Answers for Judge Jones

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

In my previous post I posed two questions for Judge Jones. The answers to the second question are A, B and C. That is, (A) Evolutionary theory incorporates religious premises, (B) Proponents of evolutionary theory are religious people and (C) Evolutionary theory mandates certain types of solutions.

Continue reading here.

Comments

"jerry, take it up with Stephen Meyer." You do not have an opinion or a point of view.jerry_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

jerry, take it up with Stephen Meyer.David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

Mr Kellogg: As I have just excerpted, the 1984 book discusses the alternatives. Its authors explicitly point out the cosntraints on origins science and the three credible possibilities: [1] chance plus necessity -- not credible on geology, atmospheric and thermodynamics grounds as well as the chemistry and other factors involved in major schools of thought. [2] through H & W, they bring forth the two alternative intelligent alternatives, and discuss the H-W creator in the cosmos possibilities. [3] they then lay out the creator beyond the cosmos possibility. they do lean to this alternative, but have all along given a fair review of the others. That is their right, but in the process of a full bore critical technical review on OOL science, they have given birth to a third way approach, what we now know as design theory. Your rhetoric cannot successfully rewrite those facts, though of course you may seek to persuade otherwise. G'day sir. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Stephen Meyer:
Scientists Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen raised several compelling objections to chemical evolution in a provocative book entitled The Mystery of Life's Origin (Philosophical Library, 1984). After 30 years of experimental cul-de-sacs, many origin-of-life researchers, indeed, seem ready to give the new critique a hearing. Given the authors' academic credentials, one would ordinarily expect such a hearing. Bradley, a materials engineer, and Olsen, a geochemist, hold professorships at prestigious technical universities. Chemist Thaxton has completed post-doctoral work at Harvard University in the history of science and at Brandeis in molecular biology. What makes the attention The Mystery of Life's Origin has received so unusual is that its authors believe evidence now points to a supernatural origin for life. The authors are creationists.
David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

"that it is clearly a creationist text" What is a creationist text? Those of us who support intelligent design, assume there was some intelligence who caused one or more events in life and in addition to that the universe. Now those who argue that the universe was intelligently designed would I seem postulate some intelligence beyond our current universe. Does that make us creationists? Is the universe a special creation? As ID relates to life and evolution, there is no need to say absolutely that the intelligence that guided this was beyond this universe because it may not have been the case. So when one throws the term creationist around is one using it to mean anyone who believes in God.jerry_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

"feed you with talking points." Nice, as you would say, oil-soaked ad hominem. Et tu, kairosfocus?David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Sure it's a creationist text. Of course, the body of it is a critique of origin of life chemistry as understood circa 1981. The forward is by a young earth creationist. The epilogue clearly marks their position as creationist. But that's also the only place where design is discussed. So if it's not a creationist text, it's not a design text either.David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Mr Kellogg: TMLO is precisely not a "creationist text" -- whatever dismissals may be being put up at Anti Evo as they track discussion here and feed you with talking points -- but a serious technical investigation of the origin of life in the context of thermodynamics and geological issues and alternative hypotheses proffered. One carried out by a chemist, a geologist and a polymer scientist. Why not review for us the argument in chs 7 - 9, and tell us how these arguments are intended to show how particular interpretations of Genesis are substantiated by scientific investigations? [Show us the verses where Genesis discusses Gibbs free Energy, the TdS equation, Boltzmannian Entropy and Brillouin information. Similarly, show us how Genesis discussed configuration work and equilibrium concentrations of proteins and DNA molcules in prebiotic soups on chemical equilibrium considerations. Similarly, how Genesis gets into the likely early earth atmosphere, teh likely constituents and concentrations of prebiotic soups, or for that matter Fox's proteinoids, micelles, clay bed templates and the like. While you are at it, why not discuss by Jamed Jekel of Yale here.] Your ill-founded -- and in this context slanderous -- dismissals of TMLO and its significance; and refusal to engage the serious questions on the merits that have been put clearly show you as indulging in closed minded objectionism in a context of lacking the substantial case on the merits to address the issues on facts and logic. Sad, but not unexpected on track record. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

Yes, kairosfocus, as I pointed out, they discuss Hoyle and Wickramasinghe (as well as other ideas), but they do not consider anything other than Special Creation (their capitalization) from an intelligence beyond the cosmos to be credible. (I have a pdf of the book too.)David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

PPS: Having a PDF scan of TMLO in hand (along with my paper copy), I excerpt from the Epilogue: __________________ p, 196: Hoyle and Wickramasinghe28 have developed a novel and creative argument . . . As will be seen, the view of intelligence creating biological specificity comes in not one, but two types: (1) a creating intelligence within the cosmos, and (2) a creating intelligence beyond the cosmos. In arguing for the former, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe contend that Darwinism has failed to account for the origin of life and the development of terrestrial biology . . . . p. 197: Hoyle and Wickramasinghe deny the creator is the traditional supernatural God. They envision a creator within the total cosmos. They contend that a flaw in logic kept generations of scientists from seeing the truth that intelligence is the authentic source of the information in the biological world [they go on to argue for the insects . . . ] . . . . p. 204: On the other hand an understanding of the universe includes some singular events, such as origins. Unlike the recurrent operation of the universe, origins cannot be repeated for experimental test. The beginning of life, for example, just won't repeat itself so we can test our theories. In the customary language of science, theories of ori-gins (origin science) cannot be falsified by empirical test if they are false, as can theories of operation science. How then are origins investigated? The method of approach is appropriately modified to deal with unrepeatable singular events. The investigation of origins may be compared to sleuthing an unwitnessed murder, as discussed in Chapter 11. Such scenarios of reconstruction may be deemed plausible or implausible. Hypotheses of origin science, however, are not empirically testable or falsifiable since the datum needed for experimental test (namely, the origin) is unavailable. In contrast to operation science where the focus is on a class of many events, origin science is concerned with a particular event, i.e., a class of one. p. 205: There are significant and far-ranging consequences in the failure to perceive the legitimate distinction between origin science and operation science. Without the distinction we inevitably lump origin and operation questions together as if answers to both are sought in the same manner and can be equally known. Then, following the accepted practice of omitting appeals to divine action in recurrent nature, we extend it to origin questions too. The blurring of these two categories partially explains the widely held view that a divine origin of life must not be admitted into the scientific discussion, lest it undermine the motive to inquire and thus imperil the scientific enterprise . . . . ________________________ In short, we must recognise the limitations of the evidence and circumstances on origins, and we must be willing to accept that a scientifically informed but fundamentally historical reconstruction is not the same thing as something we can set up and observe in a lab in the here and now. And, in that context, we see that on looking at OOL on earth, two classes of intelligent common-c creators are logically possible: those within and those beyond the cosmos. The former raises certain difficulties, and the latter should not be eliminated a priori. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, What? I corrected you on two issues: that TMLO was not mentioned in the Dover trial, and that TMLO was somehow neutral with respect to whether the creator was outside the cosmos. Both of these are incorrect. Your response is alternatively irrelevant and incomprehensible, though it does give another opportunity for you to quote Lewontin. (How many times have you reproduced that quote in this one thread?) The date of TMLO's publication is irrelevant, given that it is clearly a creationist text.David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

PS: Mr Kellogg, well do you know that the publication date of TMLO -- 1984 -- sets up the relevant timeline [together with of course Denton's 1985 Theory in Crisis], a fact that would at once decisively undercut the myth of "creationism in a cheap tuxedo."kairosfocus_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Mr Kellogg: You have drawn a distinction that makes no difference: 1 --> Design theory is "the theory or view which holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process driven by chance and/or blind mechanical necessity" and more particularly: "the science that studies signs of intelligence"; this being premised on the postulate that "certain objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause," signs that may then be studied "formally, rigorously, and scientifically." 2 --> The two most commonly discussed such signs are: [1] [functionally] specified complexity [of information], and [2] irreducible complexity of mechanisms or processes, which is in turn an information-rich characteristic. 3 --> In both cases, it is a generally known, empirically grounded fact that FSCI and IC can be produced by intelligent agents. 4 --> Moreover, on grounds of deep isolation of islands of function in very large configuration spaces, neither can credibly be produced by chance + necessity on the gamut of the search resources of our observed cosmos. (500 - 1,000 bits of info storage capacity serve as a useful rule of thumb threshold: at the upper limit the 10^150 quantum states of the atoms of the observed cosmos across a "reasonable" lifetime would sample less than 1 in 10^150 of possible configs, making undirected searches overwhelmingly likely to fail.) 5 --> Thus, we have identified the basic nature of design theory, and its two main signs of intelligence. (other signs such as algorithmic information hinge upon these.) 6 --> Now, as has been discussed above, design theory is an inference on best explanation from empirical data to a reasonable conclusion warranted by that data. 7 --> Thus, it is not properly to be equated to claims that scientific discoveries and evidence provide specific confirmation of the accounts in genesis or other holy books; a characteristic feature of Biblical Creationism. The onward intent of this smearing with the tag of reviled "creationism" is to insinuate that ID is a manifestation of an attempt to inject "religion" into science and science education; even while in fact Lewontin shows how at the highest levels of Science institutions, ATHEISM, MATERIALISM and SECULAR HUMANISM have been injected into science and science education by dominant elites in Western Culture. So, let us remind ourselves again, by citing his NYRB remarks of 1997:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. [methodological naturalism] Moreover, that materialism is absolute, [philosophical, metaphysical materialism] for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
8 --> Need I remind that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander too? or, that this above censors science from being an unfettered search for the truth about or world based on evidence and reasoned discussion? 9 --> But, that implicit quasi-establishment of Secular Humanism and its cognate imposition of materialist censorship is just what the ACLU/Judge Jones did in the Dover decision as published. 10 --> And, which is more, to support that unwarranted conclusion, we have in this thread seen how they have utterly wrenched and distorted statements by Mr Behe and others. Similarly, they have distorted the nature and purpose of the well known supplemental textbook, Pandas; while ignoring the direct statements in the epilogue of the pre-Edwards 1984 work, TMLO, which is the actual first major technical work of design theory. they have also provably been deceitful in falsely claiming in the teeth of easily accessible evidence -- some of which was submitted to the trial-- that ID has not had as at 2004 - 5 any peer reviewed publications. (And in the case of Ms Forrest, she has distorted the basic timeline and sources of design theory in that cause.) 11 --> In particular, I have earlier this morning showed in compressed summary (from 303 and previous comments) how that which is in fact well supporrted as an inductive inference on best explanation may easily be distorted by the elites of isntitutional science and allied institutions, through bias:
if one at first accepts P and sees that P => Q, but is committed to F where F => NOT-Q, then one will be inclined to reject P by inferring F => NOT-Q, NOT-Q so NOT-P. But if NOT-P then implies absurdities, F is in deep trouble. I hold — and I believe I can justify — that Evolutionary Materialism and the imposition of its handmaiden, methodological naturalism, on science, censors science from being ,i>an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) search for the truth about our world based on empirical evidence and reasoned discussion among the informed. [Note, I do not say "the certificated" and/or "the credentialled."]
12 --> Therefore the verdict as handed down was patently unjust and is a capital example of improper activist judgement that sets up exactly the sort of massive social conflict the US Constitution's framers sought to avoid when they (i) forbade the Federal authorities from touching religious establishment [which strictly meant that Judge Jones did not even have proper jurisdiction . . . but such has long since been run over and left by the wayside as roadkill ] while (ii) protecting freedom of religion and associated expression, and (iii) leaving the matter of establishment to the decision of the local states. (In short, the framers extended the reformation compromise to republican circumstances.) ___________________ For shame! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Pandas was not the foundational ID book — Thaxton et al’s TMLO, 1984 was (and — surprise, this did not appear in the [show?] trial, guess why . . . )
Because it wasn't the book at issue? Rather, OPAP was. In fact, however, you're wrong. It may not have appeared in testimony but TMLO was discussed in Forrest's expert report.
2 –> In TMLO, it was made plain in the epilogue that the design inference on OOL [the subject of the book] could not infer to the locus of the creator of observed life being within or beyond the cosmos.
Actually they're very critical of special creation within the cosmos, for example: "We suspect that few will find Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's hypothesis of falling genes acceptable as a genuine contribution of science." They are critical of every view except special creation beyond the cosmos, and distinguish between "operation science" and "origin science" specifically to allow for miracles. Special creation from an intelligence beyond the cosmos is clearly the position they are defending.David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

Speaking of correctness, you were going to tell me how irreducible complexity is inextricably tied to creationism. Are you ready to take that up now?
I have said repeatedly that Judge Jones does not tie IC to creationism. He ties ID to creationism, and rightly so, but IC does not equal ID. I have quoted the relevant portions of the decision to show that Judge Jones does not mention creationism with regard to IC. The idea that Judge Jones said IC was linked to creationism is your fantasy. Note: (1) You made up a sentence in which IC was the referent (in fact it was ID). (2) You scolded me for answering a question about ID in general, not IC. (3) I pointed out that Judge Jones did not tie IC to creaitonism. (4) You conflated IC and ID, though ten minutes earlier you stressed that they were different. We're talking about the case, not what I think. And in the case, Judge Jones does not connect IC to creationism.David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

Pardon: 13,500.kairosfocus_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT}

LH: I add this link on inference to best explanation aka abduction. In this discussion you may read:
The philosopher [and scientist!] Charles Peirce introduced abduction into modern logic. In his works before 1900, he mostly uses the term to mean the use of a known rule to explain an observation; for example, “if it rains the grass is wet,” is a known rule used to explain that the grass is wet. In other words, it would be more technically correct to say, "If the grass is wet, the most probable explanation is that it recently rained." He later used the term to mean creating new rules to explain new observations, emphasizing that abduction is the only logical process that actually creates anything new. Namely, he described the process of science as a combination of abduction, deduction, and induction, stressing that new knowledge is only created by abduction.
If you want to see my own discussion, cf here, which follows Peirce. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT}

PS: EL, re Pandas: 1 --> Pandas was not the foundational ID book -- Thaxton et al's TMLO, 1984 was (and -- surprise, this did not appear in the [show?] trial, guess why . . . ) 2 --> In TMLO, it was made plain in the epilogue that the design inference on OOL [the subject of the book] could not infer to the locus of the creator of observed life being within or beyond the cosmos. 3 --> Thaxton [and kenyon] worked on the second book, a popular level supplementary textbook, Pandas, later on. In that book as published -- and as was submitted to the Dover court but ignored in the rush to unjust judgement -- they went on record as follows:
This book has a single goal: to present data from six areas of science that bear on the central question of biological origins. We don't propose to give final answers, nor to unveil The Truth. Our purpose, rather, is to help readers understand origins better, and to see why the data may be viewed in more than one way. (Of Pandas and People, 2nd ed. 1993, pg. viii) . . . . Today we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science. (pg. 126-127, emphasis added)
4 --> Furthermore, it should be obvious that when one edits a work, the resulting reading is the preferred one. Thaxton et al -- and FTE was not permitted to defend itself at Dover [ = silenced, caricatured and condemned in absentia] -- make it plain that hey were UNHAPPY with the term Creation or creationism, and sought a different term to represent their own views. 5 --> On hearing I think it was a NASA scientist use the term in a workshop, Thaxton et al then found that the term Intelligent Design better expressed their view than precious ones. Thus, the replacement of an unacceptable term by a better one. 6 --> The specific locus of concern was that they were primarily interested in directly observable empirical evidence on origins of life and biodiversity, and where it pointed; not in duelling interpretations of Genesis etc [whatever one may consider if one accepts that ancient book as a record of Creation]. 7 --> in that context of diverse foci, SB is correct to point out that mere shft in tems will not change a Creationist book into a Design theory book; far more substantial changes would have to be made. And, in making such changes, the nature of the book would be transformed. 8 --> That is why of the two main Young Earth Creationist organisations, ICR is critical of ID, and AiG is cooly and pointedly neutral. Ross's Old Earth Creationist movement [which roughly speaking is a broadly theistic evolutionist school, with an emphasis on astronomy and on a particular reading of Genesis] more or less makes common cause with theistic evolutionists, who are often found among the ranks of the harshest critics of ID. 9 --> in short, the ID = Creationism rhetorical stratagem is a canard; one that Ms Forrest long since should have corrected if she were interested in presenting a true and fair vew of the course of events. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT}

EL, re 361:
I mean, if the courts are against you, the professors from major and minor universities are against you, the vast majority of scientists are against you then perhaps you might simply be wrong? That would appear to be the parsimonious answer that occams razor would suggest is right. A vast global conspiracy? Or a simple misunderstanding of probability relating to biology?
Please, first read what Mr Fuller had to say, as I have just now excerpted, on how science works, acquires credibility and power, and how it perpetuates it. Science works by an elite gaining and holding power; which can work AGAINST the truth and the right, especially when the truth and the right are in the hands of the relatively weak. (NB: Darwin was a Toff, a member of the elites of his day.) Second, by the very nature of the case, there is no need for a CONSPIRACY, just a tyranny of elite dominated pseudo-consensus [the classic "thesis"]. then, as enough weight of anomalies arises, minor paradigms come up [Antitheses], leading to conflict and possibly revolutionary transformation [novel synthesis]. That oft repeated pattern -- in major institutions and in society as a whole, BTW -- is why there have been some pretty contentious scientific revolutions across time, including the one that set up modern science. But, more to the point, the issue is to be settled on the merits; not by appeal to elite authorities and the partyline. [And, yes, I take a "marxian" view of what happened to Communism in E Europe at the turn of the 1990's . . . And, I am very familiar from my own uni days, with how adherents of a dying ideology operate. I see some very, very familiar signs . . . ] So, why not take up that case,and provide a good summary on the facts and logic that shows why there are no empirically reliable signs of intelligence and/or why FSCI and/or IC etc are not such credible signs of intelligence, thee observation of which grounds a well warranted inference to design? Similarly, why not take apart my logical analysis at 303 above, on why commitment to an ideology can warp ability to evaluate the objective warrant for an opposed case? In sum, if one at first accepts P and sees that P => Q, but is committed to F where F => NOT-Q, then one will be inclined to reject P by inferring F => NOT-Q, NOT-Q so NOT-P. But if NOT-P then implies absurdities, F is in deep trouble. I hold -- and I believe I can justify -- that Evolutionary Materialism and the imposition of its handmaiden, methodological naturalism, on science, censors science from being an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) search for the truth about our world based on empirical evidence and reasoned discussion among the informed. [Note, I do not say "the certificated" and/or "the credentialled."] Let us remember Mr Lewontin's remarks in NYRB, 1997 -- by a duly card-carrying member of the NAS, the elite of the elites in science:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
EL, what does this tell you about what some of the elites of science may be thinking and doing in our time? Do you see why I fear that a breakdown of respect for authorities and the governing structures that they inhabit may ensue across our science dominated civilisation; with unpredictable -- but, historically, usually bloodily horrendous -- consequences? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

9 --> The [Steve] Fuller I can find relevant to the case is a sociology prof from U of Warwickshire who spoke for the defense. He holds a PhD in history and phil of science [so has some claim to expertise on what science is or is not . . . ], and some key remarks from him on the matter -- per transcript, Dover -- are:
The one chapter of my Ph.D. that I ever published is, in fact, a chapter of this book. And it's on consensus formation in science. And one of the things that I address there, which I do think is relevant to the case [i.e. Dover], is how exactly does consensus form in the scientific community. Given that there are many scientists working in many different locations, how does one get a sense that there is a dominant theory or paradigm operating at any given point. And my view on this, which I developed, is, in fact, there is never -- it's very rare to actually find a decision point where you say, well, some crucial test has been done, and this theory has been shown to be true, and this one has been shown to be false. But rather, what you have is kind of a statistical drift in allegiances among people working in the scientific community over time, and especially if you add to it generational change. What you end up getting is kind of a, what Thomas Kuhn would call, a paradigm shift; that is to say that, where over a relatively short period of time, simply by virtue of the fact that the new people come in with new assumptions and new ideas, that you actually do get a massive shift, but not necessarily because there's ever been any decisive moment where someone has proven one theory to be true and another theory to be false . . . . one of the points that I make very much up front is that, if you want to identify something as a science, it's going to be very difficult to identify it purely in terms of what the practitioners do, okay, because, in fact, if you look at the various fields that we normally call science, ranging from physics to chemistry to biology and including many of the social sciences and so forth, people are doing vastly different things even within the disciplines themselves. So there's a sense in which one can grant that there's a lot of technical expertise required of people who do science and get trained in science, but that in itself does not explain the thing being science. There's something in addition. Okay. And that has to do with the way in which this body of knowledge called science relates to the larger society. And in a sense, the question then becomes, how does science establish this kind of authority? And it's in this context that issues like testability, some of the issues that have been arising in this trial, are, in fact, quite important and, in fact, then serve as a kind of umbrella notion for understanding the way in which vastly different practices are relating to the larger society . . . . Q. Does the text Governance of Science speak to the role of peer review in science? A. Well, yes. And one of the things that it says is that, while the scientific community is nominally governed by a peer review process, as a matter of fact, relatively few scientists ever participate in it. So if one were to look at the structure of science from a sort of, you might say, political science standpoint, and ask, well, what kind of regime governs science, it wouldn't be a democracy in the sense that everyone has an equal say, or even that there are clear representative bodies in terms of which the bulk of the scientific community, as it were, could turn to and who would then, in turn, be held accountable. There is a tendency, in fact, for science to be governed by a kind of, to put it bluntly, self-perpetuating elite.
10 --> In short, he gives precisely the picture of science that we need to address and provide correction on. A self-perpetuating elite is another name for a nobility, LH; and such are notoriously prone to the domination of narrow interests, who may well be riding on agendas that are antithetical to the truth much less the interests of the community as a whole. So, citing fuller as if he supports the agenda of Padian and Miller is HIGHLY misleading on the part of ACLU/Judge Jones. 11 --> On the other major design inference sign of intelligence, I note that functionally specific, complex information is a known artifact and reliable sign of design on cases of direct observation (without exception) AND that again on search resource exhaustion grounds, it is maximally improbable for chance + necessity to access islands of function once we cross the threshold of some 1,000 bits of storage [~ 500 DNA base pairs]. So, on inference to best explanation, design is the well warranted inference on seeing FSCI. 12 --> Taking up the flagellum, it has about 30 - 40 or so proteins, forming a self-assembling outboard motor (and using some associated enzymes etc). Proteins average out at 300 aa residues. Using just 150, and multiplying, we see 30 * 150 = 4,500 aa's, requiring 135,000 co-ordinated DNA bases. this information is far beyond the threshold of complexity where the search resources of our observed cosmos across its lifespan will not credibly be able to sample enough of the configuration space to make it even remotely plausible that chance + necessity can get TO the shores of an island of function, from which evolutionary mechanisms could in principle trigger hill climbing through differential reproductive success. 13 --> Observe, again, this is not a theological argument -- a God of the gaps appeal or anything like that. it is an empirically anchored inference to best explanation. Design is the ONLY observed source of FSCI and IC, AND chance (the other source of high contingency outcomes) and/or lawlike regularities of nature tracing to mechanical necessity (which gives rise to low contingency outcomes relative to specified starting conditions) are not credible candidates to explain such. _______________ In short, the dismissal attempt by appeal to institutional authority fails. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
01:19 AM
1
01
19
AM
PDT}

LH: Please mark the distinction between appeal to "modesty" in the face of alleged authority -- complete with the disgraceful courtroom stunt of a stack of documents not examined on the merits but presented as if a mere stack of paper constitutes a refutation -- and addressing a case on the merits. (Mr Behe very properly and correctly insisted in the court -- in the teeth of attempts to lock him down to a rhetorically twist-able yes/no -- on specifying on Oct 19, that: "I mean detailed rigorous accounts for complex molecular machines, not just either hypothetical accounts or sequence comparisons or such things." That is, there is NO case in the peer review literature circa either 1996 or today [2009], in which an evidently IC system in the biological world has been shown to have been arrived at by Darwinian mechanisms, in due technical details as opposed to mere speculations and Lewontinian just-so stories. And picking he part of the blood clotting cascade that Behe did not have in mind does not count, nor does Miller's attempt to suggest that the TTSS is somehow ancestral to the flagellum (of which it is more credibly derivative).) Now, in 354 [and reference to comment number is more useful than to time] -- ignoring irrelevant red herrings led out to strawmen soaked in ad hominems and ignited to cloud and confuse issues and polarise the atmosphere -- you say:
The court had this to say about IC: We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66 (Fuller)).
I respond: 1 --> At 303 (and previous posts and in my always linked) I have presented the substance of what I have to say, including the logic of how today's guardians of the institutions can misperceive the actual strength on the merits of a case as they are committed -- which has been abundantly documented -- to methodological and/or metaphysical naturalism. 2 --> This, you have failed to address as requested, even after i specifically askesd you to address it. It answers to the point raised by Behe and shows why he is right. So, as at now, the point I made in 303 stands uncontested; namely that by a priori commitment to methodological and/or metaphysical materialism, the guardians of the old order are so biased that they dismiss the design inference in the teeth of its substance on the merits. And, they find themselves swallowing many an absurdity whole as a direct result (as Lewontin confesses to). 3 --> Now, too, the citation is not an analysis. As my highlights show, it is an improper appeal to the authority and power of those who happen to dominate scientific institutions just now. 4 --> The appeal rests on the ACLU/NCSE mischaracterisation of the nature of the inference from Irreducible Complexity to design. This strawman distortion fails to address the facts that (i) IC is a KNOWN product of design (as I showed in 349). It is also shown there (ii) that IC is not a reasonable expected result of chance variation + natural selection, on search resource exhaustion. So, (iii) on INFERENCE TO BEST EXPLANATION, IC is a good positive sign of design. 5 --> That you evidently failed to recognise and address an inference to best explanation [the root of epistemological warrant in science, esp. origins science] but cited a dismissive appeal to authority strongly suggests that you do not really understand the isseus at stake on design theory. 6 --> On the authorities cited, Mr Padian is a leader of the NCSE, and Mr Miller a well known design theory opponent. (I am not sure on Fuller's identity.) These are not going to be sources of balanced objective opinion. 7 --> Mr Miller's "classic" argument is that in effect because a subset of the gene set for the flagellum can be used to build a toxin injector [TTSS], then the flagellum is not irreducibly complex as parts can be co-opted to form it. this fails to understand that generic parts have to be mutually adjusted to work together, and fails to appreciate that to have one sub-assembly does not a case make. Worse, the TTSS is evidently derivative of the flagellum (on its context of allowing one class of bacteria to prey on eukaryote cells). And, when a complex program contains a working sub program, for a significantly diverse task, that makes it MORE, not less complex and constrained. 8 --> Mr Padian, sadly, specialises in misrepresenting design theory, e.g. in his Nature article on Dover related matters, he mischaracterised the design inference as an inference to the supernatural (as opposed to an inference to best explanation from reliable signs of intelligent action to the presence of such design; having first shown why law and chance are not credible explanations), and lied -- since a list of just such papers and books was presented at the trial that is what his false declaration has to be -- that ID research has not passed peer review [a lie that is embedded in the Dover decision]. He also cites dubious rebuttals as though they were refutations. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT}

StephenB (308), "Nope, that is a manifestly untruthful statement. All the early drafts rejected creationism as defined by the courts. Creationism once had an all inclusive meaning, but when the Edwards decision came out, it came to mean something similar to creation science. So, the draft had to be changed since the new legal definition of creationism excluded intelligent design, which was, and always had been, the theme of the book. Anyone who reads the defining opening paragraph of the book would know that. It’s ID through and through." Nope, totally wrong. The early drafts given by the publishers under subpoena had this defintion of "creation": "Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." and the 1987 published edition of "Pandas" had this defintion of "intelligent design": "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc." Note that the only differences between the definitions are that "creation" has been replaced by "intellgent design" and "creator" by "agency". Therefore, the "Pandas" author showed that "creation" and "intelligent design" are synonymous because HE USED THE TWO TERMS TO MEAN EXACTLY THE SAME THING. The one thing I would agree with you on is that "Pandas" is ID through and through. It is; but that is because ID is creation, as the "Pandas" drafts themselves show.Gaz_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT}

This IS NOT Jefferson’s intention regarding church and state separation. This IS NOT Jefferson’s intention regarding church and state separation. This IS NOT Jefferson’s intention regarding church and state separation.Upright BiPed_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT}

Learned Hand, it's "Your opinion that a lower circuit judge doesn’t have the authority to rule on such a precedent could be argued AGAINST, BY SAYING that it’s not a significant precedent, or not a precedent at all." if that clarifies. This is part of my point that the law is elastic to a degree. But don't take my bringing this up to mean I think ID could have squirmed it's way into schools despite the laws. ID has the only case to be made, in fact and in law, the other side only has distortions. This court DID give a unique precedent setting interpretation of the church and state seperation. This ruling in effect states that in the future were ID to have an even better case for a designer, it still wouldn't be allowed in schools, because science class cannot infer a designer even if it becomes apparent through science that there is one. As I went over in the original post, the judge's ruling wasn't about the quality or quantity of evidence indeed making this a science or not; but that science itself (when teaching in school) cannot infer non-material causation despite even overwhelming evidence. It could be a total "god or aliens lock" universally accepted by scientists. Every person on earth at once could proclaim that with certainty it's god or aliens. But if intelligence is inferred, it isn't allowed in schools. THIS is the judges decision. This IS NOT Jefferson's intention regarding church and state separation. This is because he doesn't understand why the separation was placed in the constitution in the first place. The state with all it's brute force has traditionally used the church, or the other way around, to abuse people. It was an important bulwark against ignorance. This is a whole separate subject than ID in schools. Upon close inspection ID science has zero to do with religion. In fact ID SCIENCE would have to stop at the point of "meeting god" and RELIGION would have to take over. Because ID is only a process for how to get there, to track god's or aliens handiwork, or technically to track intelligence itself. An Indian uses tracking to track an animal. Upon finding an animal, he uses a different skill with a bow and arrow. So this is an example of how ID isn't combining church and state. Another example is: Would Jefferson, upon learning about CSI and genetic entropy, deem this unworthy of a science money grant from the state, which happens all the time, on the grounds of church and state separation? Or is the intent of church and state separation being perverted to some quasi-religious end instead, through the neodarwinists?lamarck_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT}

StephenB (376), "Speaking of correctness, you were going to tell me how irreducible complexity is inextricably tied to creationism. Are you ready to take that up now?" And are you ready to give us the answer to the "rocks on Mars" question you posed?Gaz_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT}

-----Learned Hand to kairosfocus: “We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66 (Fuller))”. -----“How is your assertion that IC is nonreligious relevant to that analysis?” What kind of a nonsensical response is that? His assertion is relevant insofar as he is declaring that the so-called experts don’t know what they are talking about. I provided you with a brief history of creation science and ID several posts ago and you ignored it. How is it that you elevate expertise over reason even when experts abandon reason? Why do you elevate the process through which justice is to be administered over justice itself? Where did you get the idea that consensus opinion matters more than truth. Truly, you have a very strange way of looking at the world. ----][to kairosfocus]: “I don’t think that you’re considering the court’s role. Can you explain, in your own words (and please in a paragraph or less – verbosity will not improve communication here) what steps went into the court’s analysis? In other words, can you tell us in your own words what questions the court had to answer, what test it used to answer those questions, and what the elements of that test are?” There you go again---elevating the process of justice over justice itself. What is your standard for justice? Indeed, do you even know what I am talking about? Is it your contention that everything is right if the process goes like clockwork? Does truth matter to you at all? In your own words, can you tell us how you get from “irreducible complexity” to religion? Do you even know what irreducible complexity is? Clearly, Judge Jones did not know what it was even after the man who conceived it tried to explain it to him. What kind of a mental mediocrity like Judge Jones characterizes “irreducible complexity” as religious without even knowing what it is?StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

E Levy, "If the courts are against you, the professors from major and minor universities are against you, the vast majority of scientists are against you then perhaps you might simply be wrong? That would appear to be the parsimonious answer that occams razor would suggest is right." I wonder how many times something similar to the above was stated to a Jew in Nazi Germany. Societies as a whole can be worng. If the world were perfect and society could do no wrong, then to stand up to the courts, the professors, the experts, etc, would seem illogical and in fact wrong, but such is not the case. So based on history, and parsimony I might add, you are utterly wrong about this.CannuckianYankee_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

Lamarck, I'd love to argue with you, but I really and truly don't have any idea what this means: Your opinion that a lower circuit judge doesn’t have the authority to rule on such a precedent could be argued that it’s not a significant precedent, or not a precedent at all. My opinion could be argued? Huh? If you'll restate your premise, we can get down to brass tacks.Learned Hand_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

---David: "Anyway, Part V shows how a couple of parts of early drafts of OPAP tries to get around creationism in a creationist text through a few weak maneuvers, but does not deal at all with Forrest’s account of the cut-and-paste substitution after 1987." Nope, that is a manifestly untruthful statement. All the early drafts rejected creationism as defined by the courts. Creationism once had an all inclusive meaning, but when the Edwards decision came out, it came to mean something similar to creation science. So, the draft had to be changed since the new legal definition of creationism excluded intelligent design, which was, and always had been, the theme of the book. Anyone who reads the defining opening paragraph of the book would know that. It's ID through and through.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews I think Behe was wise to keep religion close as possible to ID so he can bring front burner a back burner argument; that motives matter.lamarck_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply