Is Id Science?

[asbestosman]

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.

Why is your argument not a simple poisoning of the well? Who cares what the motives of scientists / IDers are? All I care about is whether or not it is legitmate science and thus deserves to be taught as science. Or rather, I care whether or not the argument is valid.

[Weezer]

My link had Ward and Meyer DEBATING. Meyer wins.

Usually these ID debates aren't judged. If the Ward/Meyer debate is an exception, then I'll have to check it out.

Another notable exception would be that little debate in Harrisburg, Penn., which involved both Miller and Behe, and was judged by someone who didn't have a dog in the race and was sworn to impartiality.

If Ken Miller is so fabulous, let him debate with Meyer, Behe or Berlinski.

Miller has debated Behe, Dembski, Phillip Johnson, and probably others I don't know about. Not that it matters. Ask a practicing scientist how much stock they put in oral debates over science.

The rest of the scientific community not dealing with ID is stagnant on those issues.

On what issues do you think the scientific community is stagnant, and how did you come to that conclusion?

[asbestosman]

Meyer versus Peter Ward. Darwinism versus Intelligent Design Debate:

http://www.tvw.org/MediaPlayer/Archived/WM...0103&TYPE=V

Your link doesn't work. I think this is the one you meant.

Am I the only one who double-checks all links in the preview before adding the reply?

P.S. They specifically said it wasn't a debate. It was a discussion.

[Mordecai]

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.

It doesn't? You mean they know what CAUSED it? And there is evidence that it was a "brane"? LOTS of scientists didn't like The Big Bang, because to them, it seemed supernatural.

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

ID makes similar predictions and people interprett evidence to mean intelligence was not involved or was involved. For example, critics have said, "If an intelligent being made all life, why are viruses and bacteria so harmful?" However, science has shown that many of the negative effects on creatures caused by viruses and bacteria are the result of natural Darwinism and not the first viruses/bacteria. In another case, Behe's flagellum argument was attacked, when they pointed out that a type-2 secretory system is useful in itself. Recently, scientific evidence has shown that the flagellum came first, which is consistent with ID theory.

* Wasnt just anti-another scientific theory

What's anti-scientific about it?

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.

I've responded several times. YOU are ignoring my responses. I've also pointed out that all of this was dealt with in the Meyer/Ward debate.

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

And you think this gives us reason to abandon the scientific method when it comes to ID?

We don't use the scientific method for claiming that Darwinism produced the diversity of species. It's become a religion. The evidence doesn't add up, and when someone else comes up with another theory that is at least feasible, people call them heretics.

Science is not built on analogy and simularity.

Not. It's based on observation, like when Newton say that gravity had something in common with the orbits of planets, leading him to the conclusion that they were the same force. That's how ID works. Again, there really is only ONE phenomenon that is know to produce functional information. That's intelligence.

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.

Meyer and Behe don't know how science works? Behe is a SCIENTIST. Meyer has been PUBLISHED in a scientific journal. YOU don't understand science, because you can't see that Darwnism as an explanation for the origin of species doesn't work. But you still insist that it's correct. That's the opposite of science. That's dogma.

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

He says it's a scientific argument that makes a false claim. However, he is acknowledging it's a scientific argument.

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.

It's not a clue to anything. It's part of Darwinism, and it doesn't add up.

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).

It's not that different than a watch, other than the genetic code and the level of complexity. Flagellar bacteria are MACHINES that happen to self replicate. Again, there is no evidence that DArwinism increses functional information.

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.

Different sources of origin doesn't mean that the sources are necessarily COMPLETELY dissimilar. If I see a dark rock getting hot in the sun, that might lead me to believe that a car painted with a dark color will also have a similar property. I'd be right, even though rocks and cars are quite different.

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.

They'd ALL the evidence? Even the fact that functional information doesn't come from random forces, so we're forced to doubt Darwinism? I don't think scientists are willing to consider THAT evidence.

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!

No one is saying that. ID is presented as a COMPETING theory. It's not a proposal to instill a totalitarian regime to murder all those who disagree with them.

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

It is not anti-evolution. It is anti-dogma, in fact. Darwinists pretend everything is great and no one can POSSIBLY question their dogma. ID theorists present their arguments and let the audience decide. It's like NBC, ABC and CBS combined versus Fox News.

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!

You're right. Darwin's own words have also proven that his theory is in jeopardy. Behe took that knowledge and found that Darwin's prediction about how to crumble his theory proved correct. In reality, Darwin himself predicted how to prove his theory wrong. That IS science. I never said Darwinism isn't a scientific claim. It is. I have respect for Darwinism. I just don't agree with it. That's where we differ. I'm not dogmatic and don't call people who disagree with me heretics.

Now what does ID have in return, apart from evolution bashing? Where are its own predictions and potential falsifications?

See the Meyer/Ward debate for a more in-depth answer than the ones I've supplied. Or, you can actually read some of their books.

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

Are ya' baring your testimony? EVERYTHING is analogy. Observing radiation and the movement of the stars and planets is analogous to the movement we've studied and understood in other places. What ISN'T analogous in science? Everything is based on observations and not understanding things IN THEMSELVES. An apple falling is analogous to the planets orbiting the sun. OBSERVATION. Hello.

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.

Actually, the beauty of it is, many Darwinists have already based their arguments against Behe on the premise that a flagellum is irreducibly complex. Nice for IDers, right? Now we have a response to those arguments.

But it wouldnt - scientifically have moved us ANY closer to knowing whether the concept of ID has any scientific merit.

Actually, of course it does. As Dawkins says, "Darwinism allows atheists to be intellectually fulfilled." He's an expert, of course. He also says, "Biology is the science that explains the natural origins of things that appear intelligently designed." That's true. They do appear to be intelligently designed. He's an expert.

To do that, ID would need more than evolution-bashing in its toolbelt.

It has statistical analysis, observation and analysis of biology and observation of human's intelligently designing. Math, evidence and observation. Sounds pretty scientific.

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,

Science is completely dependent on the PHILOSOPHY of science. Science, without logic, is not anything at all. It is ALWAYS dependant on argument and interpretation of evidence. When you say it's a good argument, and then you find that there really are things to observe, predictions made things that can be disproven, then you have science. It may not be science that you LIKE, but that's still science.

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

According to Behe, prior to ID's arrival, the Darwinists were silent on even ATTEMPTING to explain irreducibly complex things in biology. Now, they're trying very hard to. On another note, at Harvard, they are working very hard on coming up with evidence for the origin of life as a response to the ID movement. So ID has helped reduce stagnation among Darwinists. I guess we do need an opposition in all things. So now we more have evidence that the BoMormon is true.

[Mordecai]

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.

In large part, this whole thing was a joke. The Discovery Institute didn't write those books. Behe did, however, write a single chapter in Of Pandas and People. But that's different. You're right. It was creationism and they mixed in some science as well. And that hurt the reputation of the Discovery Institute. The court didn't find that ID was repackaged creationism. It found that Of Pandas and People, as a whole, was about religion and not about ID. ID has appeal for agnostics like Berlinski. Also, the judge in that trial jumped to several conclusions. If you read Sherlock's paper in the FARMS review, you will see what I'm talking about.

[Weezer]

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

I'm sure you do understand the issues surrounding IC better than me, since I'm not a biologist. Still, I would like to know which definition you're using. If, as you say, it doesn't matter, then I'll assume you're using Behe's latest. So when you say IC, you're referring to an evolutionary pathway that contains one or more unselected steps. Correct?

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 sorry that Dembski's writing doesn't meet your standards. If you tell me which part of them you don't understand, I'll explain it to you.

I'll try to make the Bayesian issue very simple:

1) Dembski claims that design hypotheses do not confer probabilities on events. Do you agree?

2) Given the above, we cannot calculate or estimate P(E|D) where D is a design hypothesis? Do you agree?

3) If we can't calculate or estimate P(E|D), then we can't do a Bayesian analysis. Do you agree?

If you there is any part of the above that you don't understand or disagree with, please let me know. I'll keep asking you this until you understand why your accusation of strawmanning is false.

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.

If you think I'm misreading him, then you should be able answer the question you previously avoided: 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)?

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

So, according to your reading, the main proponents of ID claim that everything that is ordered is designed in a way. Interesting.

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.

Since you refuse to answer the question, I'll have to assume an answer. I'll assume that your answer is: Since all matter in the universe has been intelligently organized in a way, all matter is as designed as anything else. If you object to this, then at least I'll have an answer to my question.

And if you object, my second question is relevant: He do we distinguish the trivial kind of design that's true for all matter from "real" design?

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.

The issue of all matter being intelligently organized (in a way) and Dembski's rejection of Bayesianism for design inferences are two separate subjects. Where did I conflate them?

[Mordecai]

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

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.

I made dogmatic assertions? Really? Like what? And if I moved the goal posts at all, that's because I've gotten more educated. It's not like I'm the representative for the Discovery Institute. I just relay some of their information. Sometimes, in the course of a debate, I get more insight and then move the goalpost to the more correct location. It's not an arbitrary movement of the goalpost ONLY to prove I'm right. It's a movement of the goalpost to PROPERLY present the arguments of IDers.

Intelligent Design is not science because it does not lead to new understanding, but instead it relies on gaps in our understanding.

You're assuming it is a gap in our understanding. The idea is that we know a lot about biology now and it appears Darwinism doesn't work. We also know some things about statistics, information (information theory is pretty new) and programming/engineering. We know that intelligent beings produce functional information and we also know that random forces appear to be unable to explain the massive amounts of increases in information in the fossil record. If the scientific analysis of the genetic code and irreducible complex mechanisms suggests intelligent design, based on our current understanding of intelligent design, then we at least know that biology does suggest ID according to our current understanding. Obviously, our understanding of how to identify what intelligent beings do and what nature appears unable to do may be flawed. But work for and against ID has yielded new results. For example, the discovery of the type 2 secratory system being a part off the flagellum and the subsequent discovery that the secretory system likely came AFTER the flagellum and represents a DECREASE in complexity. If intelligent designers created life, then the IDers analysis DOES increase our understanding, becaus their claims are correct. If they are wrong, then we at least know about what the evidence suggests, although the lense through which we are observing is distorted. Either way, it is and has been increasing understanding, promoted debate and spurred opponents to try to disprove it. It's increasing understanding and public interest.

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!"

It seems Darwnists do the same type of reasoning. As ID theorists point out that the flagellum is the same as a rotor and that it is irreducibly complex, which is consistent with the type of thing an intelligent designer would produce (and inconsistent with Darwinism), their response is often, "Well, we simply can't imagine how it evolved," implying if we could observe how evolution took place, then we'd all know that you're wrong! They assume ahead of time that Darwinism is responsible, regardless of apparently positive evidence. Just like the "god of the gaps" argument assumes "God did it," just because they can and despite evidence for things like common descent. How is irreducible complexity, which has the appearance of a rotor, something made by intelligent beings, not POSITIVE evidence? It's like we found a biological watch. As I've pointed out, Dawkins says biology is how we can explain how things that appear to be intelligently designed came about through natural causes. Yet, the natural cause explanation for the flagellum fails based on positive evidence of it being irreducibly complex. You can't just keep saying, "Well... uh... you can't possibly prove that for SURE, and THAT proves Darwinism is responsible," and expect IDers to say, "Yeah, that's true. You win, because we can't prove it absolutely."

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,

No one can prove that the eye could have evolved through Darwinism. The increases in complexity may or may not be possible through random processes, and just because individual parts of an eye are useful in themselves, is not evidence AGAINST intelligent design. What is POSITIVE evidence is irreducible complexity. The eye is too complexto prove it is reducible enough to have evolved randomly. The flagellum is simple enough that a debate can occur. The eye shouldn't even be in the discussion, as no one can prove it could have evolved and no one can prove it couldn't have. However, it is self-evident that a flagellum is irreducibly complex, as many anti-ID scientists have argued based on their belief that it is.

but ID only needs the gaps themselves

If Darwinsim isn't true, Darwinism needs gaps as well. Since the only thing IDers necessarily believe in is that intelligence provided the means for increases in information and irreducible complexity, and since in all the Dariwinian science, naturalistic causes fail to be feasible explanations, why not have a competing theory? The positive evidence is, at the simplest level, that it appears intelligently designed. At a deeper level, there is irreducible complexity or specified complexity (functional information). That's positive evidence and doesn't involve any gaps any more than Darwin involves gaps. If Darwin was wrong, as I think he is, the gaps in knowledge are benefitting the Darwinists.

Intelligent Design is not science because it does not predict anything.

Sure it does. I've already discussed this.

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.

What's your point? Why should it? Is this a point about how much you dislike ID for not making the types of predictions you like? Intelligent beings have various motives. Since we don't know the designer too well, we can't predict his/her/its/their motive and thus can't predict any patterns of adding information.

(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.)

So what? The Bible has the same thing. Woopie doo. And it's nice to see you admitting that the increases in complexity aren't always consistent with what Darwin predicted. These apparent contradictions are also positive evidence for Darwin's prediction being wrong.

Intelligent Design is not science because it has no mechanism and has no concept for experimentation or systematic data-gathering.

Of course it has experiments. That's why so many scientists are doing work to disprove it. It's testable. Furthermore, some of the data acquired is the observation of the fact that life contains functional information, irreducibly complex structures and that, for example the type 2 secretory system did not precede the flagellum. The data that no precursors for bats and birds have been found in the fossil record, that the Cambrian explosion represents top-down evolution and that there are many superflous, redundant genes that exist that can't be explained by natural methods. All of this supports what we KNOW about functional information and how intelligent beings can produce it, and that DArwinism can't explain it. See the Meyer/Ward debate. Quite entertaining. Ward raises all these complaints himself. Meyer responds.

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

It doesn't matter. Are you demanding the impossible? Darwinists can't explain how evolution could produce increases in information or how it could produce irreducible complexity. So, what's your point?

There is no laboratory experiment or field observation that a scientist could do to understand how ID works.

True of Darwinism producing IC and increases in information.

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.

I was annoyed? I think my response was in jest. He claimed IDers claim POOF. But in reality, as you have just explained, IDers are SILENT on how it got there. No one claims POOF at all.

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).

That doesn't explain how the information got there in the first place. It also doesn't provide a possible evolutionary path for that to occur randomly. Abiogenesis and the Cambrian Information Explosion are still not accounted for. Not remotely. Statistically, and I suspect you know this, it shouldn't have happened through Darwinian processes, based on our current understanding.

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?

You can't prove HOW this occured, or if it is statistically possible. This is NOT an observation of RANDOM forces producing information. This is just evidence that it happened. In this debate, it only matters HOW it happened and whether Darwinism did it or not. Hello? Did your mind start wandering off the topic?

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.

Is it extremely plausible statistically that irreducibly complex structures were produced through Darwinism? Is abiogenesis plausible? Has there EVER been an observation of a RANDOM change increasing information at the genetic level? All of these things are NECESSARY in order for ID to be eliminated and for Darwinsim to be The Answer. ID doesn't eliminate Darwinism and doesn't assume how much or how little of a role it plays. It merely looks at evidence that appears to indicate intelligent design in life and takes it a little further than just appearance.

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?

Again, what matters is HOW this occured. Until scientists can at least observe bacteria randomly mutating in ways that increase its complexity on a genetic level, we can't assume that Darwinism is capable of EVER increasing information. It's never been observed. So at least one BIG gap exists, and in that gap there is positive evidence for intelligent design. In my view, the things that we can't know, or the gaps that are left, with regard to how the diversity of species evolved/formed, are to the benefit of the dogmatic Darwinists who think Darwinism is The Answer.

[Weezer]

The Discovery Institute didn't write those books.

You're right. Too bad they wrote the Wedge document, which also had an impact in Dover.

And that hurt the reputation of the Discovery Institute.

Which, until that point, had quite the stellar reputation.

The court didn't find that ID was repackaged creationism.

Did you read the decision?

Judge Jones found that:

A â??hypothetical reasonable observer,â? adult or child, who is â??aware of the history and context of the community and forumâ? is also presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism. ... The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

[Mordecai]

I'm sure you do understand the issues surrounding IC better than me, since I'm not a biologist. Still, I would like to know which definition you're using. If, as you say, it doesn't matter, then I'll assume you're using Behe's latest. So when you say IC, you're referring to an evolutionary pathway that contains one or more unselected steps. Correct?

I'm sorry that Dembski's writing doesn't meet your standards. If you tell me which part of them you don't understand, I'll explain it to you.

I'll try to make the Bayesian issue very simple:

1) Dembski claims that design hypotheses do not confer probabilities on events. Do you agree?

2) Given the above, we cannot calculate or estimate P(E|D) where D is a design hypothesis? Do you agree?

3) If we can't calculate or estimate P(E|D), then we can't do a Bayesian analysis. Do you agree?

You don't even realize that none of this is relevant. Sad. The "Bayesian issue" is non-existent, except in your mind.

[Mordecai]

You're right. Too bad they wrote the Wedge document, which also had an impact in Dover.

Which, until that point, had quite the stellar reputation.

Did you read the decision?

Judge Jones found that:

It doesn't matter what Judge Jones found, except insofar as he made sense. He made very little sense and made a couple of very false assumptions. After the trial, he repeated the ACLU arguments given to him, causing the appearance that he had ulterior motives. This behavior, after being spotted by the Discovery Institute, suddenly ceased. The lawyer who wrote Darwin on Trial reported that his behavior is strongly discouraged for judges. I've read his judgements and they are wrong.

[asbestosman]

The "Bayesian issue" is non-existent, except in your mind.

Fine, but why is Fisher's method appropriate in the case of biological design detection?

If we're worried about multiplying entities by talking about multiple universes, why is positing a designer somehow better? Mormonism multiplies entities by having either an infinity of gods, or at least worlds without number (multiple universes?). Positing a designer for life runs into the turtle problem that Tarski is fond of mentioning (which was mentioned by Stephen Hawking).

[Weezer]

You don't even realize that none of this is relevant. Sad. The "Bayesian issue" is non-existent, except in your mind.

Not relevant to what? I'm explaining in simple, logical terms why your accusation of strawmanning is false, but you won't even say whether you agree or not. Do you even care whether your accusation is true or false?

[Weezer]

Mordecai: The court didn't find that ID was repackaged creationism.

Weezer: Yes it did. Here's the quote from the decision.

Mordecai: It doesn't matter what Judge Jones found ... I've read his judgements and they are wrong.

If you've read his judgements, then why did you say that "The court didn't find that ID was repackaged creationism."? Did you just make that up?

Mordecai, let me describe a pattern I'm seeing:

1) You claim something which you can't support.

2) You're explicitly shown to be wrong.

3) Instead of defending or retracting your claim, you respond with "strawman!", "irrelevant", "boring", "nitpicking", "who gives a crap", "you simply don't understand", or "it doesn't matter".

Am I just imagining this?

[Mordecai]

Mordecai: The court didn't find that ID was repackaged creationism.

Weezer: Yes it did. Here's the quote from the decision.

Mordecai: It doesn't matter what Judge Jones found ... I've read his judgements and they are wrong.

If you've read his judgements, then why did you say that "The court didn't find that ID was repackaged creationism."? Did you just make that up?

I don't really recall saying that the judge didn't find ID was repackaged creationism. I said the court was full of it. But it is true that the judge didn't find that ID is repackaged creationism. What they found was that creationism mixed with ID is basically still creationism. ID, in itself, is not creationism and the judge didn't even judge ID. He judged creationism. The judge was like you. He strawmanned. (Or he at least minced words).

Mordecai, let me describe a pattern I'm seeing:

1) You claim something which you can't support.

2) You're explicitly shown to be wrong.

3) Instead of defending or retracting your claim, you respond with "strawman!", "irrelevant", "boring", "nitpicking", "who gives a crap", "you simply don't understand", or "it doesn't matter".

Am I just imagining this?

I get tired of explaining what should be obvious. Sorry.

[Mordecai]

Fine, but why is Fisher's method appropriate in the case of biological design detection?

If we're worried about multiplying entities by talking about multiple universes, why is positing a designer somehow better? Mormonism multiplies entities by having either an infinity of gods, or at least worlds without number (multiple universes?). Positing a designer for life runs into the turtle problem that Tarski is fond of mentioning (which was mentioned by Stephen Hawking).

I'm not terribly worried about the multiple universes, although the evidence for it is as arguable or more arguable than ID. As far as Fisher's approach being appropriate, why wouldn't it be? As Dembski points out, it is the one MOST used by scientists, as the Bayesian approach can be impractical. I can go back and get the link to a chapter in Dembksi's book. Strawman McGee posted it a while back. Here it is: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2...er_vs_Bayes.pdf

[Weezer]

as the Bayesian approach can be impractical. I can go back and get the link to a chapter in Dembksi's book. Strawman McGee posted it a while back. Here it is: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2...er_vs_Bayes.pdf

If you would actually read that chapter, you would see that Dembski says the P(E|D), a necessary factor in Bayes' Theorem, doesn't even make sense. So Dembski imputes much worse problems than impracticality to Bayesian design inferences.

And your "Strawman McGee" crack may have originally been merely mistaken, but now that I've clearly explained why it's false and you can't find anything to disagree with in my explanation, it's evolved into a lie.

[Weezer]

Mordecai:

I don't really recall saying that the judge didn't find ID was repackaged creationism.

Let me refresh your memory.

Mordecai:

The court didn't find that ID was repackaged creationism.

Mordecai:

ID, in itself, is not creationism and the judge didn't even judge ID. He judged creationism.

Have you already forgotten that I provided a quote in which the judge explicitly passed judgement on ID?

[Mordecai]

An interesting juxtaposition:

Mordecai: blah blah blah

Mordecai: yada yada yada

Uh, what's your point? I said that AFTER you claimed that I said it. You were right in a way, just like a stopped clock is right twice a day. Good job. But in a way, you were not right, because I hadn't said it prior to you claiming I said it. You just assumed I said it. Clearly, I believe it, so maybe in a distant past post, I did say it. However, you have no links to past posts, so it looks like you were just projecting junk onto me. That was an attempted Strawman. Funny that I happen to say it later, though, right? Also funny how you posted it in the wrong chronological order, too.

If you would actually read that chapter, you would see that Dembski says the P(E|D), a necessary factor in Bayes' Theorem, doesn't even make sense. So Dembski imputes much worse problems than impracticality to Bayesian design inferences.

And your "Strawman McGee" crack may have originally been merely mistaken, but now that I've clearly explained why it's false and you can't find anything to disagree with in my explanation, it's evolved into a lie.

We'll let the audience decide.

1) You claim something which you can't support.

2) You're explicitly shown to be wrong.

3) Instead of defending or retracting your claim, you respond with "strawman!", "irrelevant", "boring", "nitpicking", "who gives a crap", "you simply don't understand", or "it doesn't matter".

Am I just imagining this?

Yes.

[Weezer]

Uh, what's your point? I said that AFTER you claimed that I said it. You were right in a way, just like a stopped clock is right twice a day. Good job. But in a way, you were not right, because I hadn't said it prior to you claiming I said it.

Mordecai, please check your facts. You did say it prior to me claiming that you said it.

And I provided a quote in which Judge Jones explicitly passed judgement on ID. Apparently you've forgotten that too.

[asbestosman]

I'm not terribly worried about the multiple universes, although the evidence for it is as arguable or more arguable than ID. As far as Fisher's approach being appropriate, why wouldn't it be? As Dembski points out, it is the one MOST used by scientists, as the Bayesian approach can be impractical. I can go back and get the link to a chapter in Dembksi's book. Strawman McGee posted it a while back.

The reason it might not be appropriate is because Fisher's approach generally doesn't rely on a universal probability bound. It usually relies on comparing the observations where one parameter has changed and then using statistics to quantify how well the differences can be explained by chance and thereby rule it out. Dembski's approach (in the case of biological complexity) requires a universal probability bound because otherwise we can easily show that improbable things are indeed likely if tried a sufficient number of times. It may take 1 trillion years, but eventually I'll be able to flip 100 heads in a row.

The universal probability bound is the idea that we wouldn't expect something that unlikely to happen by chance--sort of. I mean all I'd have to do is flip a coin 1000 times and then the precise sequence I get would surpass that bound. That's why Dembski talks about specification too. But then Dembski tells us that specification plus complexity is how we determine design in everyday life. However when we do so for everyday things (like homocide investigation, archaeology, etc), we use Bayesian analysis, not Fisherian analysis. We are looking for who or what did something, not just whether or not it came about by chance.

Furthermore, there is the problem of cherry picking data. Even Dembski realizes this. He thinks specification is good enough. However, I think that the specification is still somewhat subjective. How specific is the target area? Can we only consider a certain type of flagellum? If we consider others is it more likely? What if we consider other possible universes? I don't think anyone denies that the precise circumstances we find ourselves in have an infinitesimal probability of occuring by chance, but perhaps we are being far too specific.

If there are multiple universes, it becomes much easier to hit that target. But isn't that needlessly multiplying entities? Well, it's not clear to me that multiple universes is any worse than imagining an undesigned designer. That, to me, seems to be multiplying entities in the turtle sense (albeit in a sneaky way for protestants who love it). Because let's face it: all instances of design that I've seen have built upon previous design. If there was previous design, then that means we have an infinity of design stretching back in time. Is this not also multiplying entities--to imagine a designer that transcends the rest of the universe?

Finally, even if there aren't multiple universes, a low probability may still be irrelavent. We still need to know the a priori chances that a designer of life / the universe exists. If the chances there are even smaller than the chance of life, then we don't buy anything by assuming a designer did it. In normal Fisherian analysis, we at least know that the a priori chances of new observations being explained by a new paramater are not simply infinitesimal.

The Existence of God by Richard Swinburn strikes me as the appropriate way to do this. I think the strongest point of this approach is also the weakest point--it is inherently subjective, at least one's value for the a priori probability of God is. I haven't read the book yet, but it certainly does sound interesting. Maybe the ID movement could use this book and replace the word "God" with "designer".

[Weezer]

However, you have no links to past posts, so it looks like you were just projecting junk onto me. That was an attempted Strawman. Funny that I happen to say it later, though, right?

Another false strawman accusation.

At 12:01 you said the following: "The court didn't find that ID was repackaged creationism."

At 12:52 I quoted you directly, and provided a quote from the Dover decision to refute it.

How hard is it to check your facts before making accusations?

[Weezer]

Mordecai, your accusation (regarding the Bayesian strawman) is also false. I've told you exactly why, and you don't even have the courage to disagree with me. Instead you resort to this:

We'll let the audience decide.

How about if you demonstrate a modicum of integrity and either show me why I'm wrong or retract your accusation.

[Mordecai]

Another false strawman accusation.

At 12:01 you said the following: "The court didn't find that ID was repackaged creationism."

At 12:52 I quoted you directly, and provided a quote from the Dover decision to refute it.

How hard is it to check your facts before making accusations?

There are no posts from 12:01. What I said was that the Discovery Institute didn't write "those books" maning the books that the judge was condemning as creationism. Behe wrote a single chapter in them, and his chapter was ID. Much of the rest was creationism. Besides, I was referring to the following:

Mordecai: The court didn't find that ID was repackaged creationism.

Weezer: Yes it did. Here's the quote from the decision.

Mordecai: It doesn't matter what Judge Jones found ... I've read his judgements and they are wrong.

This is 12:47, by the way. As far as I know, at that time, I had not yet made the claim that the "court didn't find that ID was repackaged creationism." You misrepresented my argument. In fact, I was asserting that the judge was strawmanning. You, apparently, LIKE that kind of "logic," so you can't see a problem.

[asbestosman]

Mordecai, your accusation (regarding the Bayesian strawman) is also false. I've told you exactly why, and you don't even have the courage to disagree with me. Instead you resort to this:

How about if you demonstrate a modicum of integrity and either show me why I'm wrong or retract your accusation.

Here is what Dembski says on the matter:

Whatâ??s the probability of Shakespeare writing his sonnets?

When the issue is creative innovation, the very act of expressing the likelihood P(E|D) becomes

highly problematic and prejudicial. It puts creative innovation by a designer in the same boat as

natural laws, requiring of design a predictability thatâ??s circumscribable in terms of probabilities.

But designers are inventors of unprecedented novelty, and such creative innovation transcends

all probabilities.

(Fisher _vs_Bayes page 7)

[Weezer]

There are no posts from 12:01.

We may have a time zone difference. See post #80.

What I said was that the Discovery Institute didn't write "those books" maning the books that the judge was condemning as creationism. Behe wrote a single chapter in them, and his chapter was ID.

And in that same post, you said "The court didn't find that ID was repackaged creationism."

This is 12:47, by the way. As far as I know, at that time, I had not yet made the claim that the "court didn't find that ID was repackaged creationism."

It shows up as 12:01 in my browser. Maybe MADB bases timestamps on individual computers.

You misrepresented my argument.

Please reread post #80.

You, apparently, LIKE that kind of "logic," so you can't see a problem.

So little time, so many insults that you need to retract.