Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Word About Our Moderation Policy

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Some commenters have raised questions regarding the propriety of recent posts and UD’s moderation policy. UD’s moderation policy is fairly simple: As a general rule, so long as your comment is not defamatory profane, or a vicious personal attack, you can say pretty much what you want. We have no interest in censoring viewpoints, because we believe ID is true and consequently in any full and fair debate we will win — and if we don’t win we either need to learn to debate better or change our position. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not opening this site up to nasty juvenile name-calling fests like one see so often at Panda’s Thumb.  But if you keep your comments restricted to ideas and not attacking people, you should have no problems passing muster here.

What about the “God-bashing” and the defenses of God that have appeared in these pages? God can take care of Himself. We at UD feel no need to protect Him from defamation. Bash away. Those who are offended by (or disagree with) the bashing are welcome to post such defenses as they deem appropriate. There are limits, however. This site is not intended to be a forum for extensive religious debates. Religious issues inevitably come up from time to time and people should feel free to discuss them from both sides when they do. But the moderators will exercise their judgment and gavel discussions that stray too far a field from the purpose of this site for too long.

I personally find the God-bashing disturbing. So why do I allow it? As one of my colleagues has aptly said, the wiser course, when someone attacks God is to let those UD commenters who are theists respond to the charges. Our readers will then be in a position to see: (1) that UD, unlike the Darwinists, doesn’t ban or censor ideas; and (2) that theism in general and Christianity in particular is quite capable of defending itself against lies, distortions, illogical arguments, and misunderstandings. Our role is not to censor ideas but to provide a forum where hard questions can be discussed calmly, fully, and fairly, and we trust that when that happens truth will prevail.

Certainly there is risk to this approach. Some will reject truth and embrace error. But the consequences of pursuing the alternative course – ignoring or even running from the hard questions – would be far worse.

Finally, some have asked whether we should even discuss “peripheral issues” at UD, such as Darwin’s racism or the implications of ID for the theodicy. This site is devoted not only to scientific theories of origins, but also to the metaphysical and moral implications of those theories. Plainly BOTH Darwinism and ID have implications beyond the science. Certainly Darwinsts like “intellectually fulfilled” atheist Richard Dawkins understand the metaphysical implications of Darwinism and talk about those implications ad nauseum. What hypocritical balderdash for anyone to suggest a double standard prohibiting those of us with a different point of view from doing the exact same thing from our perspective – and we will continue to do so.

Comments
So the bottom line is if something can be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity, then there is no need for a designer.Joseph
March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
Richard Simons, The debate is all about the "How"- so how a scientist gets a synthesized ribosome to function is very relevant. So now I ask you- what do you know of ID? Have you read any pro-ID literature? If yes what books and/ or articles? Recommended Literature Pertaining to Intelligent DesignJoseph
March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
Reciprocating_Bill, What are the predictions borne from an accumulation of genetic accidents? Please be specific or admit that the theory of evolution doesn't predict anything.Joseph
March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
Richard Simons:
I am trying to get a clear statement from you as to what evidence would falsify ID.
And I told you- just show that nature, operating freely can account for that in question.
I thought from an earlier comment that you were saying that if people managed to make a working ribosome then ID would be falsified.
ID would be falsified for the ribosome and anything equal of less intricate- just as Behe stated. Nopw if you want to falsify ID pertaining to biology just demonsttrate that living organisms can arise from non-living matter without agency involvement.
The fact remains, that failing to produce them means nothing more than ’so far we haven’t found out how to make a working ribosome.’ Ignorance is not support for ID.
Ignorance is the foundation of YOUR position. That is as long as we remain ignorant evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents can be forced on unsuspecting students. However we have direct observational evidence of designers designing editorial programs as well as designing translators- ie compilers. The ribosome is a genetic compiler. Then through logic and deduction we infer the ribosome was designed- that and the fact it is irreducibly complex. Predictions from ID include but are not limited to: Irreducible complexity and complex specified information. That said the "predictions" of the theory of evolution are relevant so that a comparison can be made. So what predictions can be made from the premise of an accumulation of genetic accidents? What would we expect to see if living organisms owe their diversity to an accumulation of genetic accidents? Transciption and translation remain very good evidnce for ID in biology. To refute that inference just demonstrate how such a thing can arise via an accumulation of genetic accidents. Supporting Intelligent Design BTW Richard, biologists are trying to falsify ID on just about a daily basis. Doolittle, Miller, Coyne- just to name a few- have tried to refute ID.Joseph
March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
Upright @ 160:
...debating points are not a search for the truth in the natural world...
What is absent from your response, as was absent from Jerry's, is an exemplar of: 1) A theory with testable entailments, and 2) Proposed empirical tests of those entailments. This is the search tool that is unique to science, and that confers upon its power. The method is very much fettered. An unfettered search for truth may include dream quests, strongly felt intuition, hallucinogens, consultations with elders, meditation and prayer, dance, art and music, philosophical reasoning, love making, declarations from authority, tautologies, visions, divination, cultural wisdom, ancient texts, common sense, and ordinary opinions. Some have more value than others. None of these are science. The central tools of science are much more limited, constrained to theoretical utterances that can be put to meaningful empirical test, such that one's theory can be disconfirmed. I don't see an exemplar of that in your post, or anywhere else. But perhaps I'm wrong. What's your example?Reciprocating_Bill
March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
Jerry: Frst, let us all beware of the school of wriggling smoked red herrings leading us off topic. (A very important topic, too.) You will see that I usually speak of BODY-PLAN (innovation) level macroevolution. That usually makes it pretty plain what is at stake, especially given the case of teh Cambrian life revolution, where we see top-down innovations in the basic architecture of animal life: dozens of phyla nd sub-phyla appearing "suddenly" in the fossil life sequence. A problem that faced Darwin 150 years ago, and which he hoped new fossils would remove. The new fossils, despite the headlines, are in a situation where we now probably have FEWER cases than Darwin et al did. It is credible that to get tot he very first body plan for observed life, we need 600+ k bits of fucntional information, specifying a configuration sp[ace of over 10^180,000 cells. The idea that information, coded in codes, and with associated instructions and algorithms, plus implementing machinery to make it FUNCTION -- GLF, here is FSCI emerging naturally form the issue, yet again -- would originate by in effect lucky molecular noise in a prebiotic soup with the aid of modest mechanical forces allowed by chemistry and physics, is beyond ludicrous. But, we know that it is routine for intelligences to create 600 k bits of functional, coded information. So, on inference to current best of competing potentially plausible explanations -- Richard, please note teh string of key terms -- we see that design is a better, empirically anchored explanation of OOL than chance + necessity. Even if we do not yet know whodunit, and howitweredun. When we come to major body plans, it is credible that the phylum- or subphylum- level innovations we see require 10's to 100's of MEGA bits of novel functional information. 10 Mbits specifies a config space of ~ 9.05 *10^3,010,299. In both cases, teh whole universe we observe, across its credible lifespan, functioning as a search engine, could not sample anywhere near 1 in 10^150 of the config spaces. that is, we are looking at cases where the odds of success against by far outstrip any reasonable requirement. Design is a far better explanation than chance + necessity. And, the challenge is not Dawkins' strawmannish weasel's climbing of Mt Improbable. But to credibly find then get to the shores of Dr Moreau's infamous Island Improbable through chance + necessity. And, the case in point illustrates that -- on Moderation Policy -- UD needs to refer some of the distractive cases to the Weak Arguments Correctives and demand either prompt cogent and reasonably well-structured correction to the WAC, or return to the thread's topic. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 17, 2009
March
03
Mar
17
17
2009
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT
If P2 (ID) then Q2 (a unique entailment of ID). If not Q2 (if the entailment is not observed), then not P2 (ID is false).
You mean like this: If chance and necessity are the first cause of the metabolism and replication that represents life as we know it, then chance and necessity can organize chemical elements into coordinated organizations driven by information and meta-information. If we fail to observe chance and necessity organizing chemical elements into coordinated organizations driven by information and meta-information, then chance and necessity are ruled out as the first cause of the metabolism and replication that represents life as we know it. Bill, I know you may find this hard to believe, but debating points are not a search for the truth in the natural world - instead they are simply debating points. For rational thinkers, they do not represent the gotcha that seems to impress you with yourself. And, before you tell me what is and is not science, first you can provide a rational explanation of how an an unfettered search for truth can arbitrarily silence one of the three causes known to man, and still assume itself to be an unfettered search for truth. Your response will need to be devoid of either ideology or metaphysical implications, and should represent post-modern intelligence. It should also not assign to science any parameter that is not immediately responsive to the idea that science is an unfettered search for the truth. ...and by the way. ID is characterized by a fact that is not in dispute - volitional agency can coordinate separate organizations into a functioning whole, driven by information and meta-information. From an empirical and observational standpoint, it is the only causal mechanism known to have this capacity. This is the reality that you can't approach with contrary observations, and it is what you refuse to acknowledge as you maneuver for debating points. ID is utterly falsifiable by provding clear data to the contrary of this point, and it does not exist. If you find this reality distastful to your own view of what an unfettered search for truth should be, then by all means (given you have no falisification of ID's core principle anyway) feel free to retire from the debate before your tard suit runs out of batteries.Upright BiPed
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
Jerry - BTW, the Dr. Suess title you're reaching for is If I Ran the CircusReciprocating_Bill
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT
No Richard YOU misunderstand. Ya see in the ID scenario organisms and certain structures would NOT be reducible. And in YOUR scenario they would be. What else do you want- If an IDist went into a lab and genetically enginnered a bacterial flagellum would that be a point for ID? No. "A further point is that, if you are claiming this as a test of ID, then if scientists manage to make a working ribosome you must acknowledge that ID is wrong and abandon it." It all depends HOW they managed to make a working ribosome. The debate is all about HOW. And then it would remove the desighn inference for the ribosome and everything of equal or lesser complexity.
I am trying to get a clear statement from you as to what evidence would falsify ID. I thought from an earlier comment that you were saying that if people managed to make a working ribosome then ID would be falsified. Now it seems you are saying that it would depend on how it was made (whatever that means) and it would at most imply that ID was not involved in producing a ribosome. The fact remains, that failing to produce them means nothing more than 'so far we haven't found out how to make a working ribosome.' Ignorance is not support for ID. "And in YOUR scenario they would be." There should be no need to mention the predictions from the theory of evolution when describing an alternative theory. The description of a theory should enable clear and testable predictions to be made, something that IDers have not produced so far. If there is an existing theory, the new theory needs to be able to explain features that are unexplained by the current theory. The most concise description I have seen of ID was something like 'at some time in the past (although it might be still continuing) a natural or supernatural being or beings or possibly force, caused to be made, by unknown processes, one or more ancestral or modern life forms.' You (the ID community) need to come up with predictions from this (it may need refining a little) that are both testable and different from the theory of evolution. Saying things like 'ribosomes will not be made to work, but if they do it's no big deal as regards ID' just encourages ID's critics to claim that it is vacuous. BTW, your estimate of what it takes to run a lab seems to be off track. Where do your figures come from? It is my understanding that a lab with the budget of the Discovery Institute would be expected to produce about half a dozen refereed publications a year. In addition, the Templeton Institute expected to get an application for research funds from the Discovery Institute but was not contacted. Unfortunately, research needs both money and some sort of testable hypothesis, which is why both Reciprocating_Bill and I are pressing you for a clear statement on this issue.Richard Simons
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
Jerry @ 156:
But here is a post I made a couple weeks ago on this...
What I am requesting is absolutely basic to the logic of scientific research and scientific epistemology. And what I am requesting is entirely absent from the example you have provided. Simply put, your theory must make unique empirical predictions that arise of necessity from that theory (entailments), such that if we fail to observe them your theory is falsified. Predictions that put your own theory "at risk" of disconfirmation should they fail to be observed. If you don't have that, you're not doing science. This is entirely absent from your example. Moreover, so far as I can tell, entirely absent from the ID movement as a whole. (We CAN agree, however, that 24 is a great show.)Reciprocating_Bill
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
Reciprocating_Bill, My thoughts on this topic are all over recent threads and it will take a little time to make them coherent. But here is a post I made a couple weeks ago on this. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/faq2-is-open-for-comment/#comment-304029 What I eventually write will not be much different from this. I will essentially tell you what I would do if I ran the zoo and had the power to disperse the money. It will turn out, not much that is different. Just that the interpretation of the data will be much loosened. Right now it is very constricted.jerry
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
Reciprocating_Bill, I am posting this to show that I have read your comment but do not quite understand it. I will try to answer your questions as best I can. But first I may not be finished for a couple hours because I will be watching 24 in about 25 minutes.jerry
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
Let me illustrate how our detractors avoid any substance. A frequent commenter here named khan consistently helps out on this. His latest "can you name a specific grant for macroevolution that was funded with no empirical backing nor empirical results coming from it? new paleontology and evo-devo papers that had financial support are published every week in journals like Nature and Science. are you relying on your peculiar flexible non-definition of macroevolution again?" khan has again and again has been told that our definition of macro evolution represents major changes in life, things which require major information changes to the genome and which I express as complex novel capabilities. It may not meet with the definition of macro evolution by many in evolutionary biology but we acknowledged that several times. But so what!! The fact that we define macro evolution differently seems to mean something negative about ID to khan when it doesn't to us. Because we know the debate is over the origin of complex novel capabilities and the information changes to the genome that has to take place for this to happen. And our concept of macro evolution captures that better. Khan has been told this several times. So what does khan do. He chastises us because we do not use the definition he wants to use and for which there is probably no disagreement with the meaning of his definition and what ID espouses. Because there are few if any disagreements by ID with his definition, khan somehow thinks he is making points by saying that under his definition of macro evolution we have no basis for complaint. So we have told khan that we will continue to use our definition because it illustrates what the debate is about. Or once I or someone else said it may be best to call it mega evolution as some evolutionary biologists have done. This is the best that our detractors can do. Is to argue over the minutiae of definitions. And then claim they have won. There are a lot of words to describe such behavior but we will leave it as just typical of what to expect from anyone who challenges ID. khan, thank you for making it so easy for us here to show that the anti ID people have squat to 1) back up their concept of evolution and squat to challenge our assertions about evolution. As I said on another thread khan does this for nothing and we are eternally grateful.jerry
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
Jerry - Describe an entailment unique to ID that, were there sufficient funding, could be subject to empirical test. Something that follows from ID such that were we to fail to observe it, ID or a major tenet of ID would be falsified. Your research question should conform to this very simple logical format: If P2 (ID) then Q2 (a unique entailment of ID). If not Q2 (if the entailment is not observed), then not P2 (ID is false). Describe that Q2, and describe how you would research it. Imagine unlimited funding. Assertions regarding the entailments of P1 (evolutionary biology) don't meet this standard, because it doesn't follow that if not Q1 then P2. That rules out re-interpretations of ongoing biological research. I'm truly interested. Surprise me.Reciprocating_Bill
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden @151
You won’t convince me otherwise, and I am not interested in finding the comment for you.
Clive, as the one making the claim, you bear the burden of proof. I don't have a dog in this fight and I don't know Bob from Adam, but if you're going to say something like that about someone, you have an ethical responsibility to be able to prove it. JJJayM
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
Arthur, "How can I prove there are no black swans? I am sure Bob has not made a comment which insults Denyse." You're sure? Really? I saw the comment myself, I'm sure that he has, unless he has since deleted it for the purpose of playing innocent. Do you want to go round and round on this with me? You won't convince me otherwise, and I am not interested in finding the comment for you.Clive Hayden
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden 03/15/2009 10:07 pm Arthur, “I scrolled back over as many comments as I could find, and I can’t find any insults to Denyse written by Bob.” You just have to look harder.
Clive, How can I prove there are no black swans? I am sure Bob has not made a comment which insults Denyse.Arthur Smith
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
jerry,
Darwinian macro evolution get a lot of financial support with out any empirical backing for it
can you name a specific grant for macroevolution that was funded with no empirical backing nor empirical results coming from it? new paleontology and evo-devo papers that had financial support are published every week in journals like Nature and Science. are you relying on your peculiar flexible non-definition of macroevolution again?Khan
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
Reciprocating_Bill, Joseph is correct. Darwinian macro evolution get a lot of financial support with out any empirical backing for it and the logic that the creation of new information may be beyond it capabilities. It also gets in the textbooks without any empirical support. There is a stacked deck here. Your comments about the Discovery Institute are risible. They are a think tank and pr outlet for ID ideas. It would take a hundreds million dollars or more to build, outfit and staff an ongoing biological science lab.jerry
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
Reciprocating_Bill:
Ultimately, until ID articulates a theory that has testable positive entailments such that negative findings regarding those entailments puts ID at risk, and subjects those entailments to empirical test, it will garner little from the scientific community.
And what are the testable positive entailments of genetic accidents? What part of transcription, proof-reading, error-correction, editing, more proof reading and error correction and translation with its own error correction, strikes you as being cobbled together via an accumulation of genetic accidents? IOW transcription and translation are POSITIVE evidence for ID.Joseph
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
Please, do not make careless statements that have accusatory import again.
Some of my remarks may have been careless, but none have been accusatory. But, laisser tomber. I look forward to your contributions to Dr Dembski's new thread.Arthur Smith
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
ETA: "...it will garner little respect or attention from the scientific community."Reciprocating_Bill
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Jerry -
You have made some elaborate logical statements when the issue is quite simple.
The logical statements above are, in fact, very simple.
Now if ID were allowed to do its own research there may be more direct things done in the not NP domain itself but they might actually accelerate the research into the failures in NP. But at the moment the current world view arbitrarily postulates that not NP domain does not exist so won’t sanction research into it.
Ultimately, until ID articulates a theory that has testable positive entailments such that negative findings regarding those entailments puts ID at risk, and subjects those entailments to empirical test, it will garner little from the scientific community. But as seen on another recent thread, when such are requested we are sent around the mulberry bush of arguments based upon critiques of Darwinism that assume their conclusions. Vis ID being "allowed" and funded to conduct research, I would be impressed (and surprised) if a unique positive entailment arising from ID, one that does not also follow from orthodox evolutionary theory, and the means to test that entailment, was simply proposed, much less actually empirically tested. Proposing a plausible and doable unique empirical test (an executable test of Q2 uniquely entailed by P2, but not P1) is free, and the internet is available to propagate any such good idea. Moreover, support of the ID movement has included, for example, millions of dollars funneled into the DI. Why has so little of that been diverted to support research?Reciprocating_Bill
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
Reciprocating Bill, I do not think you understand the argument. You have made some elaborate logical statements when the issue is quite simple. There is a misunderstanding that ID and evolutionary biology are two different fields. They are not. Yes, the broad concept of ID can be applied to other fields just as logic is applied to several fields besides evolutionary biology. So think of ID as a way of using logic within the specific field of evolutionary biology and not some separate field of study. Thus any study within evolutionary biology might impact on the ID hypothesis in that area of study. Two people can look at the same data set with two different hypotheses. If the alternatives are NP (naturalistic process) or not NP, then any failure of NP is an indication that the solution may lie in not NP. There is no absolute assertion here because there is no way to exhaust the possibilities of NP but each failure to support NP, give more credence that the solution lies in not NP. Now design lies in not NP while NP is a naturalistic process that produces life. It is quite proper to argue that NP has not been exhausted but each continued attempt to support NP which ends up in failure, then increases the likelihood of not NP. Now not NP can be a whole host of things but what it cannot be is a naturalistic process working with law and chance. And NP may include some processes that no one has thought of so far. Now to get down to reality. Design is a possibility because we are witnessing humans approaching the design of life and some last week claimed it would be in the next 5 years and mentioned a designed ribosome. So not NP is feasible. The main claim against not NP is that there was no intelligence to do the designing when the first life appeared. Some want the wreckage of the rocket ship and the plans before they will believe. There are a lot of absurd demands. Are naturalistic processes a possibility? Of course. But because it is a possibility does not mean it is a certainty. And the more it gets investigated and the lack of any reasonable process leads one to lower this possibility but never to send it to zero. And to use your logic of "If P then Q" and if "not Q, then not P". That is exactly the logic that ID uses all the time. For example, If gradualism was the process by which law and chance created new FSCI (complex information controlling new functions) then it would have left a trail somewhere because it had to happen millions of time and should be happening today. But evolutionary biology has looked for this trail for years and has not found it anywhere. ID friendly people have helped in this search. So we have a not Q and thus a not P. There are other naturalistic processes proposed besides gradualism and all so far have not found Q but have found not Q. So we have a series of not P's so far due to these not Q's. When scientists map and study genomes they will either find Q's or not Q's and each not Q will be support for the original not NP which contains the design arguments. We believe that if NP is true then the evidence should be in the genomes some place. ID believes that genomes change gradually and this is micro evolution but ID does not believe that FSCI is within the range of possibilities of the forces that drive micro evolution. To provide an analogy which I know is not hard evidence. In optics it is impossible to focus on a distant object just by building a bigger telescope or a more powerful telescope. There are properties of the light itself that prevents it coming into focus after a certain amount of diffusion and distance. Similarly there may be limits to what combinatorial process of DNA particles could be assembled by chance. There is research into that at the moment and that would probably be in the not NP domain. There is continued research into the complexity of life's processes and each such study makes it more difficult to find a solution in NP because it ups the use of probabilistic resources necessary to get to a solution in NP that could explain this complexity. Now I am sure this could be stated more eloquently but each study done in evolutionary biology either advances the NP or not NP scenario. Now if ID were allowed to do its own research there may be more direct things done in the not NP domain itself but they might actually accelerate the research into the failures in NP. But at the moment the current world view arbitrarily postulates that not NP domain does not exist so won't sanction research into it. So for the time being ID is relying on not Q's as you suggest that continually come about in every study that is done in NP.jerry
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
BTW as far as universal common descent is concerned ID says IF it happened then it happened BY DESIGN. Therefor by demonstrating an accumulation of genetic accidents can account for it ID is removed.Joseph
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
RB, ID is placed at risk for all scientific investigations. That is because while investigating scientifically it can be demonstrated that what is being investigated arose by nature, operating freely. Once that is done then ID is out for that. And just what, for example, can the theory of evolution demonstrate or not demonstrate that would put it in peril?Joseph
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Jerry @ 125
I am not sure what you are trying to say but if you are trying to imply that I am saying ID is not falsifiable, then that is not correct. You seem to like the word neutrino to have used it twice in a way that I do not understand
I'm saying that evolutionary theory has many entailments regarding the history of life on earth (common descent, nested hierarchy, an old earth, etc.) that subject it to test by means of modus tollens: If P, then Q Not Q Therefore not P. ID claims no entailments in the domains to which I refer (it is 'officially' noncommittal vis both the age of the earth and common descent). It specifies no Q in these domains that, if observed, would compel the rejection of P. Hence evolutionary theory and ID are not equivalent ("equally valid") in these domains.
Neither the anti ID people or the pro ID people must not move beyond what the data says.
This is mistaken (even accounting for the double negative). The logic of modus tollens as applied to real research (versus armchair post hoc reinterpretation) specifies the observable Q that would compel the rejection of P IN ADVANCE of data collection, then looks for Q. The results ("the data") take on their significance in the context of the logic and results in the entailment "IF P, then Q." looking for Q puts P "at risk" of disconfirmation. Hence the scientific data don't just lie there; they take on their significance in this logical context. Post hoc reinterpretation fails to subject the alternative P (P2) to an analogous test. It falls to those who propose P2 to devise Q2 that follows from P2, but not P1. The kidnapping of genuine biological research by ID fails to do this. ID is never placed 'at risk' by research that can be universally absorbed into its paradigm, as you claim. I use "neutrino" poetically. Neutrinos pass through matter, rarely interacting with it. ID similarly specifies no entailments (no Q) in the domains to which I refer (the large scale patterning of the history of life, the age of the earth, common descent, etc.), passing through these important issues without touching them (specifying no entailments).Reciprocating_Bill
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
As I was closing down for the morning: GLF. I think on the merits -- as already linked - it is you who have some serious retracting that you need to do, and frankly some apologising for thread jacking, strawman misrepresentaiton,a nd ad hominesm leaidfnto false accusaions in the teeth fo the eivdence. All of which I have again documented this morning, point by point, fact by fact. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
Khan:
an organelle enabling its bearer to perform aerobic respiration is a novel complex capability by anyone’s standards.
Reference please. Ya see I doubt even YECs dispute such a thing so if you could provide a reference that says they do dispute it it would help your case.
and it did not just happen as a simple transfer of information. mutations enabling the insertion and activation of genetic material from one organism to the other had to occur.
And Dr Spetner describes such a scenario as being part of his "non-random evolutionary hypothesis". Perhaps you should read the book "Not BY Chance" to have a clue as to what is being debated.
endosymbiois created multiple organelles and is observed occurring today in lab studies. so you can in no way use hyperbole like “..no study has ever..” without bordering on dishonesty.
Endosymbiosis has been observed. Humans have bacteria inside of us living in a symbiotic relationship. Humans without that bacteria nd NOT a separate species from those who do not. And endosymbiosis has NEVER been observed to produce multiple organelles.Joseph
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
You misunderstand. You do not demonstrate a theory to be true by showing that something expected under an alternative theory failed to take place.
No Richard YOU misunderstand. Ya see in the ID scenario organisms and certain structures would NOT be reducible. And in YOUR scenario they would be. What else do you want- If an IDist went into a lab and genetically enginnered a bacterial flagellum would that be a point for ID? No.
A further point is that, if you are claiming this as a test of ID, then if scientists manage to make a working ribosome you must acknowledge that ID is wrong and abandon it.
It all depends HOW they managed to make a working ribosome. The debate is all about HOW. And then it would remove the desighn inference for the ribosome and everything of equal or lesser complexity.
I do not think that this is what you intend.
What I just stated is exactly what I and Dr Behe intend:
How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design- Dr Behe
Joseph
March 16, 2009
March
03
Mar
16
16
2009
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
1 6 7 8 9 10 13

Leave a Reply