“There is no controversy”

The first quote was in the editorial, but not the other ones. I guess making up quotes is one way of trying to start a controversy.

There are many controversies in gravitational theory (e.g. those that led to the to the hypothesis of dark matter). Mathematics is full of controversies and unsolved problems. Does this mean that they are invalid?

or, to stick closer to the topic, does this mean we should view them as being controversial theories?

In this context, the statement:

“there is no controversy”

makes as much sense as the statement:

“I am lying”.

Why even listen to someone who has his eyes shut, his fingers in his ears and is yelling at the top of his lungs?

Hmmm…controversy?

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master - that’s all.”

(Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There)

BarryA,

I’m shocked. Rightous anger when the inaccuracy (or shall I say outright lie) of a post is pointed out! From you! Instead of noting that it was wrong, you continue to genuflect.

The fact is, when one wants to be taken seriously, one has to act seriously.

[Leo: I'm afraid you don't have the right sense of humor for this forum. Goodbye. --WmAD]

Jack,

Maybe, but if you called a cosmologist and asked him what he thought about the controversy over the validity of gravitational theory, despite some cosmological observations that are inconsistent with it, what do you think would he say?

Apples and oranges.

Really? it seems that some observations on the speed of stars fly in the face of gravitational theory. In fact, physicists had to invent a very vague hypothesis about something called “dark matter”, that can’t be directly measured, to explain these observations and keep them consistent with gravitational theory. Did you know that there are at least 6 alternatives to standard gravitational theory? Surely it is a theory in disarray as well?

When Intelligent Design is supported by the amount of empirical evidence as supports the ToE, it too, will take on at least as much credence as any other, scientific theory.

There are unknowns in it, but the scientific community is certainly not in “upheaval” over it.

Here’s the deal: I would love to debunk the ToE. LOVE it! And so would any evolutionary biologist. It would mean fame and fortune beyond the dreams of politicians. The Nobel Committee would deliver the Prize to your door, saving you a trip to Sweden. Your name would replace Darwin’s in the annals of history and you could rip off the lecture circuit for lots more bucks as you bored lesser and aspiring biologists to distraction.

Really, there is no controversy, only research.

doov

Does anyone object to teaching these gravitational “controversies”? I doubt it. No one would have second thoughts about discussing the “Pioneer Anomaly” in a high school science class. Just try and mention the inconsistency of the Cambrian explosion with NDE and you are bringing creationism into the classroom.
That’s why I say “apples and oranges”.

leo says: “The fact is, when one wants to be taken seriously, one has to act seriously.”

Good point, in the world of Darwin there is no time for fun and games, with those selfish genes running the show.

We all know that the Evo Psych crowd has explained satire and humor without breaking a sweat. As well as people who take themselves very serously. All for the purpose of unifying the tribe, you know.

Jack,

“Does anyone object to teaching these gravitational “controversies”? I doubt it. No one would have second thoughts about discussing the “Pioneer Anomaly” in a high school science class. Just try and mention the inconsistency of the Cambrian explosion with NDE and you are bringing creationism into the classroom. That’s why I say “apples and oranges”.

you are talking about political, not scientific, controversy. so yes, we are talking about apples and oranges. If the reporter had called and asked about the political controversy concerning the teaching of evolution in public schools, he would have gotten a different response. but from a scientific standpoint, there is no controversy over the validity of evolutionary, or gravitational theory.

and personally, i think it would be great if we talked about the fascinating questions posed by the cambrian explosion. it would show the students that top-notch scientific work is being done to explain the amazing diversity of life forms that “exploded” over 8 million years or so.. unfortunately, i think it would have to be taught in an upper-level honors course as evo-devo would probably be a bit confusing for most high school students (as it is for lots of us).

so, to bring it back to the original topic, i just want to emphasize that just because there are controversies within a theory does not mean that it is in disarray, or that it is “controversial” (other than politicially). a semantic point, but an important one.

leo : BarrtA is right. Get over your pretense to pointing out erroneous quotes and being shocked.
Did you know what sarcasm is? Apparently not.

Did you see anything that says all the quotes were literally in the ref. article? No. But they may as well have been since they are all implied. And we’ve seen them all in one form or another in Darweenie pseudo-journalism.

Rightous anger!?!
You’re kidding right? Grow up.

leo,

Here is part of a quote I made yesterday about you and others

“I find it ironic that an evolutionary biologist such as Bob or biologists such as specs or leo never defend their positions with facts but who seem to delight in finding slight inconsistencies in often minor arguments by proponents of ID.

Step up to the plate and swing away instead of hurling insults from the rafters that the opponent’s game isn’t going perfectly.”

leo, you are in the position of contributing but you do not. If you agree with naturalistic evolution arguments, defend them. Otherwise you should be disclaiming the hypocrisy of the Washington Post editorial.

dmso74 :
‘but from a scientific standpoint, there is no controversy over the validity of evolutionary, or gravitational theory’

Darwinian fundamentalists pretending there is no controversy are in deep denial of reality.

The only thing Darwinian scientists can agree upon seems to be that ‘it’s true’, after that controversy. Over how, why, when etc. is everywhere to found - except in the literature pawned off on the lay public where they always paint a pretty mask of perfect unity.

Your statement is a denial of the 1000’s of degreed, working, qaulified scientists that do not accept Darwinism.

This, ‘no controvery’ BS is a denial of their very existence!

The escalating satire of the 2-3 quotes was obvious.

Maybe a tag would help. Something like >blockquote>For heaven’s sake people. This is a P-A-R-O-D-Y !!

Borne,

Thank you for the psychological exam. Again, you are referring to controversies within evolutionary theory.. and, if you read the literature, it hardly paints a picture of “perfect unity.” Scientists love to prove each other wrong, and are frequently less than collegial in their choice of words doing so. I published a paper this month basically pointing out that a colleague’s hypothesis was based on a complete misunderstanding of basic physiology. so it goes.

and as for the petition; petitions are political tools, not scientific ones. and yes, that goes for the list of Steves too.

dmso74 :
‘but from a scientific standpoint, there is no controversy over the validity of evolutionary, or gravitational theory’

What evolutionary theory? RM+NS, without consideration of information measures. And, even anti-IDers are calling to task the explanatory power of NS. And “random” mutations … what about those adaptive mutations that are aimed at a target as seen during the evolutionary process that is utilized by the immune system and technological evolution. Those mutations are not strictly “random.” And then there’s James A. Shapiros hypothesis of natural genetic engineering — a far cry from RM+NS.

Now on to gravitational theory. Do we even have a gravitational theory? There’s quantum field theory and then there’s string theory and do we yet know if gravity is a field or a boson … very controversial stuff here.

CJYman, if that’s all you think there is to evolutionary theory, I would politely suggest you brush up. Take a class, or read an up-to-date textbook (Futuyma’s is a bit wordy, Ridley’s is a bit dry.. I would suggest Evolutionary Analysis by Freeman and Herron).

As for gravity, I agree, it is very interesting that so much is unknown about gravity and that discrepancies in it are attributed to vague, unproven entities like dark matter, yet we don’t hear any outcry about how it is “just a theory” or “in disarray.”

LATEST PERMUTATION OF PERVERSE PRIMITIVISM

No one would tolerate a teacher questioning the existence of the humors or the philosopher’s stone. So it is mystifying that a movement to undermine the findings of Ptolemy has garnered some support.

This movement pretends to support academic freedom by seeking relaxation of the Inquisition, when in truth it is a poorly disguised attempt to reintroduce the primitive ideas of Aristarchus, having been given new impetus by the absurd publications of the Tuscan lens grinder, Galileo.

To the well-meaning, these efforts may seem harmless. Who does not support academic freedom? Who does not want scientific progress? Such questions may have force if there were any doubt about the Ptolemaic system, but as the Most High Council of Affiliated Schoolmen (MHCAS) concluded in Venice just last spring, “There is no controversy.”

Consider also that there is no real academic freedom where the Inquisition is in force. Teachers do not have the freedom to simply walk around spouting their own notions when the divine philosophy of Aristotle has been elegantly interpreted for our times.

The Tutors’ Guild has openly opposed the movement, even though it is meant ostensibly to support educators. Clearly then the movement is nothing more than a ruse to undermine education.

LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/history/080521-creationist-teachers.html) says that 1 in 8 highschool science teachers present ID or creationism in a favorable light. A hight percentage of highschool science teachers hold to a young creation of man (

dmso74,

Many of us are well aware of arguments within the “so called” evolutionary theory.

In truth there is no theory. If there is, let us know what it is? Nothing out there explains what is known as macro evolution except speculation.

Micro-evolution is better understood and can be observed so it might count as a theory except even here many of the mechanisms for change are at present unknown. But macro evolution is no where and should not be thought of as a theory. It is a series of WAS (wild assed speculations.)

We should be precise when we talk about evolution and interjecting some esoteric problems with gravity does not help. Gravity is observable in every day life by all while macro evolution has never been observed by anyone either in the laboratory or in nature or in history. We hypothesize it not demonstrate it.

The article says:
“NO ONE would think it acceptable for a teacher to question the existence of gravity or to suggest that two plus two equals anything but four. It’s mystifying, then, that a movement to undermine the teaching of evolutionary biology is attracting some support. Equally perverse is that this misguided effort is being advanced under the false guise of academic freedom.”

dmso74,

The effects of grativity are not controversial, everyone who measures it gets the same answer. The origin of gravity however, is. Just like the effects of humans are not controversial, their origin is. Evolutionary theory attempts to explain the origin of humans, which is controversial. Think UCD.

Lucky for us the origin of gravity is not discussed, so there is no need to teach both sides, or all sides as to its origin, hence no constroversy. Unlucky for us the origin of humans are discussed in high school textbooks, which becomes highly controversial because no one has seen or demonstrated a human coming from a non-human, which leads us to develop an inference as to the best possibility, hence the ‘design inference’.

Evolutionary proponents like the one in this article always compare gravity as an ‘effect’, with evolution as a ’cause’ (for biological complexity). Comparing an effect with a cause while showing no valid relationship is as Jack Golightly put it: apples and oranges.

dmso74,

Where did I say that’s all there is to evolutionary theory? In fact I was only highlighting a few theories of evolution. Which one is right or which components of each theory are correct? That is the relevant question and that is what the controversy over the theory of evolution is about. The point is that there is, as of yet, no “one theory of evolution” just as there is no “one theory of gravity.” The fact that there are differing theories shows that there will be controversy. Science thrives off of controversy.

Furthermore, the reason that I brought up “information measures” is that it is an extremely relevant topic within any evolutionary mechanism yet it is one which is rarely ever discussed. Is evolutionary informatics discussed in any of the textbooks you cite?

dmso74:
“As for gravity, I agree, it is very interesting that so much is unknown about gravity and that discrepancies in it are attributed to vague, unproven entities like dark matter, yet we don’t hear any outcry about how it is “just a theory” or “in disarray.”

Well actually the competing theories of gravity *are* “just theories.” And yes, according to Theoretical Phycisit Lee Smolin, theories of physics are at the moment in disarray. String theory is highly controversial and no one knows yet what causes gravity. Theories of gravity at the moment are controversial subjects.

Now, that doesn’t mean that gravity doesn’t work or that life hasn’t evolved. That only means that we need to take controversial ideas as to necessary conditions and mechanisms that are based on observation and testing into consideration.

Furthermore, even if ID Theory didn’t exist, there would still be controversy surrounding the “final theory of evolution.” I have already cited James A. Shapiro’s work and we all know that you don’t have to be an IDiot in order to make controversial claims about observations that RM+NS isn’t the full story.

There’s nothing wrong with controversy. Science thrives on controversy.

Jerry,

If you want to know what evolutionary theory is, read a textbook on it, or take a class on it. I give 30 1.25 hr lectures on it/semester and don’t nearly cover it all. I agree micro evolution is better understood. THat’s why some of the hottest research right now is going on in macroevolution.. Evo-devo, man..v exciting

The problems w gravity are no more nor less esoteric than those w evolution. If we can’t explain why stars appear to move faster than they should according to gravity, it would completely destroy our current understanding of gravity. Is this not a “theory in crisis”?

We make hypotheses about evolution and test them. We make hypotheses about gravity and test them. it’s all science.

dmso74,

Actually right now as I’ve referenced above, physics is undergoing a sort of crisis and there is much controversy surrounding theories of gravity. Are you trying to tell me that biology is somehow immune from that happening?

Humans make many differing hypothesis about evolution and test them. There is much controversy about said theories. Same is true with gravity. It’s still all science.

CJYman @ [27]: The point is that there is, as of yet, no “one theory of evolution” just as there is no “one theory of gravity.” The fact that there are differing theories shows that there will be controversy.

Perhaps what evolution requires is a “Grand Unifying Theory”. I propose we call it the “Grand, Liberating and Unifying Theory of Evolution” or GLUTE for short. (I think I should trademark that!)

Adding to what I wrote two comments earlier, Theoretical Physicist Lee Smolin thinks that we may need to review even some of our most basic understanding of Physics.

It is good for Theories to go through spring cleaning once in a while. You’d be amazed at what you may find — both good and bad.

JJS. P. Eng,

Excellent!! Do I get any royalties?

Biologists are definitely in need of a good GLUTE work out …

CJYman,

So we’re agreed that Evolutionary and Gravitational Theory are comparable in terms of scientific merit. Both have controversies within them, and both may be overthrown at some point.

..but both have substantial amounts of theoretical and empirical evidence behind them

dmso74,
You sure seem to think you got some conclusive proof for evolution. Surely all those textbooks you’ve got something concrete you can show us. Hey I got a good easy one for you! Why don’t you just point us to the study that shows bacteria to have “evolved” complexity above the level found in its parent species. You can then shut all us IDiots up!

I could quote on Gravity; but suffice it to say, when taking into consideration Quantum non-locality, the Theistic philosophy holds more weight than the Materialistic philosophy does at this point in time as to explaining the origination of Gravity.

bornagain,

I will as soon as you link me to the single study conclusively proving gravitational theory.

Holy crap, several hours ago when I first saw Dembski’s post, there were no comments. And in a short amount of time, the number has pretty much exploded.

I guess there really IS a controversy after all.

And it seems like public schools are in the interest of hiding the controversy in the first place. I had to access this site through a proxy earlier today (hence why I couldn’t comment when it first showed up) to get past their filters.

But nonetheless, I found out about that article through Evo News and Views, and noticed it employed the same false analogies that every Washington Post hit piece, or PR statement by Eugenie C. Scott use.

It basically compares established laws with observations, something which definitely fits the apples and oranges observation someone made earlier.

bornagain, sorry, misunderstood your question.. the evolution of a new VPU in HIV is a good example of increased complexity, to use your terminology.

F2XL,
The theory of gravity is no more or less established than any other scientific theory. So it is perfectly reasonable to compare gravity and evolution from a scientific standpoint.

Meanwhile, the Altenberg meeting coming up this summer brings together biologists who see the contemporary state of evolutionary theory as in upheaval [link omitted]

Do you think there would be any objection to the proceedings of the Altenberg meeting being taught in high school biology? I’m not going to play dumb; I think the answer clearly is “no,” because there is no taboo on scientifically criticizing Darwin.
You may object that the problem lies in the definition of “scientifically,” and that could be a legitimate argument, although altering the definition of “science” may be less likely to garner political support than “academic freedom.”

F2XL,

YOU HAVE UNFINISHED BUSINESS ON ANOTHER THREAD…

dsmo74,
Man, That ain’t even bacteria not to mention it ain’t even close to being alive! As well, that “leaky pore”, foreign, protein of the virus actually degraded much more complexity in its Host cell than it gained in its hypothetical march to a bonefide life form (1 controversial protein/protein binding site). Thus the example stays well within the principle of “Genetic Entropy” (Sanford 2005). Thus you have failed to demonstrate a gain in complexity that would violate this foundational principle of how poly-constrained information will act in organisms.

“The theory of gravity is no more or less established than any other scientific theory. So it is perfectly reasonable to compare gravity and evolution from a scientific standpoint.”

Really?

*takes a keychain and drops it

Interesting…

*looks to his left and while looking at a broad green forest with trees set against a gray tapestry and tries to see “evolution in action” as easily as he did for gravity

Nope, they are definitely both two entirely different realms of science.

dmso74:
“So we’re agreed that Evolutionary and Gravitational Theory are comparable in terms of scientific merit. Both have controversies within them, and both may be overthrown at some point.”

The answer is “yes,” to the extent that controversy is healthy no matter the area of science.

However, the answer is “no” to the extent that unlike with gravity, there is not even a law of evolution yet. When there is it will be stated in terms of information. Secondly, the law of gravity can be tested in the present, however biological evolution has extreme limits when it comes to present testability.

dsmo74,
Your foundational “hypothesis” is what is giving you trouble. You presuppose everything to have a materialistic solution prior to starting your investigation.

let me illustrate:

There are two prevailing philosophies vying for the right to be called the truth in man’s perception of reality. These two prevailing philosophies are Theism and Materialism. Materialism is sometimes called philosophical naturalism and, to a lesser degree, is often even conflated with methodological naturalism. Materialism is the current hypothesis entrenched over science as the dom^inant hypothesis guiding scientists. Materialism asserts that everything that exists arose from chance acting on some type of material basis which has always existed. Whereas, Theism asserts everything that exists arose from the purposeful will of the Spirit of Almighty God who has always existed in a timeless eternity. A hypothesis in science is suppose to give proper guidance to scientists and make, somewhat, accurate predictions. In this primary endeavor, for a hypothesis, Materialism has failed miserably. Lets take a look at a few of the predictions where Materialism has missed the mark and Theism has been accurate.

1. Materialism did not predict the big bang (neither did it predict the creation of time). Yet Theism always said the universe was created (as well as always saying that time was created).

2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space. Quantum Non-Locality actually proves the transcendence and dominion of “information” over the material/energy realm and makes God’s omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful) characteristics plausible with how our reality is actually constructed.

3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.

4. Materialism did not predict the stunning interrelated precision found for the various underlying, unchanging and transcendent, universal constants for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, which allows life as we know it to even be possible in the first place. Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning, unchanging clockwork precision found for the various transcendent universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism.

5. Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Yet statistical analysis of the many required parameters that enable complex life to be possible on earth reveals that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life in this universe. Theism would have expected the earth to be extremely unique in this universe in its ability to support complex life (with the reservation that only God can create complex life in this universe).

6. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code.

7. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what most likely is, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA.

8. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity for the “simplest” life on earth.

9. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Yet we find evidence for “complex” photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Minik T. Rosing and Robert Frei, “U-Rich Archaean Sea-Floor Sediments from Greenland—Indications of >3700 Ma Oxygenic Photosynthesis”, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6907 (2003): 1-8) Theism would have naturally expected this sudden appearance of life on earth.

10. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Yet Theism would have naturally expected such sudden appearance of the many different and completely unique fossils in the Cambrian explosion.

11. Materialism predicted that there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Yet fossils are consistently
characterized by sudden appearance in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group (Kind), and then stability and even
deterioration of variety within the overall group and within the specific species of the group over long periods of time, until finally, the entire group goes extinct in the fossil record. (A Cambrian Peak in Morphological Variation Within Trilobite Species; Mark Webster 2007). There is not one clear example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Theism would have naturally expected fossils to suddenly appear in the fossil record with overall stability, and even deterioration afterwards, as well as no clear evidence of transmutation into radically new forms.

12. Materialism predicts animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Yet man himself is the last generally accepted fossil to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. Theism would have naturally predicted that man himself was the last fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record.

A little background on the gravity “uncontroversy”

The abstract of the September 1006 Report of the Dark Energy Task Force (which, “was established by the Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee [AAAC] and the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel [HEPAP] as a joint sub-committee to advise the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation on future dark energy research”) says: “Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation for its existence or magnitude. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon that most directly demonstrates that our (materialistic) theories of fundamental particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible.”

*eliminate the “and” in my last post and replace it with a comma.

dmso74, you agree there is a difference between an observable “law” and a “theory” which attempts to explain facts right?

BornAgain, this specific case has been debated extensively and i really have nothing to add to the debate. i am curious what your definition of “complexity” and “degraded” are, though.

DK wrote:

F2XL,

YOU HAVE UNFINISHED BUSINESS ON ANOTHER THREAD…

Yeah I know. I’m making sure as many ID critics who are skeptical of the X filter and CSI along with Irreducibility are paying attention to it.

If 100 posts is the cut-off point for each thread then I may have to continue it to another relevant thread.

At the top of the WaPo editorial is this little nugget which sums up the agenda of the editorialist

Red-herring arguments about ‘academic freedom’ can’t be allowed to undermine the teaching of evolution.

The teaching of evolution cannot be “allowed to be undermined”?

Why not?

question: What is so important about evolutionary theory that it cannot be allowed to be undermined?

answer: Evolutionary theory undermines belief in God.

question: Why is it important to undermine belief in God?

answer: Because some people want to shape the beliefs of the masses for their own reasons. People who believe in God are harder to indoctrinate because they will often accept religious authority over secular authority.

For example: If you fear the planet is being caused great harm by overpopulation and want to reduce human population growth, you will seek to create easy availability of abortions and you will seek to indoctrinate the people of the world into moral acceptance abortion as good, or at least as not bad. But since religions are against abortion it becomes necessary to indoctrinate people into disbelief of God in order for the world to be saved from overpopulation.

Another example: If you fear that religious people all to often gain political power and then use that power to hamper your own political goals for society, then it is neccesary that those political leaders lose their cache amongst the masses by causing the masses to at best become atheistic or agnostic, or at the least to believe that God is really not involved with life here on earth. How do you do that? By indoctrination in schools and through media that evolution is accepted as absolute fact by all “nobel minded scientists” and that “creationism” is DUN! DUN! DUN!…EVIL!!! And pushed by “anti-science” demonic religious cultists who want to enslave you.

Everyone up to speed?

F2XL,

Yes, and I’m also aware that the “law” of gravity is in serious jeopardy of being undermined.. so i would never call anything in science a “law.” and there is more to science than dropping a keychain and looking at a forest.. if only it were so easy.. which reminds me that this has been an epic procrastination on my part and i must get back to my data..
p.s. bornagain.. science only deals with material causation.. sorry, that’s the way it is. it looks like you’re on your way to writing a book about why this should not be so, and I urge you to continue. just remember to get it peer-reviewed :).

Yes, and I’m also aware that the “law” of gravity is in serious jeopardy of being undermined.. so i would never call anything in science a “law.”

Something which is so easily falsifiable and yet cannot be falsified is what I would call a law.

“…and there is more to science than dropping a keychain and looking at a forest.. if only it were so easy..”

Agreed. My short “experiment” wasn’t supposed to represent all of science but if you want to see it in a different context, be my guest.

“p.s. bornagain.. science only deals with material causation.. sorry, that’s the way it is.”

I dare you to give any legitimate reason for why science must be material causation alone.

Unless science has become a rel… never mind.

“just remember to get it peer-reviewed :).”

Part of what this site is for. Though this process may turn against you soon….

The case of Guillermo Gonzalez actually had nothing to do with biological evolution or Darwinism. I suppose the Washington Post editors would argue that the multiple universes theory is also as well-established as the law of gravity, so anyone who sees the fine-tuning of the laws of physics as evidence for design should also be expelled? In fact, Guillermo never mentioned his ID leanings in his classes, he says “I was denied tenure not for teaching Intelligent Design, but for believing it.”

I’m aware it’s going to be impossible to defend macro evolution against the various barriers which no one has been able to see it overcome, but hey, I like a challenge.

I’m going to come up with my own lifeforms, which are bit strings. I’m also going to declare that to belong to the same species, at least 3/4 of the bits must match.

The idea is to make a very crude mimic of binding sites in egg and sperm.

Example:

a:1011011110001010
b:1111101110001110

These two 16bit strings match in 12 places, so they are compatible - they’re the same species.

Now I take them away from each other and let them mutate independently, one bit at a time.

a:

1011011110001010
0011011110001010
0011111110001010
0011111110101010
0001111110101010
0101111110101010
0101111110101000

after 6 mutations, it looks a lot different, but since it could still interbreed with its predecessor at all times, it can’t have changed species, no?

I’m sure you can see where this is going. If I now mutate b 6 times…

1111101110001110
1111111110001110
1111111110000110
1110111110000110
1110111110000010
1110111110000011
1110111110100011

After 6 mutations in their species line, a and b can no longer breed (it’s pretty close - they match at 10/16 places, but they need 12/16). It’s mathematically inevitable that they will keep becoming genetically different if they are kept isolated.

Of course, this is just a silly model, but scientists have looked into what makes animals able to reproduce. They haven’t found anything in there that will keep two populations of dogs doglike in perpetuity if they’re not mating with each other.

And I’d like to hold ID to the same level of evidence that you demand of the naturalistic alternative here. It would be foolish to deny that two populations will not eventually diverge in the manner I describe above. You’re fighting chaos and probability there. Mutations do occur to all areas of DNA, so the chance of two populations remaining the same species relative to each other decreases with time.

The only way this can be false is if there if a mechanism which is keeping them the same species - but, by the standards of evidence required by ID, if we can’t see it in action, it doesn’t count. Therefore macro evolution must be accepted as the best answer.

If this gets out of moderation (it took a day the last time I made a post, by which time my comment was all forgotten in the early days of the thread - I was quite disappointed) I look forward to arguing about this.

But, don’t you all realize, there is no controversy over evolution within science? Just like there are no homosexuals in Iran.

Look, I would be quite okay for schools to mention the controversies about dark matter, and dark energy, and the Pioneer anomaly, in science class starting very early. We already start fairly early mentioning the fact that gravity was revised by Einstein, and that while Einstein’s theory may or may not be absolute truth, Newton’s certainly wasn’t. Nobody in physics bats an eye. Furthermore, physics will not expel you from their society for questioning gravity, or even for mentioning, or even believing, the possibility that “a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics.” Various physicists that maintain that the most elegant solution to the anthropic coincidences is that they are evidence of a Designer, are allowed to mention their theories without significant recriminations.

The reverse is true for those who challenge any aspect of megaevolutionary theory. See Caroline Crocker, Dean Kenyon, and even Guillermo Gonzalez, who never even challenged the biological theory but was refused tenure, not even for having taught evolution, but as Granville Sewell (54) noted, simply for believing it. There is a huge disconnect between the ways that physicists treat their dissidents and the way evolutionary biologists treat theirs.

dmso74 you stated:

p.s. bornagain.. science only deals with material causation.. sorry, that’s the way it is.

You are brainwashed!

What is your material causation explanation for quantum non-locality?

I point out that it is an established fact that quantum non-locality proves the transcendence and dominion of (catch this next word) TRANSCENDENT information over the material/energy realm!

You have no MATERIAL causation in which to resort to for an explanation of quantum non-locality!

You are just plain wrong! Pure science could care less about “material causation” explanations, In fact pure science only cares to relentlessly pursue a more complete understanding of the truth no matter where that truth may lead.

bornagain77, 58, says about the claim that “science only deals with material causation” “You are brainwashed!”

Well, no. It is a definition of science - when used as describing the natural sciences. But it is not a definition of all the ways that things can be studied and understood.

Science, by definition, studies things that can be observed. If a claim about something can’t be observed, the claim really isn’t enapsulated in the field of “Science”. But the study of it surely can be encapsulated in other fields that may not have a self-imposed requirement of observability.

More generally, it is important to understand that “Science” in this context is simply the application of the scientific method - observe, predict, experiment, conclude, communicate. In other words, without performing experiments - observing results from controlled causes - science is not being practiced.

dmso74 “Borne, Thank you for the psychological exam. ”
Quite welcome. It’s actually a common occurrence among Darwinists but it’s curable.

“I published a paper this month basically pointing out that a colleague’s hypothesis was based on a complete misunderstanding of basic physiology. so it goes.”
I’ll bet you assumed “a complete misunderstanding of basic physiology” because he didn’t see things the way you do. Another thing Darwinists do all the time when facing IDists - the ubiquitous, “IDists don’t understand evolution”, “IDists are religious fanatics hiding behind pseudo-science”….

“and as for the petition; petitions are political tools, not scientific ones. and yes, that goes for the list of Steves too.”
Now just what petition would that be? I don’t recall mentioning a petition. Please stick your foot in your big mouth again and explain what you’re talking about.

I suspect you’re referring to some popular Darwin dissenters list that I did not mention.

If this is so then you’re response is so lame only a teen with a lot of arrogant angst could have thought it up.
And if so, your little world wherein there is no controversy, and no real scientists who doubt Darwin, is devoid of reality - exactly as I said the 1st time.

Get real kid.

Cue,
Limiting science to only material causations is artificially and unnecessarily retarding to science and would prevent any transcendent explanation.
The transcendent (higher dimension) is precluded from any explantory power in the general definition of methodological naturalism and thus is unwarranted and unwelcomed until it is proven otherwise. In fact I find imposed materialism to be the biggest hinderance to science and would say that it has been that way every since the Michelson Morey experiment if not then, it was certainly a hinderance with Big Bang cosmology. I remind you thAT EINSTEIN’S GREATEST BLUNDER (cosmological constant to reflect a steady state universe) WAS BROUGHT ABOUT DUE TO HIS UNWARRATED ALLEGIANCE to the materialistic philosophy.
With information finding a home in this higher dimension as well as information being established as having dominion over the material/energy realm, it is now time to call the materialistic allegiance on its bluff and seek to establish “natural” information causations of a higher order, a order not artificial hampered in its explanatory power.

Bornagain, to say that it is artificial may be correct, but to say that it is unnecessary is not. The scientific method is a specific process. It is not the only process. It is, however, the process represented in the schools when natural science is taught.

Studies that don’t fit the scientific method, such as they aren’t conducive to experiments or aren’t readily communicable, can still be studied, but not as a natural science.

In 61 above, when you find imposed materialism to be the biggest hinderance to science, I suggest that simply doesn’t make sense. Science (natural science), by definition, has that imposition. If you mean that imposed materialism is the biggest hindereance to knowledge - appreciating that science is but one tool to gain knowledge - then the argument would make more sense.

Science, by definition, studies things that can be observed. If a claim about something can’t be observed, the claim really isn’t enapsulated in the field of “Science”.

But black holes can’t technically be ‘observed’ so does that mean that cosmology isn’t a science?

Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see. In the January 1997 issue of “Discover” magazine, an article reported that astronomers detected what they concluded were about 12 planets orbiting distant stars.

Did the astronomers directly observe said planets? No. They were detected by means of the gravitational pull they exerted on their parent stars. Related evidence–not direct observation is a perfectly adequate basis for scientists to accept (and study) what is invisible.

Venus,
Your example aside, the real evidence we have coming in indicates that “sub-speciation” is brought about due to loss of genetic information (genetic diversity) from parent species. In fact it is commonly known that the further you breed a sub-species away from its parent species the more limited variability the sub-species will be found to have. As well, taken to an extreme, sub-speciation results result in problems of inbreeding brought about by detrimental mutations finding their match in the “bottleneck” population. Thus your example is extremely simplistic and ignores all major lines of empirical evidence.

dmso,

If you teach evolution then I suggest you defend it as a theory. No one has yet to do it here so maybe you could be the first. Please do not use micro evolution examples because few here dispute this process.

I have watched the evolution section of Berkeley’s biology course by 4 different instructors and I have a good feel for what is known and what is taught. I have also read several books by those who support naturalistic evolution. So we are not ignorant.

There is no theory of macro evolution. None was ever presented in the Berkeley courses or in any of the books I have read. Speculation was presented but that is all. Maybe you could be the first to present such a theory here and the basis for it.

I’m going to come up with my own lifeforms, which are bit strings. I’m also going to declare that to belong to the same species, at least 3/4 of the bits must match.

A common tactic employed by Darwinists (yes, I said it) is to grossly oversimplify the task at hand. Apparently this is exactly what we see now. In really life a 3/4 genome difference could practically be the difference between two species in entirely different animal kingdoms.

The idea is to make a very crude mimic of binding sites in egg and sperm.

Might supremely crude have been a netter way of describing what you’re doing?

Example:

These two 16bit strings match in 12 places, so they are compatible - they’re the same species.

As stated before similarities between the genome of creatures within the same species is much more similar and fragile then that, think more like 99.9% when it comes to humans alone.

Now I take them away from each other and let them mutate independently, one bit at a time.

Except in real life it takes more then just a single bit change at a time to see any real changes. I suggest you join the current discussion in “Chance, Law, Agency, or Other?”

a:

after 6 mutations, it looks a lot different, but since it could still interbreed with its predecessor at all times, it can’t have changed species, no?

Except in reality you’re looking at a much larger genome, and are also looking at a much greater similarity within species.

I’m sure you can see where this is going.

Yes, without a doubt this is a gross-oversimplification of the task at hand when it comes to evolutionary changes at the Macro-level.

After 6 mutations in their species line, a and b can no longer breed (it’s pretty close - they match at 10/16 places, but they need 12/16). It’s mathematically inevitable that they will keep becoming genetically different if they are kept isolated.

And yet no attempt was made to determine or at least justify why the changes were mutations which provide a functional advantage to the organism, and not anything neutral or possibly harmful.

Of course, this is just a silly model, but scientists have looked into what makes animals able to reproduce. They haven’t found anything in there that will keep two populations of dogs doglike in perpetuity if they’re not mating with each other.

Maybe because the mating between dogs does nothing whatsoever to actually add new information to the gene pool and instead simply uses information which was already present to begin with. Not to mention the fact that to get significant changes in information without HARMING the organism would require and unrealistically huge (and lucky) set of mutations which often must happen simultaneously.

And I’d like to hold ID to the same level of evidence that you demand of the naturalistic alternative here.

Don’t we all.

It would be foolish to deny that two populations will not eventually diverge in the manner I describe above.

Not it wouldn’t be, and for the following reason: You’re fighting chaos and probability there.

Moving on…

Mutations do occur to all areas of DNA, so the chance of two populations remaining the same species relative to each other decreases with time.

If you’re talking about the typical Macro-evolutionary change we look for which is the formation of new morphological structures, then you’re light-years away from the solution.

The only way this can be false is if there if a mechanism which is keeping them the same species…

See the above points.

…but, by the standards of evidence required by ID, if we can’t see it in action, it doesn’t count.

Hence the reason we hold unguided macro evolution to be a mere falsehood. All we CAN do is quantify the factors involved to try and predict what can and can’t happen based on what we do know.

And as we’ve seen with your example the only way to make macro changes realistic is to change the task at hand.

Therefore macro evolution must be accepted as the best answer.

I would sincerely love your input on the discussion on the “X” filter and how it applies to CSI and Irreducibility:

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-or-other/

If this gets out of moderation (it took a day the last time I made a post, by which time my comment was all forgotten in the early days of the thread - I was quite disappointed) I look forward to arguing about this.

I certainly do too.

leo said (#7) –

BarryA,

I’m shocked. Rightous anger when the inaccuracy (or shall I say outright lie) of a post is pointed out! From you! Instead of noting that it was wrong, you continue to genuflect.

The fact is, when one wants to be taken seriously, one has to act seriously.

[Leo: I’m afraid you don’t have the right sense of humor for this forum. Goodbye. –WmAD]

IMO Leo is right. The intolerance of critics and criticism of Darwinism is so great that the fake quotes are actually credible. I myself was taken in, thinking that the fake quotes were real. IMO the original post should have made it clear that the extra quotes are fake.

Take, for example, the fake quote, “It’s okay to expel those who pretend that there is a controversy.” Isn’t that what actually happened to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State U.?

The Washington Post should be renamed “Washington Pest.”

AT:

You need to get your facts straight first. For instance, Design Theory is not to be properly characrtersised by:

You say there’s a magic leprechaun poofing everything into existence? Then put your money where your mouth is and prove it.

That’s a gross strawman misrepresentation. Similarly, science is not about “proof,” but about empirically anchored inference to best — abductive — explanation.

By contrast, here is a basic def’n of ID by Dr [x2 -- Mathematics, and Phil; add'l Masters is in theol] Wm A D:

. . . intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? . . . Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, purport to study such signs formally, rigorously, and scientifically. Intelligent design may therefore be defined as the science that studies signs of intelligence.

Next, what ID sactually asserts, as just shown, is that certain feature of the observbable world show signs that in our experience reliably point to intelligent action, as opposed to chance and/or mechanical necessity. (And BTW, for whomever, it is routine in science to address unobserveds and even unobservables, e.g. the remote past, electrons, etc. What is done is to construct an empirically anchored explanation, which competes on a best explanation basis.]

Wm A D and others have adapted fairly standared hyp testing processes to construct what let’s now agree we may all call the X-filter.

In all cases where the X-filter has been tried on known cases of cause, it is accurate as designed when it rules intelligence — it is deliberately set up to rule so conservatively that too simple designs get ruled as chance; mechanical necessity produces natural regularities, so once we see high contingency, it is not the relvant explanatory factor. So per empirical tests The X-Filter is reliable for its purpose.

The real challenge is for YOUR side to show, without imposing arbitrary, question-begging historically and phil of sci unwarranted evolutionary materialism-assuming redefinitions of science, that chance plus necessity adequatley accounts for:

1] origin of a fine-tuned, life facilitating cosmos as observed

2] origin of the organised complexity of cell-based life within that observed cosmos, on our planet and/or elsewhere [and if elsewhere, how observed and how does it get here]

3] OO body-plan level biodiversity, starting with the Cambrian revolution, per the Meyer paper at PBSW etc (which passed perr review by “renowned scientists”)

4] OO a credible mind that can think for itself instead of beign driven by chance + necessity, and so also that can account for the binding nature of moral obligation beyond mere brute “might makes right.”

Those are the four big bangs of ID.

We say, on the evidence of what we do see on teh routine cause of functionally specified complex information [FSCI], irreducible complexity [IC] and organised complexity [OC], and on the causal impotence of chance + necessity to credibly find islands of function in the relevant config spaces on the gamut of the observed cosmos, etc, intelligence is the best explanation. [Cf here Appendix 1, point 6 the always linked.]

What is your response, why?

Now, let’s see your answers, since you are the A-Team. [If you want a simple 101 survay of the X-Team's case, try my always linked for a start then go over to Research ID wiki and IDEA Center.]

For the X-Team,

GEM of TKI

PS: You need to update your list of “evidence,” e.g. DNA is evidence of FSCI not of body-plan level evolution driven by c + n only. Similarly, Archaeopterix is a mosaic not a transitional form — on conventional dating more “modern” birds have earlier fossils than A — which is also plainly a bird in basic body plan — not ahalf-way house. Vestigial organs have so far shrunk in numbers as to be negligible, and the pattern is that uses were found for the “vestiges” on further investigaiton, so they never were.

If there is no “evidence” for design, then why would Richard Dawkins say in The God Delusion that “We live on a planet where we are surrounded by perhaps ten million species, each one of which independently displays a powerful illusion of apparent design.”

“One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.”

When he uses the words “illusion” and “appearance” in the chapter, it depends entirely on the power of his argument that an eternal designer outside the cosmos is wildly improbable/impossible.

That is the only reason for Dawkins, that the abundant, clear evidence for design in biology, has to be an illusion.

ID is about quantifying what design looks like and this is done only in relation to physiacl evidence.

PPS: Speaking of magic leps, kindly explain the coherence of mind and its credibility relative to chance plus necessity only, in light of issues such as are summarised at 101 level here. In other words, we see signs that our minds act on our brains and bodies in ways that go beyond C + N, on pain of self-referential incoherence and absurdity. Call it magic if you will, our thoughts and choices poof into existence from our SELVES. Worse, this experience is personal fact no 1 of our existence as intelligent agents — and without credible minds that think beyond mere lucky noise, chance conditions and control of mindless mechanisms, no science, indeed, no reason, is possible.

I agree with Leo: the placement of the unqualified series of quotes immediately before the reference to the Post leader gives the strong impression that the quotes are taken from the article. So strong that it effectively represents them as such. It is possible plausibly to deny this in retrospect by presenting it as a joke, true, but it gives the appearance of deliberately trying to mislead. It might be better for Mr. Dembski to place himself above suspicion of the intention to mislead by responding to the criticism and rewording the article so that it cannot be described as misleading. Reacting by shooting the messenger does not seem very C