A Question for Barbara Forrest

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 16, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In her recent paper, The Non-epistemology of Intelligent Design: Its Implications for Public Policy, evolutionary philosopher Barbara Forrest states that science must be restricted to natural phenomena. In its investigations, science must restrict itself to a naturalistic methodology, where explanations must be strictly naturalistic, dealing with phenomena that are strictly natural. Aside from rare exceptions this is the consensus position of evolutionists. And in typical fashion, Forrest uses this criteria to exclude origins explanations that allow for the supernatural. Only evolutionary explanations, in one form or another, are allowed.

Continue reading here.

Comments

Iconofid, "What we should avoid, IMO, is the constant human tendency to make up supernatural beings to stick in the gaps of our knowledge, from weather controlling gods to universe creating gods." Why do you insist on making up strawman arguments? ID and Design Theory is about detecting design patterns in nature. It is no different than SETI. "Making up things does not advance our knowledge, but it’s certainly a human tendency!" When you do not know the answer, you cannot rule out a prior a possible answer. One possible answer is our universe is designed. Goelel's Incompleteness Theorem is consistent with the fact we cannot know every detail about our universe unless we exist outside of it as well. "That’s not an opinion that there couldn’t have been a creation of the universe..." Stop right here Iconofid. Be honest. If you agree the Universe might be designed, then it does not matter "who" did the designing. The other fluff you metion are distractions about theology. "... merely that there’s no point in making up false ones in the absence of any knowledge in the area." ID does not make up any gods or goddesses or fairy tales. It merely advances the inference that Design can be detected, that is all. The rest of your discussion is not about science, but about your philosophical POV. If we are a result of a creative agent, then your philosophical or theological arguments mean nill. It would mean, you are making things up. If as you say, You truly do NOT know, then you must honestly admit Design is possible. Stop worrying about supernatural or past history, or current theology. And stick to facts. Since none of us know for sure how we arrived in this exixtence, the best any of us can do is to proceed by logic, science and best inferences. My opinion is design exist in the cells and in the cosmos. But I admit it is an opinion, not a fact. Meanwhile, evolutionist and materialist insist on reporting they are the intellecutals and only factual science. Not true. The Darwinist theory has completely failed with to many failed predictions now to repeat. We need a new theory to explain DNA, regulatory genes, signals, repair, error detection and networking, redundancy, etc., that is considered the best software computer system ever seen(Bill Gates). We are only just now beginning to apprehend the exquisite computational design of cellular life. Research is popping up everwhere now treating Biological entities like programs. This is evidence that the Design Paradigm of Information BioComputation is the future of Biology. We cannot procedd to understand life by the failed Darwinist Paradigm. Its foundation cannot provide a good research hueristic for productive research. Only story telling about some perceived past. Real Engineering of life will proceed at the Design level. Therefore, supernatural or not, agency is the answer for the future understanding.DATCG_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: I will pick up a few points where there are matters of interest (noting that Mr Murray has done a pretty good job at 512), with Icon especially providing several instructive examples of the breakdown of the evolutionary materialist case: 1] Icon, 476: he [KF] does not understand the phrase “relatively simple”, that he thinks that the adjective “simple” was applied to “bacterial flagellum” in the sentence he quoted Let's roll a bit of tape, from Icon, 460: You can’t claim that the natural universe cannot produce a relatively simple self-replicator or a bacterial flagellum and argue that it can produce inter-stellar travelling little green men in flying saucers, surely? In short, Icon here contrasts (a) Dawkins' replicator and the flagellum on the one hand [notice that "or"], with (b) the LGM. this is a comparison, and the response inadvertetnly or willfully distracts attention adn fails to respond on the main points as I noted at 468. Summarising:
(i) "simple" goes out the window at 500 - 1,000 bits worth of storage [i.e. there is a practical threshold for relevant complexity in design theory], (ii) ID is the science that studies signs of intelligence, so is making a claim on evidence best explained by design rather than nature acting without guidance, (iii) it makes -- from 1984 [so all that stuff about post Edwards (1987) is a sustained slander -- no claims about whether or not such intelligences on design of life are within or beyond the cosmos, (iv) it is testable and refutable -- just bring up a case of lucky noise giving rise to CSI.
That Icon resorted to distractions instead of simply putting up a case of lucky noise giving rise to functional, complex information, shows where the balance is on the merits. 2] Icon, 472: if FSCI cannot come about by unintelligent natural processes, as I.D.ers claim, then intelligence, which is chock-a-block full of FSCI by any definition, must have supernatural origins according to the current I.D. arguments. It should be clear that ID is about: SIGNS OF INTELLIGENCE. That some observed intelligences themselves show signs of intelligence [e.g. in our cells] and therefore may tghermselves be designed has no relevance to whether or not there are empirically reliable signs of intelligence. We are credibly secondary intelligences; which does not entail that we are not intelligences, nor that we cannot identify signs of intelligence nor that primary intelligences of a different order may not exist. That is there are no "contradictions" at work as icon also alleges. Moreover, Icon has yet to show a known counter-example, of say a 1,000 bit example of FSCI that on reliable observation, has come about by lucky noise. (So, he diverts from a clear point of empirical test, only to end up in the unproductive rhetoric of atmosphere poisoning.) And, observe: Icon -- presumably by choice as it is raised above -- does not address the point where design theory DOES address a case of signs of intelligence that point to an intelligence beyond the observed cosmos. Namely, on observing the functional, fine-tuned complexity of our cosmos, which evidently also had a beginning so it credibly had a cause. Design theorists argue that on the parttern of known cases, the best explanation of such is an intelligent, powerful cause that set up a cosmos that is fitted to cell-based carbon chemistry life. It is at this level that design theory properly points to that which is credibly intelligent and beyond (so, not constrained by) the laws and processes of the observed cosmos; which would thus be in a very legitimate sense, super-natural. On EVIDENCE, not a priori assumptions of a supernatural -- a very different approach . . . NB: The underlying reason for all the evo mat rhetoric over "supernatural" causes is really to try to assert or imply that design thinkers are ASSUMING supernatural intelligences, so are not acting on empirical evidence. Of course, the actual case is, that [a] where there is no reason to infer to intelligence beyond the cosmos (origin of our planet's life and origin of its biodiversity), design theory does not infer beyond what the evidence supports, [b] where evidence points beyond the cosmos (origin of a fine tuned cosmos that exhibits fine-tuned complexity) Design Theory points out that it makes not a "proof" but an inference to best explanation on empirically known characteristics of intelligence. In short, just opposite to assuming super-natural intelligence, design theory provides empirical support that points to it as a credible candidate for the origin of our cosmos. Plainly, that's what has the materialists in a swirl. Also, there is no problem in principle with such a cosmos containing other worlds with secondary intelligences, some of which may even have been involved in a certain Project Eden here on this little terrestrial ball. 3] icon, 488: We do not know what caused the expansion of the universe and what state it was in before, and we do not know what cause and effect would mean at a point where time=0. Actually, not quite. We know that the universe we live in and observe is framed on laws, and had a beginning, so it credibly has a cause. It exhibits fine-tuned, complex order, so we have good reason to infer to a likely type of cause: a powerful, intelligent one. One that happens to be extra-cosmic, and so on a reasonable interpretation may be described as super-natural. (The source of nature would not be within it, on the principle that a thing cannot cause itself.) 4] WJM, 490: ID claims that at least in some cases of complex, specified information (that which sufficiently exceeds a reasonable cause by law and chance), that ID is the better explanation - not that it couldn’t have happened with out I.D. Anything is remotely possible, as long as it doesn’t violate any rule of logic. Correct. The design argument is a scientific inference to best, empirically anchored explanation. All that is required to overthrow it, is to provide a case in point of say FSCI originating by undirected chance + necessity. Just as, "all" that is required to overthrow thermodynamics is to create a perpetual motion machine. Such is logically possible, but we have high confidence that it is likely to be infeasible, on long experience. 5] DK, 491: William J. Murray, I would remind you that the subtitle of Dr. Dembski’s No Free Lunch is Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence. The whole book is an argument “that CSI is a prerequisite for intelligence in the sense that the term “intelligence” is applied - i.e., “agency” or “intentionality”.” This reflects a profound misunderstanding of the core concepts of ID. Let's take it in steps:
1 --> First, intelligence is an observed fact of our world, indeed it is our direct personal experience. As such, it is an empirical datum just as any other. I daresay, it is the first such datum: without our self-knowledge, we have no other knowledge. 2 --> As intelligent observers and agents, we observe that ART-ifacts of intelligent action often (not always, but often) reflect characteristic features that are not found in cases where chance and/or necessity are the acting causes. So, we may identify signs of intelligence. 3 --> In the captioned book, Dembski identifies one such: CSI is a known artifact of intelligence,a nd the reason why it is credible that we will not observe cases on the gamut of our observed cosmos that have CSI produced by chance + necessity is the issue of targets in large configuration spaces, spaces that will exhaust the search resources of our observed cosmos without providing a reasonable chance of arriving at targets. 4 --> So, specified complexity (per massive improbability otherwise) will not be obtained apart from intelligent action; which happens to be its routinely observed cause. 5 --> Or, putting that another way, we do not get complex specified information as a "free lunch" as there is a search which has a cost, and when we put up searches that may outperform random walks, this is on a special case, with what is now called active information. That is, a "good" search at level 1 is the subject of a level 2 search which is in generally an even bigger config space than the level 1 search, and so forth. 6 --> So, we either face a regress of ever-harder searches, or we inject active information originating in intelligence that has knowledge of the specifics of a particular problem. 7 --> Or, in simple terms: there is no free lunch. 8 --> At no point in this chain of reasoning is there any argument that intelligence MUST be itself CSI-laden. (It is the materialist worldview that invites the assumption that intelligence must be built up from a complex of parts, and so ends up requiring a free lunch at some level within the observed cosmos or the wider proposed, speculative [as opposed to scientifically observed] multiverse that is alleged to have spawned our universe.)
6] Icon, 499: They [design theorists] make it frequently, if inadvertently, by pointing out examples of intelligent designers and their designs. In every single case, CSI is a prerequisite for the existence of the designers used to demonstrate the argument (us and other animals). That some intelligences may exhibit the characteristics of being secondary intelligences (complete with evidence of their own design) says nothing about what intelligence is in essence. That is, a question is here being begged. And, observe again how studiously the case where ID does point to an intelligence that is on evidence beyond the observed cosmos, is being ignored. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT}

Nakashima, Your example against the flagella is like cutting half a tail off a lizard. It fails. From my understanding of Behe's point, if you remove any one "whole" part from the flagella, it fails. You need a better analogy to rebut IC. And finally, the only opposition hypothesis offerred by Matzke from NCSE that I remember reading was a story with a bunch of "maybe" "probably" "might be" and "could've" "would've" "should've" commentary. If I'm wrong, please point me to a scientific research paper showing exactly how the flagella evolved experimentally in a lab reproduction study. ThanksDATCG_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

es58 quotes me and asks: Iconofid: "I haven’t suggested that the universe requires cause or creation, merely that it expanded, and we don’t yet know why." Q) if it expanded, do you imply it always existed? And if so, is that not an infinite regression? If it did not always exist, then did it begin? If so, did it create itself, or what other options are there for the source of it’s creation? Thankyou That's very polite. Thankyou, too! It could have always existed in its pre-expanded state, although what "always" would mean if there's a time = 0 point, I don't know. But no, I don't mean to imply anything. When I say "we don't know", it's just a statement of fact, like saying that, in the nineteenth century, we didn't know how the sun burned or how a solar system would form, or at present, we don't know what goes on in black holes. When we don't know something, we can speculate and form ideas, even come up with hypotheses if there's anything to go on. What we should avoid, IMO, is the constant human tendency to make up supernatural beings to stick in the gaps of our knowledge, from weather controlling gods to universe creating gods. Making up things does not advance our knowledge, but it's certainly a human tendency! That's not an opinion that there couldn't have been a creation of the universe involving goddesses or gods, merely that there's no point in making up false ones in the absence of any knowledge in the area.iconofid_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT}

Moderators: At 511, sparc has violated my privacy, in a comment with no substantial relevance, other than being an ad hominem-laced comment. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

Clive, "lamarck is right. Even if we understood the effects of a law like gravity, we still wouldn’t know why the law was the way it was." Thanks Clive you laid it out well, what I hadn't elaborated on. I hadn't seen that I'd gotten a challenge to that post. So yes, gravity's causes would be supernatural, and not simply unknown, because the law is on the level of god and naturalists label god as supernatural.lamarck_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT}

Iconofid: I haven’t suggested that the universe requires cause or creation, merely that it expanded, and we don’t yet know why. Q) if it expanded, do you imply it always existed? And if so, is that not an infinite regression? If it did not always exist, then did it begin? If so, did it create itself, or what other options are there for the source of it's creation? Thankyoues58_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

----Clive: ----StephenB; "I have corresponded with Dr. Numbers about CS Lewis and evolution, and he admitted to me that Lewis, later in his life, rejected biological evolution, though many people, including Francis Collins, erroneously call Lewis a theistic evolutionist." That is interesting. I wonder if Collins will try that approach tomorrow during his discussion with Dr. Steven Myers.StephenB_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

Mr Wisker, What I hear you saying is that Dr Behe actually didn't make the IC claim about any particular species or its flagella, just that it seemed to him that there was some irrudicible core somewhere within some flagellar system if someone would just invest the time in finding it. is this an active research project of the DI, Biola, Liberty University or any other ID friendly institution? It would seem the obvious follow up.Nakashima_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

William J. Murray: Iconofid said: “They make it frequently, if inadvertently, by pointing out examples of intelligent designers and their designs. In every single case, CSI is a prerequisite for the existence of the designers used to demonstrate the argument (us and other animals).” In other words, they do not make that argument at all, it is just your inference of what they argue. It is not my position that CSI is required to produce intentionality. Good. Then you could tell your fellow I.D.ers to stop using CSI requiring humans and their designs as analogies for the "designs" of disembodied, non-CSI requiring "natural" intentionality. William: Iconofid said: “Caused? Created? Where time = 0?” It is your dilemma, not mine. No. It's yours. You were talking about cause and creation outside space time. I haven't suggested that the universe requires cause or creation, merely that it expanded, and we don't yet know why. What is hypocritical is that you define the unknown quality of my regression as necessarily “supernatural (without even providing a definition thereof) and you are satisfied to simply allow the cause of your own postulate (natural laws) to remain “unknown”. I, too, am happy to allow the cause of my postulate - intentionality - to be left at “unknown”, but I don’t think you’re prepared to extend me that courtesy, as it appears to undermine your argument, such as it is. It's not just the cause. It's the existence of your concept that is unknown. Embodied intelligences, like ours, require SCI in order to exist. Disembodied intelligence is not known to exist. So, you ask for a definition of supernatural: Online dictionary; 1) of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. 2)of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity. 3)of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult. American Heritage: 1)Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. 2)Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. 3)Of or relating to a deity. 4)Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. 5)Of or relating to the miraculous. I think that disembodied intentionality fits a few of those. William: Iconofid said: “When I say that we don’t currently know how the universe expanded, or its ultimate origins, I mean exactly what I say. Look up the word “unknown” and you will not find “regression” or “supernatural” in any of the definitions.” I didn’t claim otherwise. However, if you are going to assert that the intelligence (intentionality) I refer to is supernatural, then it is up to you to offer a definition of the term “supernatural” that doesn’t skewer your postulates as well. So far, you have not been forthcoming. My postulate is that natural phenomena, like life, have natural causes. There are some definitions of supernatural above. Am I skewered?iconofid_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Mr Nakashima, If a knockout experiment took the tip off the flagella, so that it wore out faster, or the hook, so that the motility was reduced by some percent, what would that say about the irreducible complexity? It says redefinition of the term "parts" is in order until it becomes IC again.Dave Wisker_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial:
We await your best Nathan Thurm, Stephen.
Nathan Thurm! I'd forgotten all about him.David Kellogg_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Nakashima, It would say that irreducible complexity is not the same as irreducible efficiency.William J. Murray_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Mr Murray, Behe doesn’t claim there are no precursor parts, only that the system doesn’t work unless all the parts necessary for its function are assembled at one time. Why is there an assumption that there is a single function that is stable over time for any phenotypic products? There are bones in the ear that used to be part of the jaw. Is the argument about the flagella really about a specific species and its specific flagellar construction? Or is it an argument just made in general? Is the flagella of Vibrio cholerae irreducubly complex? If a knockout experiment took the tip off the flagella, so that it wore out faster, or the hook, so that the motility was reduced by some percent, what would that say about the irreducible complexity?Nakashima_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Gravity is revealed by certain kinds of phenomena. So is entropy. So are the strong and weak nuclear forces. So is inertia. It is my position that intentionality is revealed by certain phenomena; if complex, specified information of a certain value is being generated, IMO it is being produced by intentionality. I'm not really happy with the use of the word "intelligent" in "intelligent design" because, IMO, it causes too much semantic confusion.William J. Murray_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, ------"As I said, don’t call that science." ------"A person who says this, I don’t trust with doing science." These are your responses? You are assuming a methodology that is based on a philosophy. I explained the philosophical presuppositions of what we consider natural or supernatural that effect and have direct bearing on the methodology, and your response is to ignore the philosophical presuppositions and talk about the methodology? These aren't responses. Do you have no response to the actual discussion?Clive Hayden_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg: I can't discern why it would be rational to assume that a designer would create every part and tool from scratch. It seems less efficient than blind chance to reinvent the cog, or the whip, or the bearing every time you need one for a new design. Do you really believe Behe was making that argument?William J. Murray_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I have corresponded with Dr. Numbers about CS Lewis and evolution, and he admitted to me that Lewis, later in his life, rejected biological evolution, though many people, including Francis Collins, erroneously call Lewis a theistic evolutionist.Clive Hayden_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

Iconofid said: "They make it frequently, if inadvertently, by pointing out examples of intelligent designers and their designs. In every single case, CSI is a prerequisite for the existence of the designers used to demonstrate the argument (us and other animals)." In other words, they do not make that argument at all, it is just your inference of what they argue. It is not my position that CSI is required to produce intentionality. Iconofid said: "Caused? Created? Where time = 0?" It is your dilemma, not mine. What is hypocritical is that you define the unknown quality of my regression as necessarily "supernatural (without even providing a definition thereof) and you are satisfied to simply allow the cause of your own postulate (natural laws) to remain "unknown". I, too, am happy to allow the cause of my postulate - intentionality - to be left at "unknown", but I don't think you're prepared to extend me that courtesy, as it appears to undermine your argument, such as it is. Iconofid said: "When I say that we don’t currently know how the universe expanded, or its ultimate origins, I mean exactly what I say. Look up the word “unknown” and you will not find “regression” or “supernatural” in any of the definitions." I didn't claim otherwise. However, if you are going to assert that the intelligence (intentionality) I refer to is supernatural, then it is up to you to offer a definition of the term "supernatural" that doesn't skewer your postulates as well. So far, you have not been forthcoming. Iconofid said: "There are many different supernatural “explanations” for the origins of the universe from many different cultures, but we naturalists can’t see outside spacetime at present, or figure out what the nature and laws of zero time would be." You keep using the term "supernatural" as if you have provided it a meaning. What do you mean by "supernatural"? We are both left at "unknown" when it comes to providing a cause for our postulates: law, chance, and intentionality. I don't see how that disqualifies my postulate as a potential part of any description accounting for the behavior of phenomena we might encounter. Iconofid said:"There is no contradiction in this and our naturalistic theory of biology, which was what I was thinking of when I mentioned the natural evolution of intelligence." Really? I am unaware that there is an evolutionary explanation or theory of how free will came into existence (free will = intentionality). Please direct me to it. Iconofid said: "Am I not right in suggesting that I.D. claims that something highly complex like intelligence can exist without requiring an intelligent designer, but that a relatively simple self-replicator cannot? " I think you're completely misunderstanding the argument IDers present. They are claiming that some material phenomena likely require deliberate causation - i.e., conception of a goal and working to achieve it - in order for it to exist. This places "intentionality" in the same category as "natural law" and "chance" as a fundamental, necessary force. Intentionality, IMO, is not created by other intentional entities; it is a fundamental aspect of existence, like gravity, that is revealed by certain material systems, like some human beings. Other IDers, I'm sure, disagree with that, but that is my take on what the "I" in ID refers to. Iconofid said: "And am I not right in saying that that implies the supernatural?" Define the word "supernatural" and I'll get back to you on it. My definition of intentionality/intelligence is no different than gravity, chance, or entropy; it's an intrinsic aspect of existence that is revealed by certain phenomena. Iconofid said: "Surely you’re not suggesting that the intelligent designers of bacterial flagella contain less FSCI than it does?" That is like asking me (rhetorically) if the gravity necessary to construct a planetary system contains less planets than the planetary system. Intentionality is not CSI; it constructs CSI artifacts.William J. Murray_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Gordon, "onlookers" sounds so Robespiere-esque.sparc_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

---William J. Murray: "The point is that a flagellum must be designed and then constructed all at once, even if one is scavenging parts from other systems, because unless it is put together in toto, it is useless - not that every part is useless until it is put together." That is a very well-written summary.StephenB_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

William J. Murray, is there a point where he says that a part was brought in from another system into an IC system? Or is that just a loophole he allows himself in theory?David Kellogg_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

It's easier to bring up new issues than to deal with what I wrote. Ah well.David Kellogg_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

Behe doesn't claim there are no precursor parts, only that the system doesn't work unless all the parts necessary for its function are assembled at one time.William J. Murray_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

David, Your (and Numbers') erroenous inference is made obvious by your quotes. Behe is obviously stating that there was no precursor system to the one that is claimed to be irreducible - in other words a flagellum minus a part is not a functioning precursor mechanism. He isn't claiming that none of the parts were borrowed or copied from other existing mechanisms. The point is that a flagellum must be designed and then constructed all at once, even if one is scavenging parts from other systems, because unless it is put together in toto, it is useless - not that every part is useless until it is put together.William J. Murray_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: ----"In other words, Numbers is right:" Ronald Numbers is outed every which way but loose. Here is more from his paper. Numbers falsely claims that ID postulates a supernatural creator and is untestable. “ID and its progeny rely on supernatural explanations of natural phenomena.” and “ID makes no testable predictions.” Both are outright false statements. Besides, what is a "disinterested" historian doing writing like this. You said he was an "anti-evolutionist." Further, Numbers writes, “After the Edwards ruling, they set about removing references to God and Creationism from their tracts.” That is a flat out lie. ID did not mutate to avoid a court decision. ID was designed in its present form—an empirically based argument that would not use the word “supernatural” before the Edwards case was decided. That means they were honestly editing. Its all nonsense. I can go back and correct your errors about Behe but why bother. I have enough right here to make my case. Ron Numbers is not a disinterested historian. He is a Darwinist apologist. The very title of his co-written paper says it all: “Defending science education against intelligent design.” As per always, I have the truth on my side and you have nothing. When are you going to give it up.StephenB_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 468:
As a budding idea, [methodological naturalism] evolved beginning from the mid-nineteenth century. You do understand the world EVOLVED don’t you?
Yes. Among other things, phenomena that have evolved have histories.Diffaxial_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

---David Kellogg: "I provided the evidence on Johnson and linked to a pro-ID site which you called an anti-ID slander. You have not corrected that error either." No, you didn't. You provided someone's interpretation of the evidence, which I do not accept as truthful. I want you to provide the quote, which you will not do because you don't have it, and, I suspect, never had, in spite of your claims to the contrary.StephenB_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

More Behe (from the same link):
since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible, then it can not have functional precursors
In other words, Numbers is right:
Behe assumes that the component parts of an irreducibly complex system never had other functions in older organisms.
David Kellogg_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Numbers:
Behe assumes that the component parts of an irreducibly complex system never had other functions in older organisms.
Behe:
An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional.
David Kellogg_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 19 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply