have the answer. The missing piece of the puzzle that explains the deficiencies in current understanding.

Random Scientist: Ohh! Sounds great. What is this new theory?

I guess we have to throw out the Big Bang theory, because it also observes one phenomenon and concludes that the same could've occured in space prior to human existence. That's too bad.... So you've defeated intelligent design and the Big Bang theory. Good job.

Seriously, the best scientific minds prior to Darwin and many after him were convinced by the watch analogy. If you find a watch, do you immediately assume it was produced naturally? No, it's too complex and eac part works together. The only argument Darwin had was the idea that life could have developed in increments due to "descent with modification." Without this, the only logical alternative is intelligent design. As Richard Dawkins says, Darwinism allows a person to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist. He's absolutely right. If Darwinism doesn't work, as is the case with irreducible complexity or specified complexity on the genetic level, as these can't develop incrementally, then ID is the default explanation. Darwin himself said that if anyone can find an organ that can't be produced incrementally, his theory collapses. I'm pretty sure he's an authority on the matter, as is Dawkins. He also couldn't have been subject to group think the way modern theorists can be. So, what theory do you have once Darwinism collapses? What's wrong? Can't think of one? That's too bad. I guess you'll never be intellectually fulfilled.

[Weezer]

The arguments that address the science and math are not nearly sufficient to defeat the whole cause. It's only enough to defeat individual work. The work as a whole moves on

Sherlock says the following in his paper:

Now we come to the heart of the matter. What exactly does intelligent

design claim? In my view there are three interconnected claims

advanced by proponents of intelligent design as an alternative to the

complete sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian synthesis.

These three claims are: 1) Insufficiency of material causes, 2) Behe's claim of irreducible complexity, 3) Dembski's claim of specified complexity.

The first claim is philosophical, since the material/immaterial dichotomy is one of metaphysics. If we debunk Behe and Dembski, what's left of ID's claim to science? This is not a rhetorical question.

[Mordecai]

What question am I begging? I never said that God can't be detected indirectly, although I'm not aware of any successful scientific attempt to do so.

Yeah, but you argued that scientists will study anything that has effects in the context of a debate about ID. You also believe that mainstream science is correct in refusing to study ID. Thus, you're assuming that mainstream science has correctly assumed that God can't be detected through the study of ID. You live in a fantasy world, if you disbelieve in the scientific community's insistence that God be excluded prior to ever testing the hypothesis, you live in a fantasy world.

If you see consciousness as immaterial, then "materialist" scientists must be claiming that consciousness can't be studied. Can you name a scientist who claims this?

The problem is equivocation on the concept of materialism. You and Sherlock are talking about phenomena that have empirically detectable effects, and you apply the label "immaterial" to them. Some people would say that such phenomena are material by definition. The question is: What scientist says that such phenomena cannot be studied? Can you or Sherlock name a single one? If not, then you're fighting a strawman.

It's a fact that consciousness and human will is not directly detectable. Can scientists build consciousness? If so, where would it be located in the AI they built? Is there a consciousness node or something? How about the computers choices? Where do they find the origin of the computer's choices? Also, scientists accept that the effects of meditation can be measured. They do not believe consciousness/human will can be studied directly and some of the greatest minds believe that consciousness is as different from matter, energy and information that it is in its own category. Philosophers have long debated over what it is, so we're not going to settle it here. Also, as I've said, Peter Ward insists that we assume God doesn't exist. Tarski's whole thread was intended to illustrate what a great philosophy that is. That's materialism. The Dude thinks it's good, too. So, do you think they're right to exclude any possibility of ID in biology? That's based PURELY on philosophy. If you think materialism is the wrong name, then we can just call it secularism. But Sherlock knows philosophy better than you or I do, so I'm going to go with his word on the definition of the term over yours.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I guess we have to throw out the Big Bang theory, because it also observes one phenomenon and concludes that the same could\'ve occured in space prior to human existence. That\'s too bad....

You are confusing the theory and the observations that verify the theory.

The theory may well use the kind of explosions they we know of as some kind of vague reference. But I dont know of many scientists that actually think the parallels stretch that far.

The obvservations that actually verify the Big Bang are:

* Every single time we check the red shift of a celestial object

* The gamma radiation predicated and found.

This tells us that all matter originated from a single point. We then make use of other known theories and laws to try and describe what those initial conditions were.

What the theory doesnt do is look at a really big explosion and say Now just imagine that, but MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger!

The words Big Bang are just a title. The concept of sound woudnt have had much relavence at the time...

Seriously, the best scientific minds prior to Darwin and many after him were convinced by the watch analogy. If you find a watch, do you immediately assume it was produced naturally?

Is a watch a self-replicating entity?

...hmm - then why would I confuse a watch with creatures that show evidence of evolution?

..same goes for Sherlocks Voyager example.

[Mordecai]

Sherlock says the following in his paper:

These three claims are: 1) Insufficiency of material causes, 2) Behe's claim of irreducible complexity, 3) Dembski's claim of specified complexity.

The first claim is philosophical, since the material/immaterial dichotomy is one of metaphysics. If we debunk Behe and Dembski, what's left of ID's claim to science? This is not a rhetorical question.

So you're admitting that it's science? Wahoo! You're right that it is theoretically possible to debunk it. Your posts about Dembski didn't even come close to debunking it. It just debunked some aspects of what Dembski says. Big deal. When a Darwinist makes a few mistakes, does that mean the whole theory is in jeopardy?

[Mordecai]

You are confusing the theory and the observations that verify the theory.

The theory may well use the kind of explosions they we know of as some kind of vague reference. But I dont know of many scientists that actually think the parallels stretch that far.

The obvservations that actually verify the Big Bang are:

* Every single time we check the red shift of a celestial object

* The gamma radiation predicated and found.

This tells us that all matter originated from a single point. We then make use of other known theories and laws to try and describe what those initial conditions were.

What the theory doesnt do is look at a really big explosion and say Now just imagine that, but MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger!

The words Big Bang are just a title. The concept of sound woudnt have had much relavence at the time...

But the Big Bang is still only theorized based on observation of known phenomenon. What's the difference?

Is a watch a self-replicating entity?

...hmm - then why would I confuse a watch with creatures that show evidence of evolution?

..same goes for Sherlocks Voyager example.

The only reason self-replication is relevant is that it makes Darwinian processes feasible. But once they are no longer feasible, the watch argument immediately rears it's face. What the heck difference does self-replication make in itself? None.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

But the Big Bang is still only theorized based on observation of known phenomenon. Whats the difference?

If everything is moving away from each-other (which the evidence for the Big Bang shows), then in the past, everything was moving towards each-other. Unless you have any theory or any evidence that suggests that situation has changed in some way sometime in the past, then it is logical deduction that all matter started off at one point.

Thats it. Done. Its simple logical deduction.

Your trying to make something very simple very complicated here. Without rhyme nor reason.

The only reason self-replication is relevant is that it makes Darwinian processes feasible.

Errr no -not quite. It provides the basis for a sound scientific theory to attempt to explain the apparent complexity in that organism before you. Saying - Meh, I donno. Someone must have made it - doesnt count for emperical investigation. Its called giving up.

With the case of the watch, if you were to inspect the emperical evidence around you properly, it would be plainly obvious it was created by an intelligent entity. You could go find other watches like it being designed and produced, gaze in awe as the watchmakers (you know, ones that you can see, touch and emperically inspect) take the raw ingredients, build them, shape them and assemble them into the watch. Right before your eyes.

Why you think the two situations are comparable in scientific terms is beyond me.

Oh - and btw, on page 3 you said:

What is this? Testimony meeting for atheists?

if you check, you will see that there are several thiests also agreeing that ID isnt science in this thread. Stating ID isnt science isnt the same as saying that God doesnt exist. Im not sure how you could not know this, but hey - your the one who has described this as a testimony meeting for athiests. I guess its up to you to justify the coment...

[Weezer]

You nitpick at very boring and irrelevant things. For example, the three definitions of irreducible complexity. Who gives a crap?

Apparently not you.

Each one is designed for a different audience, not even written by the same person. They don't contradict each other, do they?

Of course they do, in the sense that something could be IC under one definition but not another.

You just stray off course on things that don't mean crap and act like you have a good point.

Behe's original definition of IC includes structures that arise via indirect evolutionary paths, so under this definition the claim that IC structures can't evolve is wrong. Behe's latest definition excludes anything that was not arrived at through natural selection, by definition, so under this definition the claim that IC structures can't evolve is tautological. How is this not relevant to a discussion of IC?

You claim Dembski completely rejects Bayesian methods of identifying design. However, that's not true at all.

Yes it is. This is Dembski 101, and it's quite clear in the references I provided. Please explain this: If, as Dembski claims, design hypotheses don't confer probabilities, then how do we calculate the likelihood of a design hypothesis (which we would have to do in a Bayesian analysis)?

I knew you would follow your typical pattern of strawmanning him. That's why I was sick of debating with you, Strawman McGee (as I like to call you).

If you can't answer the question above, then this is not a strawman, and I would appreciate you retracting the accusation.

You further nitpick about Dembski's math being wrong and about old laundry.

If you think the incident is irrelevant (which I would agree with), then you shouldn't have brought it up. My latest remarks on the incident were to defend myself against your accusation of waffling. If you want me to stop correcting you, all you have to do is stop making false claims.

From my recent reading, they concede that all orderly things in the universe are, in a way, intelligently designed. But they don't really deal with that, as it is not RELEVANT.

Who are "they"?

I'll justify the relevance of the two questions I asked about this issue:

1) If all matter in the universe has been intelligently organized indirectly, is it any less designed than if it was organized directly?

Here's why this is relevant: If the answer is no, then a planet's orbit is just as designed as a bacterial flagellum. This makes design inferences trivial. We can see design in rocks or anything else that exhibits any order.

If the answer is yes, then the next question naturally follows:

2) How does Dembski's method distinguish between "intelligently designed" and "intelligently designed in a WAY"?

Here's why this is relevant: If Dembski's method can't distinguish between trivial design, in the sense that something is orderly, and "relevant" design, then how do we determine that something is designed in the relevant sense?

[Weezer]

Yeah, but you argued that scientists will study anything that has effects in the context of a debate about ID.

Correct.

You also believe that mainstream science is correct in refusing to study ID.

No, I believe that mainstream science is correct in rejecting the arguments that are currently put forth by the ID movement. If the ID movement comes up with something that actually holds water, I don't see any reason why mainstream science wouldn't accept it.

Thus, you're assuming that mainstream science has correctly assumed that God can't be detected through the study of ID.

No, I'm saying that mainstream science correctly finds that the ID movement has thus far failed to scientifically detect God.

Sherlock's claim is that IDers have pointed out empirically detectable footprints of God, and that scientists refuse to study them because God is immaterial. I disagree. I think that scientists simply find the IDers' arguments to be fatally flawed.

Also, as I've said, Peter Ward insists that we assume God doesn't exist.

According to Ward, should we assume this for practical reasons or for philosophical reasons? I would guess that he sees the God hypothesis as having a bad track record. The question we would need to ask him is: If convincing evidence of God had been found in the past, would it still be smart to assume that he doesn't exist? In other words, is his assumption based on God's immateriality or on lack of prior evidence?

Tarski's whole thread was intended to illustrate what a great philosophy that is. That's materialism. The Dude thinks it's good, too. So, do you think they're right to exclude any possibility of ID in biology? That's based PURELY on philosophy.

Well, let's ask Tarski and Dude. Tarski and Dude, do you, on philosophical grounds, exclude any possibility of intelligent design in biology? Or do you simply think that there is no legitimate evidence for ID and much legitimate evidence for evolutionary theory?

If you think materialism is the wrong name, then we can just call it secularism. But Sherlock knows philosophy better than you or I do, so I'm going to go with his word on the definition of the term over yours.

I'm glad you recognize that this is philosophy.

[Weezer]

So you're admitting that it's science? Wahoo!

No, I'm admitting that it claims to be science.

You're right that it is theoretically possible to debunk it. Your posts about Dembski didn't even come close to debunking it. It just debunked some aspects of what Dembski says. Big deal.

How about if you tell me which aspects I debunked, and we'll figure out whether they're crucial or not.

[Irondukesteve]

IT IS NOT!!!!

Ken Miller from Brown University has a fantastic page on this...he has some very educational youtube videos too!

Ken Miller's Evolutionary vs. Intelligent Design Page

His book is really good at showing the importance of Evolution in science and its validity as a scientific theory to the point where one has to accept it as fact due to the abundance of scientific evidence.

[Mordecai]

If everything is moving away from each-other (which the evidence for the Big Bang shows), then in the past, everything was moving towards each-other. Unless you have any theory or any evidence that suggests that situation has changed in some way sometime in the past, then it is logical deduction that all matter started off at one point.

Thats it. Done. Its simple logical deduction.

You didn't answer my question. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. It's simple logic for ID, too. ONE thing has been observed that produces functional information and that is intelligence. OBVIOUSLY, this is quite logical as well. As far as methodology, it's the same TYPE. It's not at the same level, but it's still the same type of scientific methodology. Dawkins himself says it is a SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT. He just disagrees with it.

Errr no -not quite. It provides the basis for a sound scientific theory to attempt to explain the apparent complexity in that organism before you. Saying - Meh, I donno. Someone must have made it - doesnt count for emperical investigation. Its called giving up.

Self-replication provides the basis for sound scientific theory? In what universe? Please explain the theory of how self-replication produces irreducible complexity. Self-replication can't produce ANY COMPLEXITY AT ALL, if it is ONLY self-replication. But to you, self-replication in itself helps explain both complexity AND irreducible complexity. If all there was was self-replication, you'd get exactly the same thing over and over. If you had self-replication and selective pressures, you'd get EXACTLY THE SAME THING no matter how long this went on. If you had self-replication, selective pressures and mutations that did not add functional complexity, you would get change over time but nothing that would explain the Cambrian Information Explosion. If there were one possible mutation per creature that would result in increases in functional complexity at each of the 500 necessary incrimental mutations needed to produce a new species (and there is no evidence that there is and no observations to suggest that there is), your chances of getting the amount of increases in complexity that we see in the fossil record is about the same as flipping a coin and getting heads 3000 times in a row. That is impossible. At the same time, that is ASSUMING that random forces even CAN produce increases in complexity. There is no reason to believe it can, based on observation. Darwinism is based on inference only. But the longer we observe without a single increase in functional complexity, the less reason we have for believing that Darwinism can produce even a SINGLE increase in information.

With the case of the watch, if you were to inspect the emperical evidence around you properly, it would be plainly obvious it was created by an intelligent entity. You could go find other watches like it being designed and produced, gaze in awe as the watchmakers (you know, ones that you can see, touch and emperically inspect) take the raw ingredients, build them, shape them and assemble them into the watch. Right before your eyes.

Why you think the two situations are comparable in scientific terms is beyond me.

It's called an analogy and, as I said, the world's greatest minds thought it was a good argument. We really CAN'T explain irreducible complexity with Darwinism. PERIOD.

if you check, you will see that there are several thiests also agreeing that ID isnt science in this thread. Stating ID isnt science isnt the same as saying that God doesnt exist. Im not sure how you could not know this, but hey - your the one who has described this as a testimony meeting for athiests. I guess its up to you to justify the coment...

But that is based on their opinion. What do I care what people think? I care WHY they think it and whether or not it is reasoned out well. So far, I have seen no reason to disagree with Richard Dawkins and all the other scientists using SCIENCE to disprove ID's claims. Why would scientists stop doing science to disprove ID? They're SCIENTISTS. They're OBVIOUSLY DOING SCIENCE in an attempt to disprove ID. ID proponents also do math and reference many, many experiments and pieces of evidence to suppor their case. All of this is scientific.

[Mordecai]

No, I'm admitting that it claims to be science.

You said that it is refutable, which is one of the major complaints people have. You almost admitted it was science or are at least on your way. Kudos.

How about if you tell me which aspects I debunked, and we'll figure out whether they're crucial or not.

You apparently debunked that NFL applies to evolution as a whole by citing the originator of NFL. You also illustrated that Dembksi did some math wrong at one point, that really made no difference. That's it.

[Mordecai]

IT IS NOT!!!!

Ken Miller from Brown University has a fantastic page on this...he has some very educational youtube videos too!

Convenient that he has no one to respond to his criticisms. OF COURSE they look great. ANYONE with a PhD looks great, until someone who knows what they're talking about debates with them. My link had Ward and Meyer DEBATING. Meyer wins. If Ken Miller is so fabulous, let him debate with Meyer, Behe or Berlinski.

His book is really good at showing the importance of Evolution in science and its validity as a scientific theory to the point where one has to accept it as fact due to the abundance of scientific evidence.

ID accepts evolution as a fact. However, aspects of Darwinism are not only not proven, there are very strong reasons to disbelieve them. Thus, in order to explain aspects of evolution, scientists should begin thinking outside the box. ID theorists are doing this. The rest of the scientific community not dealing with ID is stagnant on those issues. (And kudos to those attempting to disprove it. At least they're engaging the problem!)

[Mordecai]

Apparently not you.

Of course not me. I understand it better than you, so I know there is no problem here.

Of course they do, in the sense that something could be IC under one definition but not another.

Behe's original definition of IC includes structures that arise via indirect evolutionary paths, so under this definition the claim that IC structures can't evolve is wrong. Behe's latest definition excludes anything that was not arrived at through natural selection, by definition, so under this definition the claim that IC structures can't evolve is tautological. How is this not relevant to a discussion of IC?

It's not relevant, because AS I ALREADY EXPLAINED, they're meant for different audiences. Also, Behe's original definition is not nearly as vulnerable as you think it is to the indirect-evolutionary-path argument. I've explained this multipled times with no response. There has never been a response as far as I know to the fact that an evolutionary path would require each step in the placement of each part within the larger framework of the machine to be useful. IDers refer to this as assembly instructions; since it's irreducibly complex, even if each part had evolved for an ulterior purpose than the one of the end resulting irreducibly complex machine, one would still be left with explaining how each part got where it should be and how it fits so precisely in with the whole, making the entire machine work.

Yes it is. This is Dembski 101, and it's quite clear in the references I provided. Please explain this: If, as Dembski claims, design hypotheses don't confer probabilities, then how do we calculate the likelihood of a design hypothesis (which we would have to do in a Bayesian analysis)?

Your references are quite clear? Clear as mud. My area of study in college was English. I have been reading at college level since I was ELEVEN. If it was clear, I would've seen it. What IS clear, is that you're reading into Dembski's point. You simply don't understand what he's getting at. He doesn't reject Bayesian analysis. PERIOD. He just finds it problematic under many circumstances and points out that it often is dependent on Fisher's methods.

If you think the incident is irrelevant (which I would agree with), then you shouldn't have brought it up. My latest remarks on the incident were to defend myself against your accusation of waffling. If you want me to stop correcting you, all you have to do is stop making false claims.

What I'm tired of is correcting you correcting me. That's why I didn't respond to that post before. It's in a circle. You make a flawed argument. I explain how it is flawed. You then find flaws THAT AREN'T THERE in my explanations (with a few exceptions).

Who are "they"?

The main proponents of ID, like Behe. Who else would they be?

1) If all matter in the universe has been intelligently organized indirectly, is it any less designed than if it was organized directly?

Are you still trying to bore me to death? WHO CARES? Ask someone else that question who thinks it actually will lead to something relevant and enlightening. It is meaningless to me. I am simply going to assume based on your previous arguments that the reason you think it is relevant is because you don't understand ID well. I have no reason to believe you do understand it. "Three different definitions"... that alone shows you don't have a good grasp on reality and are just nitpicking. IRRELEVANT. I don't want to bother explaining such a self-evident and simple thing as this. In fact, I already explained it, but you continue to insist that the reason my explanation was no good is because Dembski supposedly outright rejects Bayesian analysis. That's simply not true.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

You didnt answer my question. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

The difference is that the Big Bang theory:

* Proposes no mysterious, unnamed, unspecified entities to fill the gaps in its own theory. Its based on doppler shift and gravity. Thats it.

* Stuck its neck out and made predictions that could have been falsified

* Wasnt just anti-another scientific theory.

ID fails on all above counts.

Ive already made the above points several times. Your just not listening and choosing to ignore the clear differences.

...just as you would ignore me if I proposed materialistic evidence of the detection of consiousness.

ONE thing has been observed that produces functional information and that is intelligence.

And you think this gives us reason to abandon the scientific method when it comes to ID? The big bang theory could no more survive on the fact that weve seen some quite big explosions first-hand than ID can survive on the fact that humans have built some nifty gadgets.

Science is not built on analogy and simularity. It may help when constructing the original theory, but thats it. After that, its a crutch to be used by those who dont get how science really works.

Dawkins himself says it is a SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT. He just disagrees with it.

CFR please. Im looking for a quote from Dawkins where he states that he considers the current incantation of ID to be legitamte science.

..and please be sure to provide it in context. Thanks.

Self-replication provides the basis for sound scientific theory? In what universe?

Youve taken that wrong, although Im sure I could have worded myself better there.

My point wasnt that self-replication in and of itself means you dismiss the possibility of design. What I mean is, it gives you a clue - a lead - a naturalistic avenue to investigate and see where it leads.

Once you know that each individial organism doesnt get built in any factory, or production facility, but from within the body of another similar organism, then you know that you are dealing with something quite different to a watch, which DOES NOT self-replicate (I should specify does not self-replicate perfectly, so you cant use it as an exuse to miss the point again).

If all there was was self-replication, youd get exactly the same thing over and over. If you had self-replication and selective pressures, youd get EXACTLY THE SAME THING no matter how long this went on.

Yes yes - I know. I wasnt trying to summarise the entire ToE in one sentance. I was making the point that inspecting the watch and the biological creature would point out clear and distinct differences in the construction of the two, and therefore I would have plenty of reason to assume not only that they might not have been constructed in similar ways, but that their apparent complexity might have different sources of origin.

The real falicy of the watchmaker argument is that it assumes that we only consider the single watch and nothing else when making our desision. No serious scientist would do such a thing! They would consider ALL the avaliable evidence around them before reaching any kind of sensible conclusion. And, they would be willing to alter that conclusion once new evidence was avaliable.

...its not a case of: Right - heres a watch. Now, dont look at anything else. Look at the watch! Got it? Now - designed, or not designed? You have 30 seconds starting ... NOW!

I mean geez - science isnt a damn gameshow!

If there were one possible mutation per creature that would result in increases in functional complexity at each of the 500 necessary incrimental mutations needed to produce a new species (and there is no evidence that there is and no observations to suggest that there is), your chances of getting the amount of increases in complexity that we see in the fossil record is about the same as flipping a coin and getting heads 3000 times in a row. That is impossible. At the same time, that is ASSUMING that random forces even CAN produce increases in complexity. There is no reason to believe it can, based on observation. Darwinism is based on inference only. But the longer we observe without a single increase in functional complexity, the less reason we have for believing that Darwinism can produce even a SINGLE increase in information.

All the above continues to prove my point. ID isnt a theory of its own - its only anti-Evolution.

When you quoted Darwin saying (paraphrasing) If an organ was found that could not be produced in incremental steps, then evolution would be in trouble - you proved my point. Evolution - no matter what evidence you think you have against it - was constructed as a sound, solid scientific theory. Behe didnt dream up the concept of irreducable complexity from scratch! The basis of it can be found in Darwins own words! He gave you the method with which to falsify his own theory!

Now what does ID have in return, apart from evolution bashing? Where are its own predictions and potential falsifications? (Like the Big Bangs doppler shifts and gamma radiation, like General Relativitys time relation and light bending, and like evolutions irreducable complexity and all the potential fossil records falsifications that could be found tomorrow...?)

It has Jack. Squat. Except anti-evolution retoric, and a bunch of analogies. Some about watches.

Irreducable complexity is NOT part of some non-existent ID theory. It is part of the ToE! Specifically, a possible method of falsification of the ToE. Even if you could find something that everyone agreed was irreducably complex, it would certainly be a massive blow to evolution. But it wouldnt - scientifically have moved us ANY closer to knowing whether the concept of ID has any scientific merit. To do that, ID would need more than evolution-bashing in its toolbelt.

Its called an analogy and, as I said, the worlds greatest minds thought it was a good argument.

Ohh - if all you wanted was an opinion on it as an argument or an analogy, you should have said! Yes, its an interesting argument, and it makes you think.

...but analogies and singular arguments do not scientific theories make. Do you not know this?

Oh -and you can stop with the constant appeals to authority anytime you like. If all these great minds said was that its a good argument, then why do you think this helps your case? We are discussing ID as a scientific theory, not just as an argument, or as an idea. I still dont think you even realise that there is any difference!

But that is based on their opinion. What do I care what people think...

Well, the point was you called this an athiest testimony meeting. Your reply didnt cover this point. Instead, you continued to assert that this is all scientific. I guess you didnt want to address the actual point there - so well move on.

Id just be a bit more careful with the world-view stereotyping in future...

The rest of the scientific community not dealing with ID is stagnant on those issues. (And kudos to those attempting to disprove it. At least theyre engaging the problem!)

Err - no. These people who you beleive are attempting to disprove ID are doing no such thing. They are defending evolution. There is no scientific ID theory to actually attack.

Someone COULD come along and propose an ID-ish like theory that actually follows the established scientific method. I actually think it would be a great day for science. But no-ones been smart enough, or perhaps brave enough, to provide one yet. Everybody that could attempt this appear to be too busy trying to rip evolution apart, and saying that science should stop being science.

But hey - maybe some day...

Oh - and no-ones remaining stagnant on any issues. Plenty of analysis is provided, but your ignoring it.

[The Dude]

Your references are quite clear? Clear as mud. My area of study in college was English. I have been reading at college level since I was ELEVEN. If it was clear, I would've seen it....

I'm not a bit surprised... that you studied English in college and not biology.

Are you still trying to bore me to death? WHO CARES? Ask someone else that question who thinks it actually will lead to something relevant and enlightening.

LOL. You sound like a biologist responding to an ID proponent. You sound like me responding to YOU.

You have been in the habit of making dogmatic assertions about ID and Darwinism ever since you first appeared on this board. I wish I had time to chase you around and watch you move the goal posts to the ends of the earth, but I just don't have that kind of time. I apologize to anyone who has been taken in by your ill-informed claims.

ID is not science.

Intelligent Design is not science because it does not lead to new understanding, but instead it relies on gaps in our understanding. As it has been with this brand of creationism ever since William Paley, when a gap is explained, usually in terms of Darwinian evolution, the creationist just picks a different gap in scientific understanding and proclaims "oh yeah, well Darwinism will never explain this!" If the cornea, iris, retina, and other structures in a vertebrate eye aren't irreducibly complex because non-vertebrates display simpler eyes that still provide a function, then it becomes the cells themselves that are irreducibly complex, or even the protein structures within the cells that become the favorite examples. An idea must close gaps and produce new understanding to qualify as science, but ID only needs the gaps themselves.

Intelligent Design is not science because it does not predict anything. When faced with the undeniable fact that all life on earth shares an evolutionary relationship, the concept of ID does not make any prediction about what sort of relationship we should see. Were human beings the first life form on earth, with all the rest being degenerate forms that developed afterwards? Or did life start with the simple and grow over time into very complex forms such as humans? Or did all life somehow poof into existence at the same time, in one gigantic "precambian" bang of creation, with the appearance of evolutionary relationships being "just an illusion"? Call the three predictions "degeneracy over time" "complexity over time" and "poof in no-time." ID is consistent with any of them because it cannot conceptualize a prediction about what kind of evolutionary relationship we should see in the fossil record. Darwinism is only consistent with the second one, "complexity over time" -- and that is the pattern we see in the fossil record. (You are probably thinking the cambrian explosion challenges this, but as interesting as that case is, the overall pattern of the fossil record is one of increasing complexity over time.)

Intelligent Design is not science because it is not falsifiable. This is a consequence of the fact that it makes no predictions. It is consistent with anything, as long as there are gaps in our knowledge.

Intelligent Design is not science because it has no mechanism and has no concept for experimentation or systematic data-gathering. Since ID claims that certain structures could only come about by the simultaneous "appearance" of multiple key subunits, it is natural for the biologist to ask, "how then did the intelligent designer accomplish this?" ID proponents have no answer, and quickly reveal their concept to be a dead end for any scientist foolish enough to buy into their claims. There is no laboratory experiment or field observation that a scientist could do to understand how ID works. I think this is why you were so annoyed with Mighty Curelom's point about ID being nothing more than "poof, there it is." But he was right on the money, and the contrast with Darwinism (*an actual science*) could not be greater.

In another recent ID thread, you said something I didn't have a chance to follow up on:

But no mutation has been observed in recorded history that represents increases in functional information. The form may become more complex, but the genome retains the same level of complexity. If the genetic code already contained the information for the more complex form, there was no increase in information. There was only a new expression of the information already found in the species.

I recently attended a seminar by Marianne Bronner-Fraser from Caltech, focusing on the molecular evolution of the genetic program that controls the neural crest cells which construct the facial skeleton of vertebrates (mainly zebrafish and lamprey). For comparison, she uses a marine invertebrate called amphioxus, which has related fossils in the Burgess Shale predating the appearance of vertebrates.

As it turns out, the genes in zebrafish and lamprey that control the embryonic development of facial skeleton -- giving one a jaw and leaving the other without a jaw -- are also found in amphioxus. The genes are simply deployed in a different way in each animal, presumably because of mutations in their control regions (research on that is well underway with the sequencing of lamprey and amphioxus genomes -- we already have one for zebrafish). So there is a great deal of truth to what you said in the above quote. Specifically, there is new expression of old information, and that leads to the functional difference and increasing complexity in form between amphioxus (invertebrate, no neural crest, no jaw), lamprey (vertebrate, neural crest, no jaw), and zebrafish (vertebrate, neural rest, jaw).

However, you said, "But no mutation has been observed in recorded history that represents increases in functional information. " In the example above, would you say that the mutations underlying the "new deployment of old information" are not an increase in functional information? If mutations that do not even lead to a more genetic complexity (that's your claim -- I do not accept it as a defined biological concept, BTW) are capable of bringing about such great differences in structure, where does that leave the argument that Darwinian evolution is untenable? It actually makes Darwinism extremely plausible.

Here you are again: "If the genetic code already contained the information for the more complex form, there was no increase in information. " So the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates may not have involved an increase in information, is that what you are saying?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Intelligent Design is not science because it is not falsifiable. This is a consequence of the fact that it makes no predictions. It is consistent with anything, as long as there are gaps in our knowledge.

Perfectly said. I dont know how anybody can look at that sentance and not understand the problem.

I wish I had time to chase you around and watch you move the goal posts to the ends of the earth, but I just dont have that kind of time. I apologize to anyone who has been taken in by your ill-informed claims.

Mordecai seems to be pretty much on his own on this issue in these parts - amongst athiests AND thiests. And the thiests realise full well that it isnt God-bashing.

I think there is hope. Most people - at least around here - seem to get it.

[T-Bone]

For instance, he says that the criticisms of ID fall into three categories:

1) ID is repackaged creationism

2) It isn't accepted by the scientific community or by peer-reviewed forums.

3) ID is a science-stopper.

Bringing the discussion back to terms that interest me, courts have found that ID is repackaged creationism. The original manuscript of the most widely used ID text book, Of Pandas and People, talks about God as the designer. The only difference in the book that was given out to the kids was that creation was replaced with ID, and God was replaced with Designer.

If anybody wants to know more about whether or not ID is prepackaged creationism, see the Wedge Document. It's something the Discovery Institute wishes had never been found - at least that's my guess.

I know some would find it hard to think that a person who believes in science and creation would not want ID taught in schools. My big issue is that the way it has been handled is actually one of the biggest drawbacks. The people trying to get ID into schools have tried to smuggle it into schools through little schemes that look a lot like book laundering to me. And the people who want to put forward ID as a scientific theory are on the record, in the Wedge Document, as saying that their intent is to have teachers teach creation in public schools.

That goes back to the Establishment Clause - the government cannot endorse or inhibit a religion. Creation is a Christian teaching. Therefore, if the government funds the teaching of creation or ID in schools, it is favoring Christianity over other religions.

Why the interest in protecting the minority against the majority. Look at recent birth trends in the US. If predominantly Catholic Mexicans and South Americans continue to immigrate and have babies, they will become a majority over white Mormons. Suddenly, they can vote to have Catholicism taught in schools. Or an LDS family in the South might be forced to hear Southern Baptist teachings in schools. Or a kid in Dearborn, MI, might be forced to come pray at the Mosque. That's why we cannot let the will of the majority be enforced on the minority.

My opinion is that we need to teach religion at home, not in schools.

T-Bone

[Weezer]

You said that it is refutable, which is one of the major complaints people have. You almost admitted it was science or are at least on your way. Kudos.

Sherlock said that there are three claims advanced by IDers. I said that two can be debunked scientifically and logically, and that the other is metaphysical. Metaphysical claims cannot be addressed by science. For instance, I could claim that objects falling and planetary orbits are caused by an immaterial God rather than the material phenomenon of gravity, and you couldn't debunk me. But that is not a scientific claim.

You apparently debunked that NFL applies to evolution as a whole by citing the originator of NFL.

All I said on that subject is: "Co-evolution was only a minor concern for Wolpert. His main criticism was Dembski's "fatally informal and imprecise" attempt to invoke the NFL theorems in his logic. Showing that NFL applies to co-evolution does very little to rescue Dembski's argument."

How do you interpret that as debunking the claim "that NFL applies to evolution as a whole"?

You also illustrated that Dembksi did some math wrong at one point, that really made no difference. That's it.

Actually you were the one who pointed out Dembski's mistake.

I assume then, that you disagree with all of the other points in my "insanely long" posts.