Is Id Science?

[Mordecai]

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.

However, that doesn't mean Fisherian analysis can't apply to identifying what is impossible, assuming we don't simply assume that there is unlimited time. We do have a set time period with which we can apply Fisher's approach, and that is the age of the earth. We know how old this earth is and we lack evidence that there have been many earths with abiogenesis and evolution. So, one way that ID could be refuted is to prove that many planets have existed with abiogenesis, with evolution that matches what should be found statistically instead of what is apparently impossible, thereby allowing for enough time and evidence that appears to match what is statistically likely. It is currently unproven, and I don't believe anyone needs to really worry about this enough to eliminate ID as a science. If nothing else, Fisher's approach could at least tell us how many inhabitted planets we need. Anti-IDers or IDers themselves can explore this possibility as well. The infinite earths hypothesis is simply another competing theory. We can't assume before-hand that it is correct or incorrect. So, until that is resolved, one other possible hypothesis that can be explored is ID. Also, we still don't even know if increases in complexity are even POSSIBLE through random changes. As I've said, it's never been observed. So, there is no reason to even assume it is possible at all. I will grant that this is a weak point in ID. I don't think it kills it, though.

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.

Well, with a flagellum, it is a rotor, a very complex machine which humans have designed themselves, prior to the discovery that the flagellum is a rotor. I don't think there is a problem here. In other cases, perhaps.

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's true. I will grant that. Then again, like I said, I don't have a serious problem with the multiple universe theory. We can consider them competing theories. Also, a designer might have an origin in evolution or something we just don't understand yet. But a lack of understanding is not reason enough to reject it, either.

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.

I'm not sure we can know the chances of a universe and a designer existing. But this isn't normal Fisherian analysis; still, it applies known scientific methods to the degree that it is currently possible. Also, many people take God as a fact, so among theists, it's not about the chances of God existing. Those that disbelieve will be the only ones complaining about this. For Christians, though, ID is a way of trying to figure out what God did and didn't do. Why should we simply concede that having no God is the default position? For Mormons, it's not, so we don't worry about it. We are mixing science and religion, some of us, but that doesn't mean ID in itself is religion. I accept that atheists will say over and over, "Prove that there was a designer," but to them, my response is, "There appears to be a design produced without Darwinian proceses, so now what are the chances of a designer existing?" The clear response is, "A little higher," assuming they accept the apparent evidence. I also accept that ID will not prove God's existence. It may sway some people who are on the fence and is tolerant of religion instead of rejecting it based on a philosophy.

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".

I'm for that. heh heh

[Mordecai]

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

And in that same post, you said "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.

Please reread post #80.

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

Here was my post:

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.

Clearly, I did say it. But you took that statement so out of context, that it completely distorted my argument, Strawman McGee. That's why I couldn't remember saying that. WHY did I have to AGAIN explain that Of Panda's and People is not ID. It only has ONE chapter that is ID. Why, McGee, why? Will you develop some better comprehension and a better grasp on reality, please? Do you NOW understand that my argument was that the judge's judgement was about creationism and he misrepresented what ID is and lumped it in with creationism?

[Weezer]

Clearly, I did say it.

Most people would apologize at this point, but Mordecai says:

But you took that statement so out of context, that it completely distorted my argument, Strawman McGee.

Where did I do that?

[Weezer]

Just to be clear, Mordecai, the judge ruled that ID is a form of creationism, according to the "hypothetical reasonable observer" test. I realize that you think he was wrong to lump ID in with creationism, but that doesn't change the fact that he did so. He ruled that ID is a form of creationism. You said he didn't. You were wrong. Then you claimed that I quoted you before you actually said it, which was obviously wrong. These claims were accompanied by various insults.

And your ultimate response to all this was more insults.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

It doesnt? You mean they know what CAUSED it?

ID mentions an Intelligent Designer, so ID needs to explain and quantify it.

The Big Bang theory doesnt mention who or what started it. Its not called the Big Bang started by someone intelligent theory. The clue is in the name...

Are you really going to go through every single scientifc theory and critisise it as such...

* Gravity. Well - where did gravity come from?!

* Electricity Well - what made electricity?!

* Quantum Mechanics Well - who decided QM was a good idea?

Is this seriously your argument? Its no different to the childish game where the kid responds to everything you say with why? I thought your claim that science can and never will detect consiousness was enough of a corker. I didnt think it could be beat. But I think I was wrong, this is even worse. And the worst part is you cant even comprehend why.

Observing radiation and the movement of the stars and planets is analogous to the movement weve studied and understood in other places. What ISNT analogous in science?

We dont assume that movements of the stars and planets are analogous to the movement weve studied and understood in other places! Honestly, its true! We KNOW they move in the same manner, and using the same laws as other objects because we can OBSERVE them. We dont need to assume anything. There is NOTHING relating to the Big Bang theory that hasnt been observed. it doesnt rely on some unseen, unspecified force or entity. At all.

The games over. Move on.

And there is evidence that it was a brane?

Huh?! There is no brane involved in the Big Bang theory. So no - no evidence is required for a brane for the Big Bang theory to be in sound health. I have no idea where you got such a wild notion.

LOTS of scientists didnt like The Big Bang, because to them, it seemed supernatural.

Lots you say? Care to give some figures there? Hmm - I doubt it. The big bang theory is pretty much universally accepted by all of modern science.

And it doesnt matter whether it seems supernatural to any given scientist or not. Thats not a valid reason to dismiss a scientific theory. And there is - in fact - your proof that ID is not rejected just because it stinks of God. The thing ID stinks of is non-science.

For example, critics have said, If an intelligent being made all life, why are viruses and bacteria so harmful?

Its not a scientific argument. And thats not surprising, since its a question against a non-scientific idea. There really is no borderline between science and philosophy for you - is there? Its just all one big blurry mess.

Recently, scientific evidence has shown that the flagellum came first, which is consistent with ID theory.

Hmm - interesting. You state the above as evidence for the so-called ID Theory. Would the particular section that this piece of evidence you claim fall under the banner of Irreducable Complexity?

Be careful how you answer - its a loaded question. But to be honest, I think your gonna fall for it anyway...

Whats anti-scientific about it?

Nope. You misread me. I said anti-another scientific theory. i.e. Evolution.

We dont use the scientific method for claiming that Darwinism produced the diversity of species.

Ermm, yes we do.

Its become a religion.

Poppycock. It wont resort to religion. Thats the difference.

The evidence doesnt add up, and when someone else comes up with another theory that is at least feasible, people call them heretics.

Not true. If someone came up with a scientific theory that opposed evolution, it wouldnt be a problem. But that isnt ID. At least not in its current form.

Meyer and Behe dont know how science works?

If I were to pick out a few individual random voices in the sea of Mormonism, I could be told - much to my amazement - that Mormonism should be accepting practicing and married homosexuals. Or ordaining women to the priesthood. Or reviving the practise of polygamy.

...but thankfully, Im not so daft as to do that. If I want to know the real deal on Mormonism, I look to the majority of its members, and its centre of authority.

The majority of the scientific community flatly denies that ID is science.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

This is why your constant appeals to authority are so pointless. For every one you can produce, I can produce 1000 in return. I havent even felt the need to appeal to authority till now, because the arguments speak for themselves.

You do constantly, because its all youve got.

He says its a scientific argument that makes a false claim. However, he is acknowledging its a scientific argument.

Ermm - I asked for a quote. That is what a Call For Reference is.

Its not that different than a watch

You heard it here folks. Watches, cars, computers and toasters are not that different to moles, giraffes, slugs, ardvarks and humans. Apparently.

Different sources of origin doesnt mean that the sources are necessarily COMPLETELY dissimilar.

I didnt say it did. Youve completely missed the point of that whole exchange. which you will of course deny in your next post, but thats to be expected. The point was related to the watchmaker analogy, and why I would not assume that a creature was designed just like a watch is designed. That was it. I wasnt trying to say that it assured that the sources were dissimiar. My point is that the watchmaker analogy - on its own - proves absolutely zip. Nadda. Zilch. All it shows is thats its POSSIBLE that the creatures COULD have been designed.

And I dont disagree. But I have yet to see any scientific theory that is legitamtely attmepting to prove such an idea. So it remains just that - an idea. And if evolution were destroyed, it might even be promoted to the grand title of our best idea! But that still would not make it science. Someone would have to propose a scientific theory based on the idea for it to be considered science.

ID is presented as a COMPETING theory.

And Im presenting this banana as a hedge-trimmer. See how easy that was?

Its not a proposal to instill a totalitarian regime to murder all those who disagree with them.

Woah! How did you go from a parody on a gameshow - to murdering all who diagree with you?! That was an impressive leap

It is not anti-evolution.

The only science you have talked about in the entirety of this thread is anti-evolutionary. Nuff said.

Darwinists pretend everything is great and no one can POSSIBLY question their dogma.

Nope. The majority of sane Darwinists do not say this. As long as Behe wants to stick to combatting evolution, hes welcome to critise as long as he likes. Its where he starts claiming that his anti-evolutionary attacks should be considered to be its own theory is where he loses the plot...

Your right. Darwins own words have also proven that his theory is in jeopardy.

Its got nothing to do with whether his theory is in jepordy or not. Youve got your own opinion on that, and your welcome to it. Its only evidence of the fact that Darwin actually constructed a scientific theory, and it speaks very highly of Darwin.

The people who arent shown in such a favourable light are those who have effectively stolen Darwins own scientifically honest admissions, mashed them up with a few new words, phrases and a sprinkling of super-naturalism, and then tried to fob it off as their own theory!!

..the rest of my reply has been moved to a later post, to get the quotes to work...

[PhysicsGuy]

I consider myself a theist, but I would like to side myself with those who have said that ID is not science.

I donâ??t claim to be an expert on evolution or ID, but it sure seems to me that ID is nothing more than a â??God of the gapsâ? argument. It points to gaps in the theory of evolution and says, â??That is where â??intelligent designâ?? took placeâ?. We scientists know very well that there are tremendous gaps in most (if not all) of our theories, but this doesnâ??t mean that we should sit down, say, â??God must have done itâ?, and throw in the towel. IDâ??s position of â??irreducible complexityâ? seems to propose this.

By merely pointing to gaps, ID could be considered a critique of evolution, but not a scientific theory.

[asbestosman]

[ quote] . . . [ /quote]

I would like to point out that this MB handles a maximum of 20 quotes per post.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Ahh - thats the reason. Didnt realise.

Thanks asbestosman.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

...moved down from my earlier post to get quotes to work:

Actually, of course it does...

You say that ID isnt about anti-evolution. And yet you beleive that attacking evolution is a pro-ID argument. You hold a contridictory, non-sensical position.

...As Dawkins says, Darwinism allows atheists to be intellectually fulfilled

Hang on! Why did you suddenly jump from talking about anti-evolutionism to anti-athiesm as if they were one topic?! This comes back to your comment about this being an athiest testimony meeting! Astounding, and your true motivations in this debate are made clear.

To you, evolution = athiesm. And you no like athiesm. That means evolution baaaaaad.

Oh - and I only have interest in Dawkins for his scientific views - which are often brilliant and inciteful. His side-line views, including his desire to effectively wipe religion off the face of the earth, are subjective. And not to my taste at all.

He also says, Biology is the science that explains the natural origins of things that appear intelligently designed. Thats true. They do appear to be intelligently designed. Hes an expert.

Misquoting someone without even bothing to remove the part of the quote that makes it obvious that you are misquoting?! Why Mordecai - Im shocked! I expected so much better of you!

Science is completely dependent on the PHILOSOPHY of science.

Agreed. So why do you disregard so much of it? Believe me - Bacon, Kepler and Popper are all undoubtedly turning in their graves over some of the stuff your churning out...

Science, without logic, is not anything at all.

Brilliant sir. Logic - check.

It is ALWAYS dependant on argument and interpretation of evidence.

Excellent again. Yes, argumentation and interperetation of evidence. Check.

When you say its 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.

Brilliant. A nice summary of a scientific approach there. Well done. But enough about evolution, can we get back to talking about ID now?

It may not be science that you LIKE, but thats still science.

Oh - not just me. The majority of the world-wide scientific community, the The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the majority of the people on this forum, and those dead scientific philosphers who are turning in their graves arent particularly chuffed with your claims either.

According to Behe, prior to IDs arrival, the Darwinists were silent on even ATTEMPTING to explain irreducibly complex things in biology. Now, theyre trying very hard to.

CFR please. And no - I dont mean a claim from Behe. I mean, give me evidence that evolutionary scientists didnt attempt to find solutions to the most complex organs or biological structures, or that they didnt care about their existence in relation to evolution, before Behe.

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.

Again, Many people were looking into that long before the appearance of ID. I know that for a fact. Another meaningless statement.

So ID has helped reduce stagnation among Darwinists.

Considering one of the above statements is unsubstantiated, and the other is most definately meaningless, the statement above is distinctly ignorable.

I guess we do need an opposition in all things. So now we more have evidence that the BoMormon is true.

You know what? I think my LDS faith might be getting a second wind. Yourself and Sherlock really have your work cut out it would seem. If this forum is anything to go by, Mormons are pretty damn smart - not many of them are fooled by the ID movement. Its definelty goes into the plus column in my book...

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

PhysicsGuy - good post.

[Mighty Curelom]

R of P: Wasnt just anti-another scientific theory

[Mordecai]

I consider myself a theist, but I would like to side myself with those who have said that ID is not science.

I donâ??t claim to be an expert on evolution or ID, but it sure seems to me that ID is nothing more than a â??God of the gapsâ? argument. It points to gaps in the theory of evolution and says, â??That is where â??intelligent designâ?? took placeâ?. We scientists know very well that there are tremendous gaps in most (if not all) of our theories, but this doesnâ??t mean that we should sit down, say, â??God must have done itâ?, and throw in the towel. IDâ??s position of â??irreducible complexityâ? seems to propose this.

By merely pointing to gaps, ID could be considered a critique of evolution, but not a scientific theory.

But irreducible complexity, because it is so specified and would require so many steps to produce, strongly reflects the type of thing that an intelligent being would produce. And where is the gap with irreducible complexity? It's not just a gap. It's positive evidence against evolution; as Darwin said, if any organ that can't be produced in increments is discovered, my theory will fall apart. It's actually a contradiction to Darwin's theory, in his own words. It also represents specified complexity, the same type of thing intelligent beings create. It is a rotor, just like the one people invented. How is that NOT positive evidence FOR intelligent design AND very strong evidence that Darwin's theory has, not only a gap in knowledge of it, but positive evidence against it being The Answer.

[Mordecai]

Just to be clear, Mordecai, the judge ruled that ID is a form of creationism, according to the "hypothetical reasonable observer" test. I realize that you think he was wrong to lump ID in with creationism, but that doesn't change the fact that he did so.

Mr. McGee, don't make me angry. We'll let the audience decide. Your statements are so fundamentally wacky, any "hypothetical reasonable observer" will agree with me.

[asbestosman]

We scientists know very well that there are tremendous gaps in most (if not all) of our theories, but this doesnâ??t mean that we should sit down, say, â??God must have done itâ?, and throw in the towel. IDâ??s position of â??irreducible complexityâ? seems to propose this.

I think from their perspective they're trying to point out a gap so much show that an alternative hypothesis (design) is a better explanation. One might say it would be analogous to showing that a human (actually several of them) was responsible for writing Windows Vista instead of it having been developed by a random algorithm (or even by an evolutionary algorithm). One could then inquire into the nature of the designer(s). One need not throw in the towel.

Mind you, I tend to think that Fisherian analysis combined with a universal probability bound is a key weakness in their approach.

[Mordecai]

ID mentions an Intelligent Designer, so ID needs to explain and quantify it.

The Big Bang theory doesnt mention who or what started it. Its not called the Big Bang started by someone intelligent theory. The clue is in the name...

Are you really going to go through every single scientifc theory and critisise it as such...

* Gravity. Well - where did gravity come from?!

* Electricity Well - what made electricity?!

* Quantum Mechanics Well - who decided QM was a good idea?

Is this seriously your argument? Its no different to the childish game where the kid responds to everything you say with why? I thought your claim that science can and never will detect consiousness was enough of a corker. I didnt think it could be beat. But I think I was wrong, this is even worse. And the worst part is you cant even comprehend why.

ID avoids mentioning an intelligent designer in the context of science, although the implications are there. Similarly, when the Big Bang theory was first introduced, the implications troubled people greatly. Many thought it had religious implications, in fact, because what caused it? It's really the same issue. Many scientists DID reject it or attempted to fight it, because they felt uncomfortable with possible religious implications according to Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Yes, it has footnotes: they reference an article Scientific America discussing the issue). The Big Bang does have a serious problem explaining the cause. It was Tarski who mentioned the "brane of another universe" making contact with it. Will this be proven? I don't think so, but people can theorize. In the same way, people can theorize on the cause of irreducible complexity. The type of God or aliens or time-traveller that produced it can be debated, but that doesn't change that it is specified complexity.

Are you really going to go through every single scientifc theory and critisise it as such...

I'm not criticizing anything that's absoutely proven. (If you're saying I'm criticizing the Big Bang, I'm not. I think it's a stronger scientific argument than ID will ever be, although I could be wrong).

We dont assume that movements of the stars and planets are analogous to the movement weve studied and understood in other places! Honestly, its true! We KNOW they move in the same manner, and using the same laws as other objects because we can OBSERVE them.

But we only interprett their movements based on previous observations. If we had never seen anything like that, we wouldn't know how to interprett it. Duh. And in ID, we can OBSERVE the results of what the alleged intelligent designer did. You still won't say how it's different. It's the same type of science. But one is not as strong.

We dont need to assume anything. There is NOTHING relating to the Big Bang theory that hasnt been observed. it doesnt rely on some unseen, unspecified force or entity. At all.

The cause. HELLO. Obviously, if there was a Big Bang, it has a cause.

Huh?! There is no brane involved in the Big Bang theory. So no - no evidence is required for a brane for the Big Bang theory to be in sound health.

That's strange. Tarski says that the "brane of another universe" may have caused the Big Bang. I guess he just made that up or has no idea what he's talking about.

I have no idea where you got such a wild notion.

Lots you say? Care to give some figures there? Hmm - I doubt it. The big bang theory is pretty much universally accepted by all of modern science.

Yes. NOW it's accepted. Scientific America said there was resistance to it, when it was first theorized. (I think... I might have to go back and check Science and Intelligent Design).

And it doesnt matter whether it seems supernatural to any given scientist or not. Thats not a valid reason to dismiss a scientific theory. And there is - in fact - your proof that ID is not rejected just because it stinks of God. The thing ID stinks of is non-science.

Actually, the apparent fact that scientists resisted it, due to the supernatural implications is evidence for ID being rejected for the same reason. Sorry.

Its not a scientific argument. And thats not surprising, since its a question against a non-scientific idea. There really is no borderline between science and philosophy for you - is there? Its just all one big blurry mess.

Actually, truth is one. If someone uses argument and it works to arrive at truth, how is that wrong? It seems to me, at its most basic level, science is attempting to arrive at truth. If one mixes argument with science, uh... why is that a problem, other than invoking fear of the unknown?

Not true. If someone came up with a scientific theory that opposed evolution, it wouldnt be a problem. But that isnt ID. At least not in its current form.

Prove it.

The majority of the scientific community flatly denies that ID is science.

How many of them even understand it or aren't caught up in group-think or are just hardened and bitter secularists? Furthermore, it's a new theory and LOTS of new theories that were proven true were universally rejected. Who cares what they think, at this point?

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

And they're wrong.

Ermm - I asked for a quote. That is what a Call For Reference is.

You heard it here folks. Watches, cars, computers and toasters are not that different to moles, giraffes, slugs, ardvarks and humans. Apparently.

They are all complex machines.

I didnt say it did. Youve completely missed the point of that whole exchange. which you will of course deny in your next post, but thats to be expected. The point was related to the watchmaker analogy, and why I would not assume that a creature was designed just like a watch is designed. That was it. I wasnt trying to say that it assured that the sources were dissimiar. My point is that the watchmaker analogy - on its own - proves absolutely zip. Nadda. Zilch. All it shows is thats its POSSIBLE that the creatures COULD have been designed.

In your opinion.

Its got nothing to do with whether his theory is in jepordy or not. Youve got your own opinion on that, and your welcome to it. Its only evidence of the fact that Darwin actually constructed a scientific theory, and it speaks very highly of Darwin.

Yes, and since it's real science, it had a prediction about what should not be found. According to Darwin, finding ONE was sufficient. Why is this so hard to grasp? Real science makes predictions about how to prove or disprove it. According to Darwin's own criterion, it's been disproven. What's the problem? You love science, because it can be disproven. It was science because it can be disproven. Bottom line, Darwinism got burned, because it is science. I respect that. I don't respect dogmatism, where even when the proof comes out, people continue to delude themselves and minimize it.

[Mordecai]

CFR please. And no - I dont mean a claim from Behe. I mean, give me evidence that evolutionary scientists didnt attempt to find solutions to the most complex organs or biological structures, or that they didnt care about their existence in relation to evolution, before Behe.

Evidence for something that doesn't exist? Well, Behe says that before he published, he searched for explanations for things like the flagellum. He says he couldn't find it. I've never heard of anyone calling him on this "lie." I have no reason to disbelieve it. I have every reason to believe it, because studying it might call attention to it, and in group-think psychology, this is a no no.

Again, Many people were looking into that long before the appearance of ID. I know that for a fact. Another meaningless statement.

Yes, but the work at Harvard is unprecedented. They're putting an enormous effort into it now, when the efforts was less before.

You know what? I think my LDS faith might be getting a second wind. Yourself and Sherlock really have your work cut out it would seem. If this forum is anything to go by, Mormons are pretty damn smart - not many of them are fooled by the ID movement. Its definelty goes into the plus column in my book...

Mormons are open-minded. I expect them to take note of irreducible complexity and Darwin's statement that it would disprove his theory.

[Mordecai]

I think from their perspective they're trying to point out a gap so much show that an alternative hypothesis (design) is a better explanation. One might say it would be analogous to showing that a human (actually several of them) was responsible for writing Windows Vista instead of it having been developed by a random algorithm (or even by an evolutionary algorithm). One could then inquire into the nature of the designer(s). One need not throw in the towel.

Mind you, I tend to think that Fisherian analysis combined with a universal probability bound is a key weakness in their approach.

We might also consider that the existence of God would increase with universal probability. Also, if we're going to consider everything, since we don't know if God exists (just like we don't know if there are infinite universes or not), we might always consider that. For example, we'd have to weigh every step in the formation of the origin of species in light of the possibility that God did it. Of course, this is entirely unreasonable for us to demand that scientists do this. One might say it is unreasonable to demand that we consider the possibility of infinite universes as well. We don't know that there is infinite probability involved.

[Weezer]

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.

You hit the nail on the head, asbestosman.

With standard null hypothesis testing, you're testing whether there is a causal relationship between a given variable and experimental results. The null hypothesis is that they are causally independent, i.e. any correlation occurs purely by chance. Implicit in this is an alternate hypothesis which is the complement of the null hypothesis, namely that the variable and the results are causally dependent. Fisherian testing works because this alternate hypothesis confers a higher probability than the null hypothesis on events with high correlation. In other words, it boils down to an implicit likelihood comparison.

Dembski attempted to lay a theoretical foundation for Fisherian testing that ignores this implicit comparison. He tried to show that hypotheses can be eliminated in isolation, which, had he been successful, would have constituted a major milestone in statistical decision theory. He thought he could do it by invoking probabilistic resources, bounded by the UPB, and the "magic number" 1/2, but his logic simply doesn't hold. We can't eliminate a hypothesis unless we have reason to believe that competing hypotheses confer higher probabilities.

But this fatal flaw in his logical foundation didn't stop him from basing his extension to Fisherian testing on it. And that's just one problem with his work.

[Weezer]

Here is what Dembski says on the matter:

...

(Fisher _vs_Bayes page 7)

Thanks asbestosman. I provided the same quote to Mordecai in a previous thread, but I don't see any evidence that he read it or understood it.

If there's any doubt that Dembski thinks that P(E|D) doesn't make sense, he says in the next paragraph:

But what about P(E|D)? What about probabilities like this more generally where a design hypothesis confers a probability on a creative innovation? Not only is there no reason to think that such probabilities make sense (see the previous point), but when Bayesians reason with such probabilities, they do so without attaching any precise numbers to them.

(Emphasis added)

[Weezer]

Mr. McGee, don't make me angry. We'll let the audience decide. Your statements are so fundamentally wacky, any "hypothetical reasonable observer" will agree with me.

What audience? I doubt anyone cares enough to actually follow our conversation, but if anyone does, please weigh in.

Mordecai, when I correct you, I provide evidence in the form of actual quotes. When you respond, you offer vague insults instead of counterevidence. Does that bother you at all?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Prove it.

Nice bit of humour to break up the debate. Kudos man

We will know a scientific ID-like theory when it gives any detail about exactly what this so-called Intelligent Designer is supposed to have done. And I dont just mean it fills the gaps in Darwinistic theories!.

You like to bang on about the fact that we dont know for sure what caused the Big Bang, but we know ALL KINDS of details about how the Big Bang progresed - from nano-seconds after it started. We can give you temperature and pressure readings. We can tell you how fast the matter expanded. When various elements were formed. etc. etc. Even if we cant tell you what started it, we can give you details till the cows come home about actually what happenned.

Now, you may not be able to describe anything about the Intelligent Designer itself, but surely you can give some detail about how the designer went about their business - cant you? With the same detail as the Big Bang theory? Something that we can attempt to emperically detect? Surely? You say the designer fills the gaps in Darwinian evolution? Great. So - how exactly? Quantum fluctuations? The odd cosmic ray shower at just the right spot? An ID-matic gene-buster 2000? How exactly?

Does ID have ANY details on this whatsoever? Or at least any detail that would allow it to predict anything in the future and allowed to be tested against observation...?

...Hmm - didnt think so. All you can possibly prove, in the best case senario, is that evolution isnt the full answer. But you wont have come any closer to demonstrating actually what happenned. Because your not interested in actually finding out.

ID is anti-evolution. Nothing more.

ID avoids mentioning an intelligent designer in the context of science

...exactly. Even though without such an intelligent designer, you have no theory. ID is based around it, and yet you wont specify anything about it. Thats like trying to describe electricity without specifying such attributes as volts, amps, impedence, resistance - or anything else. And just saying - Its what makes lightning go flash and bang. And heres the proof that it cant be anything else...

If the ID mindset had been involved into the investigation of electricity, wed make an educated guess that it causes lightning, but wed still be walking around the house with candles at night today.

Many thought it had religious implications, in fact, because what caused it?

Many scientists DID reject it or attempted to fight it, because they felt uncomfortable with possible religious implications according to Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Yes, it has footnotes: they reference an article Scientific America discussing the issue).

Yes. NOW its accepted. Scientific America said there was resistance to it, when it was first theorized. (I think... I might have to go back and check Science and Intelligent Design).

...but exactly how much of the scientific commmunity in terms of percentage flatly rejected it as a scientific theory on those terms? At any point in its history? Its one thing to have argued against the Big Bang theory. Ive already stated that I have no problem with anybody challenging any scientific theory, including evolution. I dont even care what their underlying motivation is. If its religiously based - or athiesm-based, so what? As long as they stick to the scientific method, its all good. (and as long as they dont go attempting to fob off that challenge as a theory in its own right...!)

But its a quite different thing to delcare a theory non-science. Is this what happenned in the case of the Big Bang? Was it even comparable to what is being seen from the majority of the scientific community in regards to ID? Have you even bothered to check? Or are you just relying on ID propoganda to educate you? Come back with some figures, then well talk.

Science doesnt know how anything really started, taking the chain of causality right the way back as far as it can go. And I doubt it ever will. If we do manage to determine exactly what started the Big Bang (which incidently, wont be some flimsy idea based an anti-Big Bang-ism, but instead will be a seperate theory, almost certainly with its own predictions seperate to doppler shifts and gamma radiation...), then well need to know what started that. And so on and so forth.

Anybody who thought that the Big Bang should be rejected on such flimsy grounds were wrong. And in fact the Big Bang theory was never routinely rejected by the majority of the scientific community and is now a standard part of our modern view of the universe.

So where is this problem that you are refering to? So some individual rabid athiest-scientists didnt like the Big Bang because it looked like God might have done it? So what - they were wrong. And our equivalent opposite we have today is you, and your ilk. The IDer. Your showing the same nievity in reverse.

Actually, the apparent fact that scientists resisted it, due to the supernatural implications is evidence for ID being rejected for the same reason. Sorry.

Its really the same issue.

Yes - again - concentrating on one group of scientists, and ignoring the fact it was resistence and not flat-out rejection of the Big Bang theory as a scientific theory, and then making sweeping declarations about the close-mindedness of all science because of it.

You really dont like scientists much do you? Not surprising I guess, since so many of them think your lost in the wilderness.

And no - its not the same issue. You know what this is really down to? Its because the big bang happenned in the past. THIS is why you feel it can be weakened to the point where it should be comparable to ID. After all, you can pick an object up and drop it right now to prove gravity - there, right in front of your eyes! You can hook up a battery to a motor, and see electricity working - right there in front of your eyes!

This - again - demonstrates your complete nievity about what science really is at a philosophical level. Oh, you know the words. Logic, analysis, analogy, theory, observation, prediction, falsification. You can parrot them out easiely enough. But you lack all perspective on:

a. What these really mean in practical terms

b. What this methodology - when practised properly and thouroughly - allows us to do.

c. The importance these methodologies enforce between science and other philosophies.

Its like youve got your head so close to one page of a book, starting intently at a certain paragraph, that youve forgotten what the past chapter was about, or what the point of the book was in the first place!

If you really understood what science is about and its methodologies, then you wouldnt be effectively demoting the Big Bang theory just because it happenned in the past! And getting hung up on the fact that you cant be shown a camcorder video of it.

The Big Bang does have a serious problem explaining the cause.

You gotten it completely backwards. The Big Bang shows that all matter came from one spot. Thats what it demonstrates. All it relies on is gravity (we can observe that), doppler shifts to indicate direction of movement (if you think you have evidence that we cant trust the doppler shifts, then please - feel free to propose it) and we make the assumption that the laws of science describe the past in the same manner as they describe the future. This is a basic assumption of science, and if you call THIS into question, you are - again - wanting science to be something it is not.

The Big Bang does NOT rely on analogy to demonstrate that all matter started off at one point in the past. It simply doesnt. And if you truly believe this is the case, please specify what this analogy actually is? Feel free to dream something up that sounds good. But then, youll of course need to find any of the scientists who were involved in the construction of the Big Bang theory who used such an analogy. Otherwise, how would the Big Bang theory be based on it?

...good luck. Your gonna need it!

It was Tarski who mentioned the brane of another universe making contact with it. Will this be proven? I dont think so, but people can theorize.

In the same way, people can theorize on the cause of irreducible complexity. The type of God or aliens or time-traveller that produced it can be debated, but that doesnt change that it is specified complexity.

Yes, people can theorize. But until its constructed as a scientific theory, its just another idea.

Heres another hint. String theory - while it shows great promise - is also not yet a fully blown scientific theory. Why? Because no experimental verification or falsification of the theory is yet possible. Maybe if we can develop the appropiate technology. Or perhaps if String Theory bods manage to delve deeper into the theory and find ways it can be tested now. Then perhaps it COULD be.

...but until then, it remains an idea. Even a good idea. Even a mathematically sound idea. But not a scientific idea.

So exactly. In the same way that people might theorise about such things as string theory, IDers can muse on the ideas of ID. Just dont try to fob it off as science, and we will all be happy.

Im not criticizing anything thats absoutely proven. (If youre saying Im criticizing the Big Bang, Im not. I think its a stronger scientific argument than ID will ever be, although I could be wrong).

Well, its a heartening admission in a way, but you still miss the point.

The Big Bang is science. ID is not. Its not really about stronger or weaker when comparing the two.

But we only interprett their movements based on previous observations. If we had never seen anything like that, we wouldnt know how to interprett it. Duh.

I think someone else is gonna have to tackle this one. Its so daft, I cant bring myself to discuss it.

The cause. HELLO. Obviously, if there was a Big Bang, it has a cause.

We dont know the Big Bang happenned because of a first cause. We know the Big Bang happenned because we know that all matter - looking into the past from the future - was once all collected at one point. Fact.

You still dont get it. And I doubt you ever will. Its a real shame.

Thats strange. Tarski says that the brane of another universe may have caused the Big Bang.

LOL! Oh - I see where your getting confused there!

...the Big Bang theory was accepted as fact by the scientific community as a whole long before Tarski was posting on these forums. Im amazed you werent aware of that. Still, you learn something new every day I guess...

I guess he just made that up or has no idea what hes talking about.

He knows exactly what hes talking about. Ask him if hes trying to prove the Big Bang theory, or extrapolate from its findings? And if you dont understand the difference, then maybe you shouldnt bother asking the question, because the answer wont make sense to you.

Actually, truth is one. If someone uses argument and it works to arrive at truth, how is that wrong? It seems to me, at its most basic level, science is attempting to arrive at truth. If one mixes argument with science, uh... why is that a problem, other than invoking fear of the unknown?

And this comment exactly demonstrates that you dont know, nor much care where the real boundries of science really are. But the rest of us do, athiests and thiest alike. Thats why we can see that ID is not science, and you cant.

Youve pretty muich admitted above that you dont actually care that much if ID is really true science - as long as it can be agreed that it is a good argument, worthy of some kind of serious inspection and consideration. If you could just admit this, then we could both agree, and we could stop this charade. But, as long as you keep parroting away that ID is legimate science, I will have to continue explaining clearly, consistently and rationally why that isnt the case. Until I get bored of talking to a brick wall of course...

How many of them even understand it or arent caught up in group-think or are just hardened and bitter secularists?

What - no more appealing to authority?! But you were so fond of it earlier?!

...well - no. I have no idea how many scientists are caught up in group-think. But Im sure you have a very nifty way of demonstrating it. It wouldnt be how many deny that ID is science by any chance?!

...wow - that really would be a co-incidence!

Furthermore, its a new theory and LOTS of new theories that were proven true were universally rejected.

Again, CFR. Tell me how many scientific theories, when they were first proposed as theories, werent just opposed, but were flatly rejected as science over many years. And yet now are universally accepted? In the entire history of science? Any idea? Any clue? And tell ya what - why dont you try doing your own research into this. It could be educational...

And theyre wrong.

Yeap. This whole appealing to authority thing has really taken a nose-dive huh?

In your opinion.

...and the opinion of practically every single scientist on this planet. Oh but I forgot, most of them are hardened, group-think athiests. My bad.

Yes, and since its real science, it had a prediction about what should not be found. According to Darwin, finding ONE was sufficient. Why is this so hard to grasp? Real science makes predictions about how to prove or disprove it. According to Darwins own criterion, its been disproven. Whats the problem? You love science, because it can be disproven. It was science because it can be disproven. Bottom line, Darwinism got burned, because it is science. I respect that. I dont respect dogmatism, where even when the proof comes out, people continue to delude themselves and minimize it.

And yet again, you miss the whole point of this thread. The title of this thread isnt Is evolution in trouble? If you want to start that thread, please do.

The title of this thread is actually Is ID science?. And yet all you can talk about is how evolution is in trouble. And yet apparently, ID isnt just anti-evolution.

Clear as mud.

Evidence for something that doesnt exist? Well, Behe says...

Haha! So you already know that scientists didnt bother, so you wont bother looking?! Brilliant. And all because Behe said. Who were you just accusing of group-think again?

Yes, but the work at Harvard is unprecedented.

Please elaborate. By what criteria do you consider the effort unprecedented?

[T-Bone]

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.

My intent was to show that by repackaging creation in the Panda book, ID supporters have already proven that ID is not science.

[T-Bone]

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:

Thanks, I was just going to go fishing for that. You saved me a lot of time.

T-Bone

[asbestosman]

We might also consider that the existence of God would increase with universal probability. Also, if we're going to consider everything, since we don't know if God exists (just like we don't know if there are infinite universes or not), we might always consider that. For example, we'd have to weigh every step in the formation of the origin of species in light of the possibility that God did it. Of course, this is entirely unreasonable for us to demand that scientists do this. One might say it is unreasonable to demand that we consider the possibility of infinite universes as well. We don't know that there is infinite probability involved.

I get the feeling that you don't understand what is meant by Universal Probability bound. The way you use the term here hints at the idea that you think universal probability is the probability that the universe would exist. The reason I say that is because it's not clear to me how the existence of God would increase the universal probability bound--unless God is random and capricious. Dembski himself seems say that the probability of an event occuring given that there is a designer is a meaningless question because designers don't work on probability. See that quote about the probability of Shakespeare writing his stuff, etc.

[asbestosman]

With standard null hypothesis testing, you're testing whether there is a causal relationship between a given variable and experimental results. The null hypothesis is that they are causally independent, i.e. any correlation occurs purely by chance. Implicit in this is an alternate hypothesis which is the complement of the null hypothesis, namely that the variable and the results are causally dependent. Fisherian testing works because this alternate hypothesis confers a higher probability than the null hypothesis on events with high correlation. In other words, it boils down to an implicit likelihood comparison.

Exactly!

We don't need to know the a priori probabilities or other conditional probabilities to much accuracy to know that it is generally reasonable to suspect that changing a variable could have an effect on the measured outcome. We just need to know that such probabilities are sufficiently likely for Fisherian analysis. Trying to figure out if there is a correlation between smoking and cancer works because we can reasonably suspect that there might be one. Experience tells us that such a thing could easily be the case. Trying to figure out the chances of an undesigned designer is a very different sort of thing. We can't even determine whether it is really reasonable to suspect that (although I hold it is, I don't see why others must accept that).