Is Id Science?

[The Dude]

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.

Uh huh. When I make a good point, you move the goal posts all the way back to abiogenesis.

Since RenegadeOPhunk is doing such a fine job on "why ID is not science", I'm just going to follow up on the second part of your response. Just so you don't have to do the same debate with me that you are already doing with RoP.

Here's where we were:

Mordecai: No mutation has been observed in recorded history that represents increases in functional information. Forms may become more complex but the genome retains the same level of complexity.

The Dude: Right. Here's an example of complex vertebrate features arising from invertebrates without an increase in genomic complexity (according to Mordecai's definition). So where's the problem? It looks like important evolutionary steps can work within that constraint.

That doesn't explain how the information got there in the first place... Abiogenesis and the Cambrian Information Explosion are still not accounted for. Not remotely.

LOL. Now that is moving the goal posts. I gave an example of exactly what you asserted as a problem for Darwinism, and I showed how Darwinism works exactly in that way, and you now ask me to explain abiogenesis, the Cambrian explosion, life, the universe, everything!

Please first admit that "forms may become more complex but the genome retains the same level of complexity" is not itself a problem for significant evolutionary transitions. It is actually a true statement about how evolution is simpler than you realized. Own up to it. Update your arguments like you said you would.

It also doesn't provide a possible evolutionary path for that to occur randomly.

First of all, evolutionary paths don't occur randomly. They are selected. It's a two step process that is anything but random, and I think you know that, however often you forget it.

Second of all, here is a possible evolutionary path. The genes that were redeployed in vertebrates to create the neural crest (and give rise to cranial bones, jaws, pigments, heart valves, peripheral nerves, etc. -- all these features come from neural crest cells), exist in a co-regulatory network. That's a fact. If a simple mutation -- nothing complex required -- turns on just one of them, the whole package gets turned on. So, there are many possible mutations that could have occurred in an invertebrate like amphioxus, any of which would have redeployed this set of genes to a new function as specifiers of neural crest. Several of these mutations would have arisen randomly in the invertebrate lineage. One of them was selected because of its fitness in the environment, and thats how all vertebrates came to have this complex feature.

Statistically, and I suspect you know this, it shouldn't have happened through Darwinian processes, based on our current understanding.

I don't think you are a statistician or a biologist, and I don't think the IDers you've been reading know very much about developmental biology or molecular genetics. So what happens is they make assumptions that are fine for raw "information theory" but these assumptions do not represent the way biology actually works, which creates a classic garbage-in/garbage-out situation. And the end-result is you are bamboozled.

Again, your claim that "forms may become more complex but the genome retains the same level of complexity" is not a problem in itself. Someone told you wrong if they told you this was an argument in favor of ID.

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. <snip insult>

Heh, yeah, whatever. I have now given an example of how it possibly happened by Darwinian evolution. Now it's your turn give an example of HOW it possibly happened by ID. How did the neural crest arise in the invertebrate to vertebrate transition by an IDer process? Fair is fair in this debate.

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?

Screw statistics; statisticians don't know biology. I gave an example of how an complex structure can arise without requiring an increase in genome complexity, and if that can happen, Darwinism is more plausible than you realized. Some statistician bamboozled you into thinking this was a problem.

I never said any structure in biology is irreducibly complex. I don't think there is such a thing in the biological world. It's an uproven assertion of IDers.

Is abiogenesis plausible?

You are moving the goal posts again.

Are you somehow under the misconception that abiogenesis is a Darwinian process? It's not thought to be. Even Dawkins admits this in his most recent book.

If it all boils down to how the first replicators came into existence then we should be having a very different discussion.

Has there EVER been an observation of a RANDOM change increasing information at the genetic level?

Please tell me what that would look like. I know of examples that I think qualify and are sufficient for Darwinian processes, but I can just see you dismissing them as "horizontal evolution" or "redeployment of existing information" or "genetic parasitism" or "symbiosis" or "I demand a single step, not multiple steps". So I'll give a qualified "yes" to your question until you tell me exactly what you mean.

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.

Again, what do you mean? I think it has been observed: I have a textbook on prokaryotic genetics on my shelf. What exactly are you asking for? Please give me examples of what this would look like, preferably with examples that actually exist in biology: genome A, then genome B, and why B is more complex with A. Then I'll give you an example of how this could have happened. So far you are just dogmatically claiming that it couldn't have happened, based on statistics. You have asserted it again and again and again.

Let's get it out.

[Weezer]

Mordecai:

Is it extremely plausible statistically that irreducibly complex structures were produced through Darwinism?

Under Behe's latest definition of IC, your question is absurd because IC entails a non-Darwinian path by definition.

But you don't think the definition of IC is relevant, and you throw a fit when you're asked to settle on one.

[Mordecai]

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.

Actually, I was saying that infinite universes would increase the chance that gods or a God could exist, since each universe would be different. One of them might produce everything needed for gods or a God to exist. That's all. I pretty much understand what is meant by the "universal probability bound." Also, I'm not sure that is what Dembski is saying. I think he's merely responding to people's criticism that he has no statistics for the chances of a designer creating life. That is like saying, "What are the chances that Shakespeare would write Macbeth?"

[Mordecai]

Mordecai:

Under Behe's latest definition of IC, your question is absurd because IC entails a non-Darwinian path by definition.

But you don't think the definition of IC is relevant, and you throw a fit when you're asked to settle on one.

I'm going to explain this once and TRY to have some reading comprehension. Since it entails a non-Darwinian path by definition, that means it must be proven that it did not evolve through Darwinian means. That's the point: he's laying out a hypothesis. He's not saying that by definition the flagellum is irreducibly complex. He's saying that irreducible complexity is by definition impossible to produce by way of selective pressures. His theory is that the flagellum is irreducibly complex (and thus, could not have evolved through selective pressures).

[Mordecai]

Mordecai: No mutation has been observed in recorded history that represents increases in functional information. Forms may become more complex but the genome retains the same level of complexity.

The Dude: Right. Here's an example of complex vertebrate features arising from invertebrates without an increase in genomic complexity (according to Mordecai's definition). So where's the problem? It looks like important evolutionary steps can work within that constraint.

LOL. Now that is moving the goal posts. I gave an example of exactly what you asserted as a problem for Darwinism, and I showed how Darwinism works exactly in that way, and you now ask me to explain abiogenesis, the Cambrian explosion, life, the universe, everything!

Actually, I don't think you have a good point, because for one, I don't deny that what you're describing is POSSIBLE through Darwinian mechanisms. That doesn't mean it DID, though. I just don't see how that is remotely relevant, honestly, unles we KNOW that it was through Darwinism that all that occured. It seems like you're begging the question. MY point, on the other hand, is that increases in complexity are absolutely NECESSARY for Darwinism to work, but they haven't been observed. Your example doesn't illustrate how Darwinism can do ANYTHING, because we don't know that Darwinism was responsible for what you described (although it might have been... even if it was, that doesn't prove increase in complexity are possible through random mutations/ selective pressures alone). I just don't see that as a good point at all, honestly.

Please first admit that "forms may become more complex but the genome retains the same level of complexity" is not itself a problem for significant evolutionary transitions. It is actually a true statement about how evolution is simpler than you realized. Own up to it. Update your arguments like you said you would.

I made no assumptions either way. If it is simple in that respect, O.K. Whatever. Makes no difference to me. That's beyond what I think is relevant here. What's relevant is that increases in complexity just aren't proven to occur through random forces/selective pressures. Yet, we do see the Cambrian Information Explosion. We also see abiogenesis. (This is not moving the goalpost, since the debate is whethere ID theory has more than just a gap to work with. This is not ONLY about Darwinism). According to Lee Spetner, Darwinists asssume that one million simple mutations that also represent increases in complexity must be present at each incriment in the transition from one species to the next, at all 500 steps. The pattern we currently see is that there are NONE. Granted, there COULD have been in the past, but it's not scientific to base conclusions on assumptions alone.

First of all, evolutionary paths don't occur randomly. They are selected. It's a two step process that is anything but random, and I think you know that, however often you forget it.

Of course it's random. You can't say it's "anything but random," when what can and can't, did and didn't occur randomly is just as integral to the process as the selective pressurs. Take either one way, POOF, Darwinism vanishes as a viable explanation. If the necessary mutations can't occur randomly, Darwinism is dead in the water.

Second of all, here is a possible evolutionary path. The genes that were redeployed in vertebrates to create the neural crest (and give rise to cranial bones, jaws, pigments, heart valves, peripheral nerves, etc. -- all these features come from neural crest cells), exist in a co-regulatory network. That's a fact. If a simple mutation -- nothing complex required -- turns on just one of them, the whole package gets turned on. So, there are many possible mutations that could have occurred in an invertebrate like amphioxus, any of which would have redeployed this set of genes to a new function as specifiers of neural crest. Several of these mutations would have arisen randomly in the invertebrate lineage. One of them was selected because of its fitness in the environment, and thats how all vertebrates came to have this complex feature.

Yes, but all of this required an enormous amount of information to be there in the first place. All of this is fine. I will concede that it's possible. Maybe even probable. I don't know. All I know is, you STILL have to explain increases in complexity, no matter how many POSSIBLE explanations there are for evolution that occurs WITHOUT increases. We all know that increases occured, one way or the other.

I don't think you are a statistician or a biologist, and I don't think the IDers you've been reading know very much about developmental biology or molecular genetics. So what happens is they make assumptions that are fine for raw "information theory" but these assumptions do not represent the way biology actually works, which creates a classic garbage-in/garbage-out situation. And the end-result is you are bamboozled.

Spetner is not an IDer. He just says the numbers don't add up. He's worked in the field on evolutionary projects. The guy says he knows evolution better than most biologists he talks to (although he seems to concede he doesn't know it as well as evolutionary biologists). Spetner might well know better than you do. He says he wanted to write his book after reading one of Dawkin's books about how supposedly Darwinism could occur.

Again, your claim that "forms may become more complex but the genome retains the same level of complexity" is not a problem in itself. Someone told you wrong if they told you this was an argument in favor of ID.

This is in favor of ID in that Darwinism has a vast explanatory deficit and the observations are suggesting it's not just about explanations and more about facts. It doesn't add up, it seems. Spetner read Dawkin's book and responded to it with his own. Obviously, Spetner's responses are to someone who knows what he's talking about. Perhaps reading Dawkin's book and then Spetner's response would clear all this up, unless Spetner strawmanned him. I have no reason to believe he did, though.

Heh, yeah, whatever. I have now given an example of how it possibly happened by Darwinian evolution. Now it's your turn give an example of HOW it possibly happened by ID. How did the neural crest arise in the invertebrate to vertebrate transition by an IDer process? Fair is fair in this debate.

Uh... an intelligent being planned it out and did it? What am I, a God? I can't explain how someone WAY smarter than me did something unfathomably complex. If I discover a piece of alien technology, should I prove how they did it before I can claim WHO did it (i.e. intelligent beings). ID doesn't claim to know HOW. It is only about the type of source for irreducible complexity.

Screw statistics; statisticians don't know biology.

Spetner seems to pretty well. It was his job to know biology.

I gave an example of how an complex structure can arise without requiring an increase in genome complexity, and if that can happen, Darwinism is more plausible than you realized. Some statistician bamboozled you into thinking this was a problem.

Perhaps. Or perhaps Spetner based is accurately responding to what Dawkins wrote. That's what he says. Also, remember that discussion about the "anti-freeze" gene and the statistics on that? Even if increases in complexity are less common in evolution than Spetner claims, Spetner also discusses that a change in general that is not a decrease in complexity AND is beneficial AND that actually survives and takes over a population hasn't been observed either. Do you have a single example of a change that is not a decrease in complexity that occured randomly? Spetner says that as far he knows, all the known random mutations that are beneficial are decreases in complexity. In just the last few pages, he was discussing this as well. It seems to me, if you have no examples of beneficial random genetic changes that are NOT decreases in complexity, you have the exact same issue statistically. No observations. Not scientific to conclude it is even likely. You just have no idea without a time machine, it seems.

I never said any structure in biology is irreducibly complex. I don't think there is such a thing in the biological world. It's an uproven assertion of IDers.

You are moving the goal posts again.

I'm not moving the goalposts. Since when did I take any other position? I've read several Darwinists argue, "The flagellum could have been produced through indirect evoultionary pathways." Then they run into Behe's "assembly instruction" argument. Does anyone respond to that? Not that I've seen. I'd be interested in seeing a response, explaining how a flagellum is a. not irreducibly complex or b. could have been formed through a circuitous evolutionary route.

Are you somehow under the misconception that abiogenesis is a Darwinian process? It's not thought to be. Even Dawkins admits this in his most recent book.

It's part of Darwism, because Darwinism is largely defined by it's appeal to secularists. As I've pointed out, in many college textbooks, the beginning of the chapter on DArwinism includes abiogenesis and the experiment that "proved" it's possible (it didn't, of course... not even remotely).

Please tell me what that would look like. I know of examples that I think qualify and are sufficient for Darwinian processes, but I can just see you dismissing them as "horizontal evolution" or "redeployment of existing information" or "genetic parasitism" or "symbiosis" or "I demand a single step, not multiple steps". So I'll give a qualified "yes" to your question until you tell me exactly what you mean.

Well, from my understanding of what Spetner is saying, it would simply be a one step process (on the genetic level) that is not simply an "on-switch" for previously existing data (like activing teeth in a bird), is not a decrease in genetic complexity, but is still making a change that is measurably beneficial (or at least potentially so).

Again, what do you mean? I think it has been observed: I have a textbook on prokaryotic genetics on my shelf. What exactly are you asking for? Please give me examples of what this would look like, preferably with examples that actually exist in biology: genome A, then genome B, and why B is more complex with A. Then I'll give you an example of how this could have happened. So far you are just dogmatically claiming that it couldn't have happened, based on statistics.

Not just on statistics. I've shown you before that Darwinists themselves have said, "Macroevolution is no longer in progress." I dropped a couple names for that assertion as well. I think Spetner is responding to Dawkins position and is not strawmanning anyone. He's worked in the field and has lots of quotes.

You have asserted it again and again and again.

Let's get it out.

Well, not only have I read Darwinists say that macroevolution is not in progress, I've also read about the famous announcements about new adaptive mutations. They've all been decreases in information or simply a previously existing trait becoming dominant. From the stuff I've read, what Spetner was saying didn't surprise me. Like that nylon eating bacteria that got people so excited. In reality, it lost information and is an extremely inefficient metabolizer. That is typical, isn't it? If eating nylon was not a LOSS of genetic information but an increase or even a "horizontal" change, that would be what we're looking for in this discussion. I don't think you can find an example of that.

Also, if I've been duped by Spetner, so has Professor E. Simon at Perdue's Dept. of Biology: "It is certainly the most rational attack on evolution that I have ever read."

As has Christian B. Anfinsen, Nobel Laureate, Dept. of Biol., John Hopkins: "...extremely thorough and compelling."

As has Leshem, Dept. of Life Sciences, Bar Ilan Univ.: "Spetner's treatise presents a rarely found multidisciplinary approach manifesting scientific expertise in widely divergent fields."

http://www.jamesphogan.com/heretics/book.php?titleID=142

[Mordecai]

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).

But I don't know that we have to expect them to expect it. Why should we limit science to what other people EXPECT? If a certain number of scientists expect it for their own reasons, and we do, let's see some work and some results. It's not the type of science we're used to, but ultimately, science=analysis. That's the bottom line. Are we going to oppress the scientists who think its pretty likely by insisting they're not scientists, like traditional Christians insist we're not Christians? It's all bullcrap. Ultimately, those on the fence about God or aliens or time travellers or who simply think there must be SOMETHING more than Darwinism, might be persuaded by the evidence produced by IDers. Those who stubbornly insist that darwinism is The Answer will scoff at it. But it is producing evidence nonetheless. If people accepted that there is a God (or at least that it's likely), no one would complain about the God-Designed-It theory. Why can't we give Intelligent Design respect for what it is: a scientific fringe element, challenging Darwinists and providing competition and promoting interest?

[Mordecai]

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

Uh, you've really got logic mastered, don't ya? If a lot of sloppy scientists put a book together promoting Darwinism, their intent though was to promote their religious zeal for secularism, and a single chapter is written by The Dude, and that proves Darwinism and The Dude to be just as religious and wrong-minded as the rest who wrote the book, right? Oh, yeah, and some random guy who doesn't understand science, is a member of a far-right fundamentalist church and goes around after the judgement preaching the religious arguments given to him by the prosecution, gets to decide that. In fact, I am that guy, and I think your post just proved all of Darwinism wrong, because it's so dumb. Also, it proved The Dude wrong, because it's on the same thread. Now I'm going to go make a name for myself and make public appearances spouting nonsense about the religious tracts on which I based my judgement, given to me by the prosecution before the judgement was made.

[Mordecai]

....Clear as mud.

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?

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

I'm going to consolidate (I may go back and deal with individual details). Let me get back to a particular issue that needs to be expanded upon. ID is science just like The Big Bang theory is science. You say, ID is about analogy while The Big Bang is based on observations. Uh... think about that. O.K., never mind. I will do your thinking for you. First off, science is essentially analysis. The best science is based on the scientific method. That's because all hypotheses that correctly predict what will happen in a given situation can be proven to be the correct one or false one through experimentation. The point of this, of course, is to be able to predict/detect a pattern and understand it. This should make sense, because science is the search for truth and a person who knows everything has the ability to predict better than anyone what will happen in ANY given situation (I'm not talking about religion. This is a self-evident fact). In fact, an interesting definition of intelligence was provided by some Oxford genius that states, "The definition of intelligence is 'the abililty to predict patterns in things.'"

Now, you say, "ID is based on analogy." Little do you know, that is bordering on admitting it is science. Let me explain. First of all, let's look at the word analogy. Now look at the word analysis. Do you see a resemblence? Now, what is analysis? It is observations of something in light of past observations, looking for similarities and patterns, thereby attempting to comprehend it and perhaps discover what exactly it has in common with past observations to the point of predicting what will happen in a given situation/experiment. In some cases, no experiments can be performed, so only analysis is done. This is still science of course, as we agree with regard to the Big Bang theory. Can you have a massive explosion without a cause? Of course not. Do we need to understand the cause to know that whatever it is, it is the type of thing that would cause explosions? Of course not. ONLY the type of thing that would cause a singularity to explode would cause it to explode.

With ID, we look at an example of what Dembski calls specified complexity. In the case of the flagellum, we clearly see that it is a rotor designed for propulsion, that taking any of many individual parts would cause it to cease to function and that current scienctific theories can't adequately explain where this came from. So we look for SIMILARITIES based on PAST OBSERVATIONS to come up with a possible explanation. There really is only ONE other possiblity that we have observed. All other explanations are based only on speculation/inference and not observation. That is (sadly enough for Atheists and in a way, scientists... really, it's not that exciting an explanation) intelligent design. The flagellum is a rotor. It's not just analogous. It IS one. That's probably why it's the most famous.

The problem with this, you say, is that we must sufficiently explain the cause aka the designer. Do you demand the same of the Big Bang? Not as far as I can tell.

We know the Big Bang was a massive explosion. Then again, we also know that a flagellum is a rotor. No question there, either. We know that we have observations about the Big Bang, which we know how to interprett based on past observations of other phenomenon. Similarly, we know where rotors come from based on past observation. We don't know the cause of the Big Bang. That's one reason it was controversial when it was introduced. Similarly, we don't know the cause of a biological rotor. But we do know it exists and that it has a cause. And we do know where irreducibly complex mechanisms ALWAYS come from, in our observations at least. Always. With the Big Bang, though, we don't know exactly what would cause an explosion without time or space being present. It seems beyond comprehension. Similarly, the apparent cause of a biological rotor appears to be beyond comprehension. Still, it MUST be the type of thing that produces rotors, because only something that is that type of thing COULD produce a rotor. Otherwise, it simpy wouldn't have produced a rotor. With the Big Bang, I guess, the type of thing that causes instability in a singularity is the answer. But we don't have observatios for that. Still, we base theories of what would do that based on past observations and past analysis.

You say that ID is based on an analogy. Yes it is. But that's science: analysis. Get it? So, if we look up at the subject heading for this thread, and we consider that your "complaint" is that ID is "just" analogy, and if we accept that the point of science is to analyze, i.e. judge, based on past observations, i.e. compare/make analogies, hopefully to understand it better, then you have essentially agreed that it is science. (I may or may not get to your most recent post, depending on whether or not I think it's relevant. I think I've sufficiently answered the question of whether it is science or not).

[Mighty Curelom]

And we do know where irreducibly complex mechanisms ALWAYS come from, in our observations at least.

That's right. They come from people, put together with tools or in factories. Therefore, we've proved that the biological rotor of the flagellum is assembled by humans with tiny little tools in flagellum factories.

What's that? That's not where flagella come from??? Well, if flagella don't share the means of production with human made machines, why should we assume they share the design component? That is, of cellular machines aren't made like human machines, why would they be designed like them?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

(I may or may not get to your most recent post, depending on whether or not I think its relevant. I think Ive sufficiently answered the question of whether it is science or not).

Yes, this is probably a good idea. I dont think you should respond to my previous post - and in return, I wont respond to your last post. Its clear where the main crux in the difference of opinion is here, and any further posts we make will just be head-bashing thats not always focusing on the main point.

And that one main point is demonstrated by this comment - from you:

You say that: ID is based on analogy. Little do you know, that is bordering on admitting it is science.

This is utterly wrong. Hopelessly wrong. Stupendously wrong. I can see why you beleive it, but this statement above - perhaps more than any other - indicates that you dont really get, deep down - what science is based on. Whats its about. And why it is what it is.

Dont feel too bad. A lot of very capable scientists dont really bother to look too deeply into the underlying philosophies of science either. They just accept the known methodologies that spring from them, and get on with their jobs. Kinda like the solider who dutifully obeys his country and fights the enemy without really knowing what the war is actually about.

You should really educate yourself on the philosophies of science, and the history of how it developed. Truly. I would personally recommend An introduction to the Philosophy of Science, by Anthony OHear. A great book. It can get involved at times, but he carefully takes you though all the main concepts. (And quite quickly, youll learn why your insistance that analogy alone borders on science is so perposterusly wrong. Science had that intellectual dead end pegged back in the 1700s!)

Science is far more than any one component in its toolkit. And there are important reasons for this. If we lowered our standards in this area, science would become impotent, limp, watered down and unimportant. Many of the great discoveries of the past would never have happenned, because scientists would have been happy to draw conclusions that simply werent true, because they didnt expose their theories to the appropiate vigarous scrutiny that science requires to function. Your far too happy to see analogy, and assume truth from it. Its bogus. Science knows this, and thats why it opposes ID as science.

Ill even gloss over the fact that if you were to ask any scientist to name any one of the main foundations of science, I hardly think analogy would be the first word to come to mind for most of them! Even that issue really isnt the main point. The main point is, a true scientific theory has to hit ALL the main requirements. Not just some of them, or one of them!

Even if we assumed analogy WAS one of the big main requirements of the scientific method (Which in truth, it isnt. This is again, where you miss the real point), it still woudlnt be enough to just hit that ONE point and suddenly declare it science.

Its obvious that you consider yourself more informed on this point and all kinds of other points than me, The Dude, Weezer, Mighty Curelom, kathrine the great, PhysicsGuy, thesometimesaint and practically everybody else in this thread. We could carry on trying to correct you, but it is clear it will not work.

...so - how about this:

Go onto a respectable, random scientific-orientated forum. Start a new thread with a poll. Dont mention your an IDer, so that you can be sure their answers arent going to be made just to make you look bad

Now, enter your beloved watchmaker analogy, or any other (sensible) analogy you like. And in the poll, ask the users to choose one of the following options.

1. This analogy could be considered a decent enough reason to go on and attempt to construct a scientific theory based on the idea.

2. This analogy can already be considered a scientific theory in and of itself

3. This analogy can already be considered to be bordering on being a scientific theory in and of itself

4. This analogy has no possible connection with science.

5. None of the above (explain)

Then see how many people on that forum choose either 2 or 3. (And lets also pay attention to those who choose option 4 - you could weed out the non-scientific thinkers on both sides of the scale...) Take a screenshot of the poll results after a few days, and feel free to post it here. If your not going to trust anybody in this forum on this point, maybe asking a neutral bunch of people that have no reason to attack your position can convince you that your looking at this from a - frankly - fairly childish viewpoint.

Just because you have an analogy that sounds reasonable to you, that doesnt mean you suddenly have a scientific theory. You are not even anywhere close to bordering on a scientific theory. No cigar. You do not pass GO, and you do not collect 200 dollars.

Its like saying that just because you can run to catch a bus, that must mean that you are bordering on being ready to run a marathon in under 4 hours. Seriously, its THAT rediculous.

Heck, there are instances where you frankly admit that:

a. You dont really care that much where the actual, hard boundries between science and other philosophies actually are.

b. Whether ID even really counts as true blue science.

This is seen in the somewhat interesting idea that ID should be considered - at least - fringe science. Well, ID has one qualification for being considered fringe science ...there are very few scientists on the planet who take it seriously, when compared with the entire group worldwide. But legitamte fringe science is science that follows the scientific method and yet has little support amongst scientists.

Now - THAT would be science that I could respect. That I would be happy to keep my mind open to. I would be happy to inspect whatever new findings or conclusions they may - potentially - have to offer.

Once the idea of Intelligent Design proposes such a scientific theory, then Ill be all ears. Till then, Ill watch the fight against evolution with interest, knowing full well that it is - currently - the only solid, honest scientific theory that explains the nature of life on this planet that we currently have.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Heres a narrative based on the watchmaker analogy:

Imagine a rainforest in some remote part of the world where an ancient tribe dwell. This tribe have never had any contact with the modern world. None whatsoever. And they never leave their forest home.

One day, the leader of the tribe finds an object on the floor. It is made of a strange, hard material that the man does not recognise. It almost has the appearence of the bracelets that are sometimes braded from the bark of trees - but heavier. But the most remarkable difference is a circular face, with strange markings and three small, fine sticks that point in different directions. One of the sticks seems to move very regularly round the face. The tribesman stares at the face intently. Its like nothing else hes ever seen before. Hes captivated. As he stares, he notices that one of the slighty thicker sticks also moves, but less regularly than the fast-moving one. And it always seems to move when the fast-moving hand is in a certain position.

Now, this tribesman may not be educated by modern standards, but hes perfectly intelligent. He quickly deduces that there is some kind of system involved here. And he also quickly deduces that it could have been designed by somebody. Since it is so much more intricate, complex and unique than anything he is familiar with - he also quickly assumes that it was not built by any man. After all, none of the rudementally tools that the tribe have managed to produce in its entire history look anything like this.

Instead, he takes it to be a gift from the Great Forest Goblin - HaaBaaWooWoo. Excited by the discovery, the tribal elder takes it back to the village. He shows it to everybody. They are awestruck. He tells them it was a gift from HaaBaaWoowoo, and that it will aid them in their daily lives.

When a tribal woman is about to give birth, the elder places the watch carefully over her belly, to aid the birth and avoid complications.

When no food can be found, the elder places it on a large pole and dances, crying to the Great Goblin to aid them in their hunts.

And when they get involved in a scurmish with another rival tribe, the elder will attach it to a necklace, and have the leader of the warriors wear it into battle, so that HaaBaaWooWoo will guard and protect them.

At this point in the story, Im sure the IDers are fairly happy. Well - OK - the tribal leader didnt really get what the watch was all about, but he did conclude that it was intelligently designed! - and he was correct! That proves the point doesnt it?

...well - it proves that you can have a guess against a small-ish number of possibilities and by blind chance get it right - sure. I dont beleive that I, nor many other scientist who oppose ID as science - have ever stated that ID is flat-out wrong as just an idea! ID could be right!. The origins of life on this Earth, on any other potential planets, and the entire universe itself could all be down to ID. Of course its possible. But saying thats the case just because there is no other emperical explanation is not science!. Likewise, the Tribal Elder didnt practice science when he assumed that the watch was a gift from the Great Forest Goblin HaaBaaWooWoo.

Heres how the story might pan out if the tribesman HAD followed something more like scientific method:

He inspects the watch. He quickly deduces that there is some kind of system involved here. He also quickly decides that it could have been designed. It is far more intricate than anything the tribe have been able to construct, so perhaps it was made by the Great Forest Goblin. But how can he be sure? Perhaps there is a more mundane explanation? He decides he needs to search around the local area - indeed the whole forest - for clues. But after days of searching, he can find nothing that can explain the watch.

So here is another chance for the tribesman to give up his investigation and just accept that the watch is a gift from the Goblin. But the tribesman has another idea - what if the watch somehow came into the forest from the outside world?. the tribe never ventured outside the forest. It was believed that the evil spirit Mawaka has a great influence outside of the forests borders, and the tribesman was afraid to venture out. But he realised that if he was to found out whether the watch came from the outside world - and not from the Great Goblin, he really had no other choice - because if he wanted to beleive that the Goblin gave the watch to him as a gift, how would he go about ever firmly concluding such a thing? No-one had ever seen the Great Goblin, apart from the Wise One long before he was born. He had searched the whole forest, and could never find the Goblin. It is legend that the Goblin never shows itself, and hides from humans with his magic powers. So how would he ever be able to ask the Goblin if it was a gift from him?

He realises that the only sensible avenue of inspection was to inspect the world outside the forest.

So bravely, the tribesman ventures out into the world outside the forest. It is a strange world. A barren, flat, treeless place. After travelling for many miles, he comes across a place where there were many large things. They were almost like the huts back at the village, but much bigger, and much sturdier looking. And many strange looking people are walking around amongst them! The tribesman has never seen people outside of the forest before, and had always been told that they were vicious and evil - under the spell of Mawaka. So he keeps hidden, and looks at the people going about their business.

Then he notices that many of the strangly dressed people are also wearing things that look like the strange device that he found. On their wrists. He had an incling that this was the way it should be worn, but now he has confirmed it. He continues to inpect their behaviour, to try and learn what the device is for.

...he notices that now and again, a person would hold up the watch, look at the face and then suddenly dash off somewhere else. This must be a clue to what the device does. Maybe the device is communicating some kind of information to the person, who then acts on it? Yes - this would seem to make sense.

The tribsmen then notices a huge structure in the middle of the strange village. There, is a face like the one on the device he has, but far bigger! He checks and the hands are in exactly the same positions as the one he has!

This is puzzling. So the device imparts some kind of information to the user, but according to this new evidence, it is the same information on all the different devices. Hmmm.

He gets it! He looks again at the regularity with which the hands move. It is tracking time! Perhaps this device indicates what time of day it is.

...and then the tribesman relises that he can prove this. He notices the positions of the hands, and the position of the sun in the sky. He realises that if he checks the positions of the hands tomorrow, when the sun is in the same position it is now, the hands should also be in the same position they are in now. If they arent, then perhaps he guessed wrong, and he will have to come up with a new theory. But if they ARE, then that is pretty conclusive proof that he guessed right!

The tribesman is now chuffed with himself. But he still has a major question still to answer. Where do these devices come from? Can he assume that all these people got their watches from the Great Goblin? Does the Great Goblin even deal with people outside of the forest? He decides to throw caution to the wind, and walk down into the strange village, to find more clues. He searches around for a while, but cant find anything. In fact, he nearly gets seen a few times, and thinks about whether this is such a good idea.

...but he realises that if he is to know for sure where the watch comes from, that he cannot give up. So he continues to search.

And finally, his dilegance is rewarded. He notices a buulding that has a picture of a device similar to the one he is holding painted above it. Surely HERE must lie the answer. The tribesman creeps in. He sees a man (who hasnt notices him) working away at a table, with lots of little things arranged all over it. He then, slowly and methodically, starts putting them together. It wasnt long before the tribesman realised what was happenning. The man was BUILDING a watch. Right before his eyes. This sealed the deal. The watch he had found on the forest floor was almost certainly NOT a gift from the Goblin. It had been made by OTHER MEN. These strangly dressed men in the world outside of the forest.

He had had enough excitement for now. he crept back out of the building, out of the strange village, and he travelled back to his forest home. He knew he would venture out again, and he now knew better than to attribute any strange thing he saw to the Great Goblin HaaBaaWooWoo. When he showed the item to the rest of the tribe, he didnt claim it as a gift from the Goblin. He didnt attempt to help the delivery of babies with it, or to help in hunts or tribal warfare. Instead, he wore it on his wrist, as was appropiate. And, by carefully inspecting the hands on the watch and matching the suns position, he worked out what time of day each symbol on the watch meant. In fact, he worked out that each symbol represented TWO different times! One during the day, and one during the night.

So there we have the difference between guesswork, and scientific investigation. Yes, the tribesman got lucky in the first senario on one point, but he also got so much wrong:

* The watch was not a gift from the Great Goblin HaaBaaWooWoo.

* The watch is not intended to help deliver babies. The watch is not intended to assist in hunts. The watch is not intended to assist in tribal battles.

And any other wierd thing that the tribesmen were ever to see or hear in the future that had anything to do with the outside world would also be happily attributed to the Great Goblin, had the tribesman continued to given up and assume each time.

However, when the scientific method is applied, the tribesmen was able not just to guess that the watch was designed, he was able to conclusively deduce it. Through looking for evidence, and not giving up. And he not only knows that HaaBaaWooWoo didnt make it, he now also knows exactly who did - the humans that live in the outside world. he knows that the object is a time-keeping device. He saw the thing being built. He has determined what its strange symbols mean. He can now use it as it was meant to be used.

Thats the difference. ID may well be right when it says that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for life on this planet. But unless it constructs a scientific theory to attempt to prove that, it is no better than the tribesman who searches his forest, cannot find any clues and therefore stops looking and assumes that it must come from the Great Goblin.

You may - by chance - be right. But you wont have scientifically demonstrated it. Thats the point.

[T-Bone]

Uh, you've really got logic mastered, don't ya?

No, that was just such a slam dunk that I couldn't resist.

Oh, yeah, and some random guy who doesn't understand science, is a member of a far-right fundamentalist church and goes around after the judgement preaching the religious arguments given to him by the prosecution, gets to decide that.

You aren't acusing me of being random are you?

Now I'm going to go make a name for myself and make public appearances spouting nonsense about the religious tracts on which I based my judgement, given to me by the prosecution before the judgement was made.

I'm not sure where you're going with that. It's called "discovery" and it's actually part of the litigation process under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure V. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY > Rule 26. (States have their own rules.) And the Wedge Document was given to the Plaintiff by the Defendant. There was no prosecutor in the case because it was not a criminal trial. It probably sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but small words change the meaning quite a lot.

T-Bone (the logic master)

[Mordecai]

That's right. They come from people, put together with tools or in factories. Therefore, we've proved that the biological rotor of the flagellum is assembled by humans with tiny little tools in flagellum factories.

What's that? That's not where flagella come from??? Well, if flagella don't share the means of production with human made machines, why should we assume they share the design component? That is, of cellular machines aren't made like human machines, why would they be designed like them?

As I said, only the TYPE of thing that produces rotors can produce a flagellum (seeing as it is a rotor). That doesn't mean the EXACT thing. The type of thing needs to have the type of things we have that allow to produce a rotor. For certain, we know that people need forethought and a particular goal to piece together a machine. Did the designers have a lab on another world to produce the first life, with tools and such? Maybe, maybe not. But some people imagine other means, so we don't have to say that the type of thing that produces rotors NECESSARILY will use a factory and tools. That's like criticizing Newton, because as he noticed an apple falling, he compared that to a planet. Planets don't have stems and aren't red! What was he thinking!?

[Mordecai]

Yes, this is probably a good idea. I dont think you should respond to my previous post - and in return, I wont respond to your last post. Its clear where the main crux in the difference of opinion is here, and any further posts we make will just be head-bashing thats not always focusing on the main point.

You're assuming ahead of time that your previous post was good. I haven't even read it. I may get a good laugh out of it.

You say that: ID is based on analogy. Little do you know, that is bordering on admitting it is science.

This is utterly wrong. Hopelessly wrong. Stupendously wrong. I can see why you beleive it, but this statement above - perhaps more than any other - indicates that you dont really get, deep down - what science is based on. Whats its about. And why it is what it is.

Actually, I explained it pretty clearly. It is the search for truth based on observations. Observations of what? Similar things and properties from past observations. You're comparing past observations to current ones and inferring from past understanding and applying to a current one. The opposite of science is intuition or assumption, in my view. To say that it's only analogy is to admit that it is based on something outside ourselves and not just personal point of view. Now, an analogy is more specifically defined as, "comparing too things that have something in common, that are otherwise nothing alike." But you have already said what makes them "nothing alike," and that is the fact that a flagellum reproduces. Some people have claimed that a machine can potentially reproduce itself, when it gets advanced enough. Do you have any evidence that it can't? So your only objection is that a flagellum is TOO advanced, essentially. Your only other argument is, "Maybe Darwinism can do it." Now, THAT is not science. Where do you find something comparable that Darwinism produced that is irreducibly complex? You can find reducibly complex things, but then again, we can't even prove Darwinian proceses were responsible for THOSE. Thus, you have nothing outside yourself to explain the flagellum, because you refuse to that it is a machine. Any biologist will tell you it's a machine. Do you insist that it's not?

Dont feel too bad. A lot of very capable scientists dont really bother to look too deeply into the underlying philosophies of science either. They just accept the known methodologies that spring from them, and get on with their jobs. Kinda like the solider who dutifully obeys his country and fights the enemy without really knowing what the war is actually about.

That's funny, because you accept The Big Bang theory as science. You insist it's different, because they use observations. And what have I already explained about your use of the word analogy? That's observation.

You should really educate yourself on the philosophies of science, and the history of how it developed.

You should.

Truly. I would personally recommend An introduction to the Philosophy of Science, by Anthony OHear. A great book. It can get involved at times, but he carefully takes you though all the main concepts. (And quite quickly, youll learn why your insistance that analogy alone borders on science is so perposterusly wrong. Science had that intellectual dead end pegged back in the 1700s!)

Meyers has a PhD in the philosophy of science. He looks at the history of science to. Much of his explanation of how ID is science is based on how Darwinism is defined as science (with regard to the origin of species).

Science is far more than any one component in its toolkit.

Not really. Since everything comes down to observing the past to understand the present and future. Whenever possible, of course, scientists take it a lot further than that.

And there are important reasons for this. If we lowered our standards in this area, science would become impotent, limp, watered down and unimportant.

You mean how Darwinism (with regard to the origin of species) has become?

Your far too happy to see analogy, and assume truth from it. Its bogus. Science knows this, and thats why it opposes ID as science.

I'd say analogy is an understatement. As I said, a flagellum IS a rotor. Your only description of how its different is that one reproduces. That's not relevant in any way, other than it illustrates that the flagellum is much more advanced. By that argument, the apple II is not comparable on a scientific level to the computers we use today.

Ill even gloss over the fact that if you were to ask any scientist to name any one of the main foundations of science, I hardly think analogy would be the first word to come to mind for most of them!

No. But they'd use the word analysis, which has the same roots. Do you think root words drop out of the sky? Let me tell you, those Greek & Roman philosophers were very, very smart. They knew that comparison of the past to the present is literally the only way we can understand anything at all. Thus, analysis, which is to break something down to find the TRUTH about it, has a strong relation to the word analogy, which is about comparison. Also, scientists would mention observation. Observations, when applied to something COMPARABLE, will give insight to that comparable thing.

ven that issue really isnt the main point. The main point is, a true scientific theory has to hit ALL the main requirements. Not just some of them, or one of them!

No. The most reliable scientific theory has to hit ALL the main requirements. The fewer there are, the less reliable. In some cases, you just go with what you've got. Like Darwinists, who can't possibly peer into the past, can't possibly reproduce the origin of species and pray to the god of skinny geeks that no one will discover that they need a neo-neo-Darwinian synthesis.

Even if we assumed analogy WAS one of the big main requirements of the scientific method (Which in truth, it isnt. This is again, where you miss the real point), it still woudlnt be enough to just hit that ONE point and suddenly declare it science.

YOUR definition of analogy apparently includes things that ARE the same, though. You've already said the difference is that one reproduces and one doesn't. That settles it. Your own words expose that you have essentially admitted that ID is based on the most fundamental characteristic of science: observation/comparison. Do you have any more differences than, "The flagellum reproduces?" If not, you've conceded a major point for ID.

Its obvious that you consider yourself more informed on this point and all kinds of other points than me, The Dude, Weezer, Mighty Curelom, kathrine the great, PhysicsGuy, thesometimesaint and practically everybody else in this thread. We could carry on trying to correct you, but it is clear it will not work.

Many of these people have made some very weak arguments. Are you going to say it's six against one, therefore I lose? Nice.

a. You dont really care that much where the actual, hard boundries between science and other philosophies actually are.

Like the "hard boundary" that science can't possibly recognize what is intelligently designed and what's not based on observation?

b. Whether ID even really counts as true blue science.

It's not the most reliable type of science. Then again, it seems quite plausible and represents positive evidence based on objects outside of ourselves. Thus, it's scientific and is science, utilizing the same analysis of the flagellum that Darwinists use. The only difference is the conclusions drawn are based on observation and not wishful thinking.

This is seen in the somewhat interesting idea that ID should be considered - at least - fringe science. Well, ID has one qualification for being considered fringe science ...there are very few scientists on the planet who take it seriously, when compared with the entire group worldwide.

In 50 years, a respectable percentage of scientists will accept it as science, although I suspect it will always be fringe, kind of like Mormonism is considered fringe but is still Christian. It's growing at a very high rate as it stands. A scientist in my ward says ID is convincing. Lots of other scientists have said so, relative to the number that actually have seriously looked at it. Sherlock has a degree and understands it well. He's got a PhD, which should impress you. I mean, you keep saying that if I check with experts, you'll be proven right. Sherlock, the guy in my ward, about 600 others who have degrees in various sciences have signed their name to the petition. I'm a MORMON, man, I'm used to being the minority and still thinking I'm right.

[Mordecai]

Thats the difference. ID may well be right when it says that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for life on this planet. But unless it constructs a scientific theory to attempt to prove that, it is no better than the tribesman who searches his forest, cannot find any clues and therefore stops looking and assumes that it must come from the Great Goblin.

You may - by chance - be right. But you wont have scientifically demonstrated it. Thats the point.

ID never assumes who the designer is. Duh. What a pointless story. What geek wrote that? HaBaWooWoo? I forgot that IDers have given a name for the designer. I call him Jim, personally. Jim the Great Flagellum Maker.

[Mordecai]

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.

We can give lots of details about the irreducible complexity of the flagellum. HELLO. How many times do I have to explain that the apparent irreducible complexity of the flagellum is comparable to the explosion wheras the cause of the Big Bang is comparable to the cause of the irreducible complexity of the flagellum? I'm sick of explaining simple things that go in one ear and out the other. It's not that complicated. Get it straight, so you can make an argument that actually addresses the issue. Don't get me wrong, I'm not ready to call you McGee yet, but this response is a strawman argument.

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.

Bull. We'd conclude that the same type of thing that causes lightning causes electricity. That's absolutely correct since lightning and electricity are the same thing. The cause of lightning is the type of thing that causes electricity. Hello.

Come back with some figures, then well talk.

Some figures on what? How much the Darwinists outnumber IDers? Why? Shouldn't we focus on the actual analysis and not what people think? There are a lot of reasons people think (or pretend to think) things. I don't care about that. People are too vulnerable to group-think, temptation of money, honor, respect, fear of failure, fear of being mocked, etc. Why should I worry about them? What percentage of scientists secretly think IDers have a point but won't say, because everyone will think they're bad scientists? If the % of scientists in the country believed God was a God of miracles were a lot higher, then the % of IDers would be higher. As Behe has pointed out, religious scientists tend to accept ID fairly readily. ATheists don't. Are you telling me atheists are the most trustworthy, and I should always go with them? Granted, many theists reject it. Then again, that's also largely do to their religious convictions regarding how God would or should do things.

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.

Oh, well, it sounds like a scientific dead end! I think because of that, it's not science. Or we could say, that's way too vague! It's not science. We need to just be perfectly quiet and ignore the possible causes of the Big Bang. Obviously, you're not saying this... well, at least not about the Big Bang.

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.

It was NEVER routinely rejected? I think it was at first. Do you have any evidence that it NEVER was? The Big Bang theory has far less overt supernatural implications, too, so people's feelings on religion don't get it in the way. Oh, wait, I forgot scientists are super-human, unmovable when it comes to feelings. Right. My IQ is pretty high, but I think I'm still just as vulnerable to bias a lot of times than people not as smart as me. Why are scientists different? For example, you can't seem to see that the Big Bang is comparable to the flagellum, while the cause of the Big Bang is comparable to the designer. ID theorists have never claimed that the Big Bang is comparable to the designer. You jumped to that conclusion yourself based on lack of effort. You seem very smart, but this simple thing has eluded you. That's due to bias, obviously. You are being intellectually lazy. Easy to do.

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, in my view, they're wrong again.

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.

Flat out rejection? By whom? More and more scientists are accept ID as science. In fact, on average, when a universally accepted theory is proven wrong and a superior theory replaces it, it takes about 40 years for the scientific community as a whole accepts the superior theory. Sad but true. That's true of, for example, the theory that there was a landbridge between South America and Africa. The idea of Padagonea (is that the right word?) was troublesome for scientists.

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

I LOVE scientists... when they agree with me. heh eh

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.

Nope. The Big Bang is still there. It's still an explosion in the present. Kinda like the flagellum is still a rotor. (I got bored. I might do the rest of this later).

[Mordecai]

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?

As I said, in a way, everything in the search for truth (and thus science) is about analogies. For example, the color blue. If we had never had a single observation before, having been born blind, then we wake up to a purely blue screen after an operation, unable to look at anything else, the person wouldn't know it was a color at all. They would know it was SOMETHING, but they might think it is what light looks like. Without comparisons, it's like a thing doesn't exist. There would be no word for blue, if we had never seen any other color. To us, it would have no definition. Similarly, if we had no prior observations of real-world events that were not the Big Bang, to tell us about radiation, gravity, inertia, etc., we wouldn't know how to interprett the evidence. All understanding of reality is based on comparing similarities and differences, in the end. Thus, these real world events that illustrated these laws that helped us to interprett the evidence for the Big Bang were analogous to the Big Bang, each in their own way. Still, these differences have proven to be so consistently provable and observable on so many levels, the Big Bang is clearly a fact of science (although an agnostic might say we can't really call it a fact... it's only our perception). There was definitely an explosion that is still occuring. Similarly, people like The Dude and Michale Behe do know a lot about biology, about genetics, about how genetic mutations occur, about what has and has not been observed and what does and does not appear likely. Going on real-world observations of life, which are analogous to the flagellum, each in their own way, we come to conclusions about the flagellum.

No scientists have been able to point out that each part has a use in itself. At best, they've discovered a small fraction of parts of a flagellum that are useful in themselves or could have been produced in incriments that build upon the effectiveness of its core irreducibly complex mechanism. Science also seems to suggest that one of those useful parts came with the flagellum and that those bacteria that use a type 2 secretory system devolved from flagellar bacteria. This is the same system that Darwinists use to come to conclusions like this. Thus, Behe is a true scientist, using science to make points about the nature of the flagellum. In my view, Behe has sufficiently illustrated that a flagellum is essentially irreducible complex. Has he proven that ONLY intelligent beings can produce a rotor-like mechanism? No, but we do know from observation that there is at least ONE way that it can be made.

Thus, we compare these two things that, as you've admitted, have a similarity and are analogous, and draw a "best explanation," and not a, "The case is closed," type conclusion. A true scientists wouldn't say that a designer did it. But a true scientist would hypothesize based on current evidence and analysis of that evidence. It is an educated guess, and it appears it's going to be difficult to find any other means of producing irreducibly complex mechanisms. Through process of elimination and by way of observations of other rotors, it's an explanation based on observations of things that are both in the real world but have real, meaningful similarities. Even in your ridiculous story about the "Forrest Goblin," the guy was correct in concluding that an intelligent being probably made it. That's exactly right. To say, "It was God," is not remotely scientific. That's just my opinion.

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

Even if ALL ID is is an attack on Darwinism, their methods are scientific. But the watch argument stands up pretty well and really is based on observations of things in the real world.

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.

That's arguable. I believe most scientists would call those people working on it scientists. Did they stop being scientists when they started attempting to prove string theory? I don't think so.

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

But central to ID is irreducible complexity as well as specified complexity. That aspect is very much scientific. My point about "branes" was obviously that there are scientists theorizing based on observations of other things how the Big Bang occured. Not surprisingly, their theories reflect current knowledge based on observations of things in the past. The Big Bang having been proven is proof that the type of thing that can cause a Big Bang to occur exists. There is no question on that point. Thus, it appears that the type of thing that produces irreducible complexity exited prior to humans being on the planet. The Dude is so sure that there is no God, he's also certain that a flagellum is not irreducibly complex. Yet many scientists have argued that it is but still evolved through a circuitous route. The "assembly instruction" argument pretty much nullifies this objection. Plenty of reasons to believe that intelligent beings could make a flagellum and plenty of reasons to believe all known natural routes are pretty much out of the question. So, we at least have scientific reasons to believe that the type of thing that produces irreducibly complex mechanisms must be behind it. I think only intelligence can do that. What do you think would produce it? (The Dude seems to know that Darwinism could not produce irreducible complexity as did Darwin).

He knows exactly what hes talking about. Ask him if hes trying to prove the Big Bang theory, or extrapolate from its findings?

Extrapolating from scientific findings is science. It's just not the most reliable science.

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.

Aspects of it are science in its truest sense, just as much as biology as a whole is science. That part of the conclusions drawn from the science is beyond what you think is plausible is no concern of mine. That's just your opinion.

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...

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

If your authority figures were able to present a good argument and good FACTS, that'd be different. So far, I find them unconvincing. I do rely on authority figures to present some facts. You should do the same.

...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?!

We don't know what percentage would accept ID as science, if human bias/ignorance of what ID is, were taken out of the picture. You are relying on numbers that are essentially meaningless. If only 2% of reputable scientists accept it in twenty years, I will say that is good enough. I expect a lot more than that over time. I suspect the percentage of scientists who believe who have studied it thoroughly with real intent is probably not bad, judging by what Behe says. Meyer says, "I recommend that scientists read The Design Inference." Many IDers publicly debate and exchange e-mails with friendly or unfriendly opposition. Other "scientists" just dismiss it without even studying it and are intellectually lazy, as you can apprently be.

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...

Do YOU have a clue? I wasn't the one who brought up the numbers. They're irrelevant on so many levels, especially since we don't even know them. Hello? We can only do FAIR statistics by checking with scientists who have SERIOUSLY studied it. I suspect that a number of them will say it's science, but that it is not the most reliable science. Still, I also suspect that a good number of scientists will find it convincing, judging by the few that I've read about. As I pointed out before to The Dude, an award winning, well respected abiogenesis theorist later became "Benedict Arnold" to the Darwinists and currently is supportive of ID.

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?.

If the "analogy" is valid scientifically, it is science. It's your opinion that it is not. Science is observation and consideration of the past to examine and understand other less understood phenomenon. That's what ID is attempting.

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?

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

Well, I have one piece of positive reason to believe that there weren't published attempts to explain things like the flagellum from a Darwinian standpoint. You have NO evidence. I'm going with my position as the stronger one. Behe really does have a PhD and really used to be a Darwinist, like you. The guy is an expert, and I have no reason to believe he's a liar. Unless you show me POSITIVE evidence for your POSITIVE assertion, I will go with the negative based on Behe's word. The guy with a positive assertion at least CAN prove it. So, prove it. Maybe The Dude can show us that prior to Behe's book, there was a lot published about the possible evolutionary paths for a flagellum. I predict he won't find much if anything.

[asbestosman]

Actually, I was saying that infinite universes would increase the chance that gods or a God could exist, since each universe would be different. One of them might produce everything needed for gods or a God to exist. That's all.

Ah, my mistake. What you previously wrote did seem a bit ambiguous.

Anyhow, what you say does bring up some other interesting questions. If you are correct then perhaps one could say that the chances of a malicious god or gods existing are also greater and then proceed to ask how we could tell the difference. I suspect a powerful god would be smart enough to fool all the people all the time. Mind you in 2 Cor. 4:4 even Satan is called the god of this world. Maybe he designed the flagellum.

Furthermore, it brings to focus the question as to whether or not we should consider the existence of god as something possibly random. Or more deeply, what are the necessary qualities for a being to be a god? Can a contingent being be a god? How different can God be and still be God? This doesn't seem like a very good route to go down IMO. In fact, I believe that even Dawkins considers the possibility of extra-terrestrials to be more likely than God, but admits that we might call these aliens god. Yet somehow he would not consider them as such. We really need to know what we mean by God in the first place. Otherwise to people living millenia ago we are gods when it comes to how much power and knowledge we have compared to them.

I pretty much understand what is meant by the "universal probability bound." Also, I'm not sure that is what Dembski is saying. I think he's merely responding to people's criticism that he has no statistics for the chances of a designer creating life. That is like saying, "What are the chances that Shakespeare would write Macbeth?"

Yes, I think you're right about Dembski and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just drew the conclusion that such thinking shows there is no obvious connection between the existence of God and an increase in the universal probability bound. However, you seem to understand this so carry on.

[asbestosman]

But I don't know that we have to expect them to expect it. Why should we limit science to what other people EXPECT?

It's not about what (lay)people expect. That was poor wording on my part. It's about what we're justified in suspecting as plausible based in part by other experiences. We have no experience of observing or detecting an undesigned designer of life (outside of religious experiences). We do have experience of changing a variable and seeing a change in behavior (and sometimes no change).

Again, Richard Swinburn's The Existence of God strikes me as the correct way to do it--as long as we keep in mind that the probability obtained is subjective.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

The opposite of science is intuition or assumption, in my view.

Exactly! And ID is nothing but an assumption!

...you think evolution has some issues, therefore ID.

Your only other argument is, Maybe Darwinism can do it.

No. My argument is NOT Maybe Darwinism can do it, although that statement is of course correct.

My argument is - in fact - that Darwinism is the only valid scientific theory we currently have that can even attempt to explain it. At least scientifically.

Now, THAT is not science

More accurately, the strawman you just created is not real science. Correct.

Thus, you have nothing outside yourself to explain the flagellum, because you refuse to that it is a machine. Any biologist will tell you its a machine. Do you insist that its not?

I wont accept that it is a machine? Huh? When did I ever say this? Where did you get that from?

Machine - an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work: a sewing machine.

Apparatus - any complex instrument or mechanism for a particular purpose.

As you can see, the real distinction between a machine and something that is simply complex is that the machine has a specific purpose. So as long as you specify the purpose of individual organisms (or even life in general), then yes - you get to quantify it as a machine.

The term doesnt have any relation to the topic at hand, but it was a nice destraction I suppose...

Thats funny, because you accept The Big Bang theory as science

Of course I do. Because it is.

You insist its different, because they use observations.

Its different because it follows all the requirements of the scientific method. Not just the bits that are convinient...

Meyers has a PhD in the philosophy of science

Rather than relying on Meyers to decide your opinion, maybe you should look into the philosophies of science yourself, so that you can make an educated desision, and not have to lean on someone elses.

Not really.

Oh indeed it is.

Id say analogy is an understatement

You need the word analogy to mean more than it actually does, because its all you have.

No. But theyd use the word analysis, which has the same roots. Do you think root words drop out of the sky? Let me tell you, those Greek & Roman philosophers were very, very smart. They knew that comparison of the past to the present is literally the only way we can understand anything at all. Thus, analysis, which is to break something down to find the TRUTH about it, has a strong relation to the word analogy, which is about comparison. Also, scientists would mention observation. Observations, when applied to something COMPARABLE, will give insight to that comparable thing.

Its not a question that you have to compare things. Nor observe things. The only thing we are disagreeing on is how you process those comparisons and observations, to correctly interperet them.

Yes, I agree that analysis - of course - has to be bought to bear in the construction of a hypothesis. Of course it does. And analogy can be as good a tool as any for that analysis. But this is not enough to count as a scientific theory.

Here - let me use another example:

Abiogenesis is also NOT a scientific theory! Yes, you heard me correctly. The vital component that athiesm still needs to complete its equivalent of the creation story is NOT a scientific theory. Yet. Currently, it can only claim the title of a hypothesis.

...why? Because we havent worked out a way to test and potentially falsify it yet! Just like String Theory, and just like ID.

Its going to be an extremely difficult problem for anybody who wishes to promote the hypothesis of abiogenesis to a theory. I personally doubt that abiogenesis will ever be promoted past a hypothesis in my lifetime. I could be wrong, but the scale of the problem is just too immense for me to give its chances too high a rating.

But at least those who are involved in the effort know what is required, and dont kid themselves into thinking that they can fall back onto world-view assumption to fill the gaps.

Athiests may assume abiogeneisis. And some of them may even be scientists. But science itself will NOT be content with assuming a hypothesis. It will continue to work, as long as it takes, towards turning the hypothesis into a full-blown theory:

...because when it comes to science, nothing less is good enough.

No. The most reliable scientific theory has to hit ALL the main requirements.

Nope. Incorrect. If a hypothesis is not able to satisfy all the requirements of the scientific method, then it cannot be called a theory. And no, this is not an athiest group-think conspiracy.

The fact that abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, and not a theory, proves this.

Like Darwinists, who cant possibly peer into the past, cant possibly reproduce the origin of species and pray to the god of skinny geeks that no one will discover that they need a neo-neo-Darwinian synthesis.

Man, I can feel the bile from here.

Your own words expose that you have essentially admitted that ID is based on the most fundamental characteristic of science: observation/comparison. Do you have any more differences than, The flagellum reproduces? If not, youve conceded a major point for ID.

I conceed that ID has a decent idea that could very well end up being a full-blown scientific theory - some day. Have I ever said anything else?

The real trouble is, you IDers are so busy trying to knock Darwin round the head, that you havent even considered the fact that you also need to be attempting to move the hypothesis of ID to a full blown theory. Right now, your not even bothering to try. Its far easier to fall back on assumption. And luckily for ID, some people out there (not many, but some) are dumb enough to buy that that counts as a scientific theory.

You need to start specifying something about this Intelligent Designer if it ever to become a scientific theory. At the very least, some details about exactly how it went about nudging evolution, that we can attempt to emperically detect.

Until somebody does attempts this, ID will nessesarily remain a hypothesis based on assumption. And nothing more.

Like the hard boundary that science cant possibly recognize what is intelligently designed and whats not based on observation?

You certainly cant do it though assumption, no. That counts for both abiogenesis and ID.

Its not the most reliable type of science. Then again, it seems quite plausible and represents positive evidence based on objects outside of ourselves.

If thats your way of saying perhaps it can at least be called a scientific hypothesis right?, then lets shake hands and go and get a pizza or something. Because I agree.

But then again, youve still got the problem that IDers want ID to be taught in schools, and any other place, as a scientific theory, on the same level as evolution. Youve still gotta get over yourselves on that one.

I also would not want String Theory, or Abiogenesis to be taught in schools as scientific theorys - on equal footing with evolution, or the Big Bang, or general relativity.

If you know of any schools that are, please feel free to inform me, and Ill be the first to protest...

Im a MORMON, man, Im used to being the minority and still thinking Im right.

Heh - quite aside from the debate, I liked this comment

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

We can give lots of details about the irreducible complexity of the flagellum.

Irreducible complexity is an anti-evolution detail. NOT a pro-ID detail.

To start moving ID from a hypothesis to a theory, you need more than concepts like irreducible complexity. i.e. youll need to realise that bashing evolution isnt gonna get the job done.

Im not ready to call you McGee yet, but this response is a strawman argument.

No strawmen. Im explaining the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. And Im not making it up. Go read some books on science. Youll see it all described there.

Bull. Wed conclude that the same type of thing that causes lightning causes electricity. Thats absolutely correct since lightning and electricity are the same thing. The cause of lightning is the type of thing that causes electricity. Hello.

Not Bull. You would have been happy enough with the hypothesis of electricity, without bothering to move the concept onwards to a scientific theory. And without that scientific theory, we would not understand as much about electricity as we do now.

Some figures on what? How much the Darwinists outnumber IDers?

No. I already know that. You made the claim that Big Bang was once opposed in the same way that ID is being opposed now. This statement was false.

The Big Bang was accepted as a scientific theory as soon as it was ready to be called such. But yes, people opposed it. Just like evolution is accepted as a valid theory (even by you), and yet it is opposed.

The difference with ID is that it is not even accepted as a legitamate scientific theory, and yet IDers try to convince everybody that it is already a full-blown scientific theory (even though it has completely skipped all kinds of essential steps), and in fact it is ready to be taught in schools alongside evolution.

But ID isnt a scientific theory. And that is what is being opposed. It is a completely different situation to anything that happenned with the history of the Big Bang theory. And if you have evidence to the contrary, then please cite it.

Thats what I meant when I said Show me some figures (i.e. what percentage of the scientific community EVER denied that the Big Bang was a legitamte scientific theory, regardless of whether they opposed it or not).

And you have still failed in this request.

It was NEVER routinely rejected? I think it was at first.

No - you misunderstand. I mean it was never rejected as a legitamte scientific theory, which means it is not a decent analogy with the current ID situation. This is quite different to just opposing it.

Oh, well, it sounds like a scientific dead end! I think because of that, its not science. Or we could say, thats way too vague! Its not science. We need to just be perfectly quiet and ignore the possible causes of the Big Bang. Obviously, youre not saying this... well, at least not about the Big Bang.

I wont guess, or assume what caused the Big Bang. Correct. Thats because I beleive in science.

And yes, science will often find itself at dead ends. But it eventually plows through most of them. Consistently.

It takes a longer amount of time than guessing - Ill give you that...

Oh, wait, I forgot scientists are super-human, unmovable when it comes to feelings. Right. My IQ is pretty high, but I think Im still just as vulnerable to bias a lot of times than people not as smart as me. Why are scientists different? For example, you cant seem to see that the Big Bang is comparable to the flagellum, while the cause of the Big Bang is comparable to the designer. ID theorists have never claimed that the Big Bang is comparable to the designer. You jumped to that conclusion yourself based on lack of effort. You seem very smart, but this simple thing has eluded you. Thats due to bias, obviously. You are being intellectually lazy. Easy to do.

Of course we all have our own biases. Science acknowledges this, and specifically tackles this problem. Its what the scientific method - when followed fully and properly, weeds out. And THATS why its so important to follow all of it, and not just the parts that make your case sound as good as possible.

The scientific method is ruthless. It barres no holes, and takes no prisoners. And if ID - at some point - attempts to actually run the gauntlet properly, well soon know whether it has any real merit or not. But until it actually bothers to try, we will never know.

Flat out rejection? By whom? More and more scientists are accept ID as science. In fact, on average, when a universally accepted theory is proven wrong and a superior theory replaces it, it takes about 40 years for the scientific community as a whole accepts the superior theory. Sad but true. Thats true of, for example, the theory that there was a landbridge between South America and Africa. The idea of Padagonea (is that the right word?) was troublesome for scientists.

...initially opposing a scientific theory, and trying to knock it down, deny its conclusions and their implications etc. - is a very routine thing in science. Even when the theory turns out - in the long run - to be well evidenced and unvierally accepted. I fully agree. It happenned with the Big Bang. It happenned with General Relativity. It happenned with QM. It happens all the time...

But Im not aware of ANY scientific theory that the majority of the scientific community denied was even a legitamte scientific theory - constantly over many years - and then yet managed to not only become accepted as a theory, but to then be universally accepted as fact.

Once more with feeling...

opposing a scientific theory is quite different to saying it is not even a theory.

What is happenning now in relation to ID is NOT the same process that the Big Bang, or General Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics went though. Because none of these theories tried to fob themselves off as theories before they had progressed to that stage.

I LOVE scientists... when they agree with me. heh eh

[Mordecai]

....accepted as fact.

Once more with feeling...

opposing a scientific theory is quite different to saying it is not even a theory.

What is happenning now in relation to ID is NOT the same process that the Big Bang, or General Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics went though. Because none of these theories tried to fob themselves off as theories before they had progressed to that stage.

Let's save ourselves some trouble here. I don't think ID is a full blown theory (at least not in the traditional, official scientific definition of the word). Still, the word theory helps garner public support. Since the public doesn't know what the word is in scientific circles, and since Darwinists use the same word in a way that implies that Darwinism as a whole is a theory, it's only fair that IDers can use it as well. (In fact, Darwinism is not a theory with regard to the origin of species; it's only a scientific hypothesis.) Still, I'm saying ID is science period and is in the most technical sense, a scientific hypothesis. So we can agree, then.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Still, these differences have proven to be so consistently provable and observable on so many levels, the Big Bang is clearly a fact of science (although an agnostic might say we cant really call it a fact... its only our perception).

Agreed. What we call a fact is subjective. No matter how much evidence we have.

I agree with Popperian philosophy in this regard. Effectively, nothing is never conclusively proven. It can considered more and more likely to be true, but it never becomes ultimate truth. Or it will be conclusively falsified.

A true scientists wouldnt say that a designer did it. But a true scientist would hypothesize based on current evidence and analysis of that evidence. It is an educated guess, and it appears its going to be difficult to find any other means of producing irreducibly complex mechanisms. Through process of elimination and by way of observations of other rotors, its an explanation based on observations of things that are both in the real world but have real, meaningful similarities. Even in your ridiculous story about the Forrest Goblin, the guy was correct in concluding that an intelligent being probably made it. Thats exactly right. To say, It was God, is not remotely scientific. Thats just my opinion.

I agree that ID could well be considered a legitamte scientific hypothesis. But IDers really need to start at least attempting to move it towards being a theory before science is going to take it seriously. And rightly so.

Even if ALL ID is is an attack on Darwinism, their methods are scientific.

Agreed - for the most part. But call it attacking Darwinism. And stop calling it a seperate theory, when it isnt. Because that aspect of the critism certainly is NOT scientific. In fact it breaks the very fundementals of science.

Thats arguable. I believe most scientists would call those people working on it scientists. Did they stop being scientists when they started attempting to prove string theory? I dont think so.

Scientists can work on a scientific hypothsis, as long as they accept that it IS only a hypothesis, and if they are putting their effort into turning it into a theory.

Ask String Theorists themselves. Ask them if - technically - they are currently working on a hypothesis, or a theory? In scientific terms.

Unlike IDers, most of them wont bull**** you on this point.

But central to ID is irreducible complexity as well as specified complexity. That aspect is very much scientific.

Yes, some aspects of ID can be considered science. Agreed. But so much of it is misguided and misplaced.

Evolution attacks are seen as pro-ID arguments, and are viewed as parts of some non-existent scientific ID theory. Thats just not on. Individual ID arguments may have merit. But the way they are choosing to approach the idea as a whole is distinctly unscientific.

Plenty of reasons to believe that intelligent beings could make a flagellum and plenty of reasons to believe all known natural routes are pretty much out of the question. So, we at least have scientific reasons to believe that the type of thing that produces irreducibly complex mechanisms must be behind it. I think only intelligence can do that. What do you think would produce it? (The Dude seems to know that Darwinism could not produce irreducible complexity as did Darwin).

No need to keep telling me that there is plenty of reason to believe that intelligent beings could have made the flagellum (directly or indirectly). I agree, and accept that. I am an Agnostic. I know what the possibilities are, and accept them.

So IDers - get on with it! Take your hypothesis, and start trying to turn it into a damn theory already!

Extrapolating from scientific findings is science. Its just not the most reliable science.

Agreed. The most reliable science starts when you manage to get the point where you have a theory. Not just a hypothesis. Which is all - currently - that ID can possibly be considered to be.

Aspects of it are science in its truest sense, just as much as biology as a whole is science. That part of the conclusions drawn from the science is beyond what you think is plausible is no concern of mine. Thats just your opinion.

You know what? I know weve been at each others throats in this thread, but I actually think that we really arent viewing this whole thing as differently as it may appear.

I think the real issue here is agreement on terms, and what their implications are. If you were pushing for ID to be accepted as a scientific hypothesis, then I really wouldnt have much argument. If ID was only looking to be accepted as a scientific hypothesis at this point, then I would be quite happy to say that ID is legitamte science. Or at least could be on its way to becoming so.

Its the fact that it is not only using anti-evolution arguments as positive evidence for it (which isnt scientific), but it is also trying to claim that it is a full-blown scientific theory without having any right to the claim yet. And this is VERY important. These terms are important. Its the difference between saying It is science now, and saying it COULD be science one day.

ID just needs to start getting real about where it currently is, and not only how much work it has to do, but WHAT kind of work that is. Then - who knows. Maybe we will see the biggest comeback in science history! Would certinly make for a lot of good drama. In fact, Im seriously tempted to cheer on the underdog here.

Just convince me you guys are ready to start practising science according to the accepted scientific method and heck - Ill get the mouse mat and the bumper sticker.

Maybe The Dude can show us that prior to Behes book, there was a lot published about the possible evolutionary paths for a flagellum.

Ermm, you just moved the goalposts there. Just so you know. Check what I actually asked...

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Lets save ourselves some trouble here. I dont think ID is a full blown theory. Im saying it is science period. So we can agree, then.

Very cool man. In fact, extremely cool. Yes, if you are saying that ID is not a full-blown scientific theory at this point, then yes. We can shake hands, and fully agree. The idea of ID deserves to be taken seriously by science, as long as the ID movement takes science seriously in return.

Nice to see such a contentious issue (possibly) resolve to such an amicable result.

So there is only one issue now - should IDers be trying to prematurely shove ID into school textbooks at this point? By claiming that it is a theory that is just as legitamete as Evolution right now?

I think thats really the only issue that is left to settle, if you truly mean what you have just said above...

[Mordecai]

It's not about what (lay)people expect. That was poor wording on my part. It's about what we're justified in suspecting as plausible based in part by other experiences. We have no experience of observing or detecting an undesigned designer of life (outside of religious experiences). We do have experience of changing a variable and seeing a change in behavior (and sometimes no change).

Again, Richard Swinburn's The Existence of God strikes me as the correct way to do it--as long as we keep in mind that the probability obtained is subjective.

Well, with ID, we don't have to accept any undesigned designer. We just accept that it at least appears that an intelligence of SOME sort has been at work prior to humans being on earth. As far as Swinburn's work, I'm all for that. Still, I tend to be very pro-ID, as it provides authority figures to help counter the group-think that I think is occuring in this country, including scientists. People are simply afraid of being mocked. If ID can mature and gain more respect over time, that will be a big boon for improvement in society, if nothing else, because people's minds might be opened slightly. As it stands, as Behe pointed out in his first book, the scientific community has been stagnant. ID has promoted more rigorous work, in my view. Even if it's not the most reliable science ever in at least one respect, it gives scientists a kick in the pants, if nothing else. The religious people in this country (and those who think Darwinism has become dogma) need to have scientists on their side to help even things out.