FAQ 3 Open for Comment

_{Barry Arrington

February 26, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

3] Intelligent Design does not carry out or publish scientific research

Judge Jones of Dover and those who follow him are simply wrong: despite opposition and harassment, there is a significant and growing body of ID-supportive research and peer-reviewed scientific publications. (For instance, the Discovery Institute maintains a list of such research-based publications here. [In an earlier form, this list was actually submitted to Judge Jones, but he unfortunately ignored the brute facts it documents when he wrote his ruling based on misleading and inaccurate submissions by the NCSE and ACLU.])

A few plain words are also in order. For, there has been significant harassment and career-busting that have been targeted at ID proponents. For example, Dembski and Marks were recently forced by Baylor to return a research grant due to the implications of the research possibly being in favor of ID. ID proponents desire to increase the amount of research being done but Darwinists usually block the way. (If you are making this argument then how can you not see the hypocrisy in saying that ID proponents should do research then blocking or opposing every attempt to do so?)

Moreover, it is important to remember that biological research, when properly done, is an example of science at its best: an impartial search for true data and explanations about our world, based on empirical evidence. Such findings are “owned” neither by darwinists nor by IDists. For, at the end of the day, good scientific research is good scientific research, period.

Furthermore, even if the researcher has a specific starting point and conviction, or arrives at specific conclusions, his data are a property of the whole scientific community, and can be legitimately evaluated and interpreted by all. In that sense, all biological research is ID research (or, if you want, darwinist research). ID and darwinism are different, and under many aspects mutually exclusive, theoretical interpretations of the causal origin of biological information. That’s why any new acquisition of biological data has relevance for both.

Comments

PS: it seems to me that the focus of FAQ 3's discussion has wandered a bit off the focus: does ID research exist? Yes or no, why or why not.kairosfocus_{March 4, 2009
March
03
Mar
4
04
2009
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

H'mm: Re Michael Haanel, 55:
When I think about the examples that you have shown, like a fine-tuner tweaking the Big Bang, it seems more probable to me that the perfect conditions would occur for life in some of the billions of galaxies that the existence of the universe allows.
Perhaps, this clip from an online encyclopedia article on the Anthropic principle, will help you see the force of a few of the issues that have developed since the 1950's: _______________ In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle encompasses diverse explanations about the structure of the universe that open the question of whether it exists with the purpose to permit the emergence of human life. It regards as significant the surprising coincidence of physical features that are—or at least seem to be—necessary and relevant to the existence on Earth of biochemistry, carbon-based life, and eventually human beings to observe such a universe. It has led some to a reconsideration of the centrality of human beings—who can observe and understand the universe—despite astronomers having long ago pushed humans to the edge of insignificance amidst the vastness of space . . . . If the universe or cosmos is purely mechanistic, consisting only of matter and physical entities (forces, energy, fields, etc.), then it seems that the answer to that question of an intending entity or intelligence or creator would be "no." But then what is the source of those closely balanced features that are observed in the existing cosmos—are they just happenstance or fortuitous coincidences? Can coincidence or lucky happenstance be a sufficient answer to this problem? . . . . The observed values of the dimensionless parameters (such as the fine-structure constant) that govern the four fundamental forces of nature are finely balanced. A slight increase in the strong nuclear force would bind the dineutron and the diproton and all the hydrogen in the early universe would have been converted to helium. There would be no water or the long-lived stable stars essential for the development of life. Similar relationships are evident in each of the four force strengths. If they were to be modified even slightly—some commentators have noted that a change as infinitesimally small as one part in 10^40 or even smaller would be sufficient—then the universe's structure and capacity for life as we now know it would disappear. The extreme precision of these constants is seen by some commentators as precluding simple chance or coincidence . . . . __________________ In short, the issue is not merely whether enough galaxies exist that variations across the galaxies will give room for what we see, probabilistically, but whether the universe as a whole that we see would exist in any way that would be conducive to life, apart from purposeful fine-tuning. And, indeed, the scope of he observed universe, about 10^80 particles is rather small by comparison with what we are discussing. For instance, if we see algorithmic, functionally specific, complex information that takes up just 1,000 bits, that is a configuration space of 10^301, or ten times the square of the number of quantum states the atoms of the observed universe would take up across the thermodynamically credible lifespan of the cosmos. As a result, the whole observed universe acting as a search engine could not sample more than 1 in 10^150 of that config space. So, it would be most implausible to suggest that a blind, non foresighted search would find islands of function for such FSCI within the gamut of the observed universe. And, observed life DNA for independent organisms STARTS at about 600,000 - 1 million bits. Space is large by our human scale, but it is utterly too small by the scope of the search spaces we are dealing with on ID for first life or body-plan level biodiversity. And, if a quasi-infinite multiverse -- an unobserved, metaphysical construct if ever I saw one -- is suggested, this still has to have "a universe-making factory," capable of getting the energy, the laws and the random variations in those laws sufficient to get to the multidimensional precision on the scale of 1 in 10^40 or worse in several instances. And, a super-law or theory of everything that forces the parameters to take up the life facilitating values screams of design. So, of law, chance and design, law and/or chance keep pointing back to design as at least as viable as the alternatives. And, that is no "God of the gaps" argument. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 4, 2009
March
03
Mar
4
04
2009
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT}

Michael Haanel (#46): In case you are really interested, the answers are not so difficult: 1) "What was designed?" That is really easy. The genomes, obviously. And therefore the proteomes, and whatever else in the genome contributes to general biological function. And maybe even other things, but I think tht can be enough for a start. 2) "How was it done?" We don't know exactly, but maybe we will know more in the future. But, certainly, in a general sense, it happened through the action of a designer (that is, a conscious intelligent being) who had access to manipulating biological realities, and especially genomes. You choose: aliens, a god, an intelligent force, or whatever else may comply with that definition. And how was it made? You choose: guided variation, intelligent selection, both, direct implementation at the nucleotide level, interaction with quantum level events... There is much to hypothesize and to research.gpuccio_{March 1, 2009
March
03
Mar
1
01
2009
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

I get to the end of another interesting thread, and then realize I still don’t know what ID theorists believe was designed, or how this designer made the design happen?
If we knew the answers then we wouldn't need science to help us find them, would we? As for HOW something was designed- The ONLY possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, in the ABSENCE of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question. If you want to know something about ID you have to know & understand that first.Joseph_{March 1, 2009
March
03
Mar
1
01
2009
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

bFast~ I apologize if my statement is rhetorical. I mean no disrespect. I am a person who is interested in what is going on here since I read the Mentor paperback by George Gamow, "One, Two, Three, Infinity" in the early '50's. A book I still own. I appreciate your answer about what you believe is designed. I see that the superlatives, "fine-tuned,"unfathomly complex," and all things that are "irreduceably complex" have special meaning, and show the efforts of a designer to you. When I think about the examples that you have shown, like a fine-tuner tweaking the Big Bang, it seems more probable to me that the perfect conditions would occur for life in some of the billions of galaxies that the existence of the universe allows. And then I have to add the leap of faith that an intelligent designer requires. Don't I have to say that an intelligent designer is intelligent beyond our comprehension of intelligent? How could such an intelligence get so smart? Don't I have to grasp at superlatives again to fathom such a designer? And isn't that how we explained every phenomena that was incomprehensible in the past, we said it was His design, His plan?Michael Haanel_{March 1, 2009
March
03
Mar
1
01
2009
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

jerry: I absolutely agree with your post #51. Very well said. There is a fundamental problem with McNeill's engines of variation which goes beyond verification or falsification: most of them are not "engines" at all, because they are not causal mechanisms. At best, most of them are mere descriptions of what could be the intermediate events through which a causal mechanism could work, but the causal mechanim itself remains undeclared. In other words, NacNeill seems to be more interested in descriptive natural history than in explanations.gpuccio_{February 28, 2009
February
02
Feb
28
28
2009
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Michael Haanel, If you want to get silly, then we can return the favor. Here is the answer I gave another person just last week. There are two relevant comments: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/complex-specified-information-you-be-the-judge/#comment-305293 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/complex-specified-information-you-be-the-judge/#comment-305339jerry_{February 28, 2009
February
02
Feb
28
28
2009
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Michael Hannel:
It has happened again! I get to the end of another interesting thread, and then realize I still don’t know what ID theorists believe was designed, or how this designer made the design happen?
This statement you made, "how this designer made the design happen?" is painfully rhetorical. You laugh in your silly heart saying, "boy, we got 'em we got 'em." Is it beyond you to believe that the science of ID is in its infancy, that ther remain huge unanswered questions? Is it beyond you to believe that the designer might feel no obligation to publicize his/her/its methods? And in truth, when you jump into your car in the morning, turn the key and drive off, do you do so with a clear understanding of how crude oil is refined into gasoline? Do you know how they make thes steel that your key is made of? You know enough to know that the ID community doesn't have answers to these questions. You don't seem to know enough to know that not having these answers is not a show stopper. "I still don’t know what ID theorists believe was designed" Let me start at the start. > That big bang that physicists talk about -- designed. How do we know? Because physicists tell us that it is amazingly fine-tuned, that life as we could conceive of it would not happen otherwise. > Life itself -- designed. How do we know? Because even the simplest life is unfathomly complex, that it contains significant, tightly defined, information. > Ultra-conserved genes -- designed. How do we know. Sir Fredrick Hoyle has shown the math. (Oh, he was an athiest until the day he died. He's not now.) If a gene is ultra-conserved, then it has no molecular clock. By its very nature it must have existed for all time, or have been created. > Organs -- designed. Bacterial flagella -- designed. Anything that contains irreduceable complexity -- designed. > The differences between the coyote and the wolf -- most probably not designed. Do we know exactly where the lign is between the designed and the "not designed". No. Do archaeologists know the exact lign between the arrowhead and a natural occurring rock? Well -- no.bFast_{February 28, 2009
February
02
Feb
28
28
2009
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, I said in my post that Lenski's research supports ID and extend my point to say that every mapping of a genome so far supports ID. Because the two propositions are mutually exclusive, naturalistic evolution and intelligently designed evolution, negative information for each one is support for the other. And positive information for one is negative information for the other. Thus, Lenski's work and all genome mapping is ID type research whether they or Kris like it or not. If ID can use their results to validate an ID proposition, it is ID research. In other words the probability gets closer to p=1 that a phenomenon is intelligently designed each time a naturalistic process fails to explain that phenomenon. There is no good ways to assess accurate probabilities since it is impossible to observe the past or create an accurate past in any modern day setting. So essentially all assessments are somewhat subjective. For example, take Lenski's research. So far no complex biological phenomenon have taken place so the p creeps gradually closer to p=1. But if just one appeared, then the p would jump a great deal towards p=0 and the process would continue. How much would it jump. That depends upon the nature of the change. Since there never will be enough resources to watch bacteria evolve, one has to go to the natural world to have more realistic findings and that is why the mapping of genomes at the various levels will eventually lead to more realistic assessments of just what nature is capable of doing. What has all of Allen MacNeill's 47 engines of variation produced. That is where the future assessment of p will be done.jerry_{February 28, 2009
February
02
Feb
28
28
2009
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Collin (#47): "I know I am simplifying the argument, but I think it is very surreal that the discussion has lead to this backwards seeming place." Well, in a sense it is not so surprising after all. I will try to briefly sum up how I see the question. The position of ID is simple enough: all species are rather stable (because they are designed), but all of them are obviously subject to some degree of variation (that is usually called "microevolution"). In that sense, bacteria are certainly more subject to it than mammals, because of their number and fast replication. But the point is, no accumulation of microevolution can really create new species, or substantially modify existing ones: species remain rather stable in spite of microevolution. Darwinists, on the contrary, have always had a very complicated, and usually inconsistent position regarding change: they love variation when it's convenient for them, and they hate it when it's convenient for them. Let's say that a smart mix of variation and conservation, in the hands of a darwinist, can explain practically everything. An example? Just take the recent great popularity of HARs, and the relative definition from wikipedia: "a set of 49 segments of the human genome which are conserved throughout vertebrate evolution but are strikingly different in humans" Conservation plus striking change: what is better than that to explain away the small detail of human identity?gpuccio_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

Kris: I hope you and your wife enjoyed your movie :-) Well, while I am eagerly waiting for your question, I will just make a simple comment. You say (to jerry, about arguments from ignorance): "This is exactly the point I’ve been trying to make to gpuccio for much too long now. It appears that he is actually claiming that the evidence supports ID, rather than your much more honest statement that it’s only a possibility that hasn’t been dis-proven yet (it’s a subtle, but extremely important distinction)". Well, I can only say that you have correctly understood my position. I do claim that the evidence supports ID. I think jerry has clarified a little his position in his following post. However, if we are to take the statement you cite literally, I can only say that it can certainly be honest, but it is IMO wrong.gpuccio_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

I think it is very fascinating that we have here some Darwinists (sorry if that offends you kris-censored, correct me if I'm wrong) arguing for the immutability of a species (bacteria) and ID-ers arguing for the instability of the species over time. I know I am simplifying the argument, but I think it is very surreal that the discussion has lead to this backwards seeming place.Collin_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

Kris, ID has always been the proposition that a certain phenomenon has a positive probability of being designed. As a flip side, it also states that the possibility that it was not designed and developed through naturalistic means is also possible. There are no absolutes. It evaluates the evidence and looks at each phenomenon and gives a high or low probability for design. Not a p=1 probability for either one but for a lot of phenomena, the probability that the process that produced a particular phenomenon is naturalistic is essentially 1. But not all. We would probably not make the same conclusion (p=1) that anything was designed except the universe and that the origin of life was close to 1. We would probably give a high p for the design of the eye. ID also states that the two are mutually exclusive and exhaustive (design and naturalistic processes). So negative information against one is support for the other and vice versa. So when we say that Lenski's research is ID research, what we really mean is that continued negative findings, that is the lack of the development of complex functional structure is supportive of the claim that these structures can only be achieved via an intelligent input. Such a claim would be fatuous if Lenski had only a small number of reproductive events but the numbers are getting up there. Also, when researches map a series of related genomes and finds no evidence that any of the complex functional structures within the organisms arose by naturalistic means, then they are supporting the hypothesis that these cannot arise naturally. Again nothing absolute. Nothing is proved conclusively but the probabilities of the individual parts of the genomes arising naturally or by design change with each such mapping. It is unlikely that there will be an exhaustive examination in our life time but it may be possible to reach a statistical exhaustion with far less than a complete sampling. Hence, I do not buy your assessment that ID is an argument to ignorance and guess that one of the reasons people like to use it is because it gets to throw a very pejorative term at us. By the way I am not yanking your chain because I meant everything I said about you supporting ID and rejecting Darwinian macro evolution because if you are consistent in your logic, you must end up there.jerry_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

It has happened again! I get to the end of another interesting thread, and then realize I still don't know what ID theorists believe was designed, or how this designer made the design happen? Jerry said above, "ID does not make the claim that the evidence proves ID, only that it is a possibility..." I will accept that. Now can someone tell us what was designed, and how it was done?Michael Haanel_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

KRiS_Censored:
Not finding something doesn’t support your theory in these cases. Rather it just means the theory hasn’t been dis-proven yet.
Have you ever seriously pondered why falsification is held up as a standard delimititing science from non-science. It is because it is difficult to impossible to prove any positive. The normal mode of scientific proof is to test for the negative, and find it to not be there. Therefore, the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory stands stalwart until evidence comes along that falsifies it. That said, the evolutionary community has looked at dozens, nay hundreds of challenges (falsifications) of neo-Darwinian theory, waved the magic wand of good fortune, and pretended that their theory has not been falsified, that it has only been validated.bFast_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

jerry
I am glad you agree with us... I am glad that you support us...
Wow. I can only assume that you're yanking my chain a bit. And yet...
Such an argument does not affect ID since ID does not make the claim that the evidence proves ID, only that it is a possibility and has not been eliminated.
This is exactly the point I've been trying to make to gpuccio for much too long now. It appears that he is actually claiming that the evidence supports ID, rather than your much more honest statement that it's only a possibility that hasn't been dis-proven yet (it's a subtle, but extremely important distinction) Perhaps I haven't made this clear to others in the way that I've described it so far, so allow me to clarify. Negative predictions on their own don't constitute arguments from ignorance. It's when you claim that such predictions are verified and therefore constitute support for the theory after something has not been found that it becomes so. Not finding something doesn't support your theory in these cases. Rather it just means the theory hasn't been dis-proven yet. gpuccio I haven't forgotten about you. I'm trying to figure out how to properly word a question which I hope will help you to clarify your position to me, since obviously I am misunderstanding you. It might be awhile (the wife wants to go to a movie and she's already glaring at me for taking so long with this short post).KRiS_Censored_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Kris, This may not be the place to bring this up because this thread is about ID research but I am glad you agree with us that there is no research for Darwinian macro evolution. We have asked and continually found no one who can provide any. And to argue that there some day may be some would be an example of the argument to ignorance. And because there is no evidence for Darwinian macro evolution, I am glad that you support us in getting any references to a scientific basis for a Darwinian or any other naturalistic explanation for macro evolution taken out of the classroom, textbooks and curriculum. The textbooks should point out to the students that if they believe in the Darwinian explanation for macro evolution then they have committed the logical fallacy of the argument to ignorance. Such an argument does not affect ID since ID does not make the claim that the evidence proves ID, only that it is a possibility and has not been eliminated. And all the research that I mentioned can be considered as contributing to that conclusion that ID is a possibility. Welcome aboard Kris in our pursuit of honest science.jerry_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

#35 " It is precisely this individual instability that leads to such stability at the population level. Any beneficial mutation is likely to be lost as quickly as it is gained so that the population as a whole remains very stable over succeeding generations." This would be OK if bacteria would be really stable but this is not the case. We all know that single cell organisms can fast achieve and propagate many and many mutants that are due to single or double mutations. So the problem is another one: really big changes would require more mutations than RM+NS can actually do. "Higher order animals such as humans on the other hand are much more likely to retain such changes whenever they are not deleterious, increasing the likelihood that they will propagate down through the generations into the population as a whole." As stated above this is not true and that's no reason to argue that the complex multicell organisms would perform better. Please refer to what did correctly state GPuccio: ---- my claim, like Behe’s, is that since we haven’t seen something signifcant in 150 years, neither in the labs nor in nature, in bacteria or plasmodia, we have no reason to think that much biger results could be obtained in mammals or other slowly replicating beings in a much lower number of replications. And I am not aware of any reason why the mutation rate should be higher in mammals: mos mutations are thought to accur as errors at the replication, so the number of replications is the most important factor. And that depends on the time of replication and on the number of replicating genomes on our planet. Try to factor both things for bacteria and mammals (especially the second one) and you will see… ----kairos_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

DS: They are earning the Missouri Mule's nickname . . . a pity really. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Oh, may no! We know that the mutation rate, per nucleotide, is significantly faster in bacteria than in humans. Now what.
Please see my reply to kairos. On the other hand I seem to have gotten into speculation about scenarios which seem to make logical sense to me, but which I can't really back up with hard data. For that reason I'm gonna just drop this because frankly I'm talking out my rear here.KRiS_Censored_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

KRiS_Censored:
There is an assumption here which at a superficial level seems to make sense. However under closer scrutiny it doesn’t really hold up well.
Oh, may no! We know that the mutation rate, per nucleotide, is significantly faster in bacteria than in humans. Now what.bFast_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

KRiS_Censored (#27): Thank you for your detailed answer. I suppose it's my turn now :-) 1)"Just don’t expect this to silence the critics who claim that such research isn’t being done." As I have tried to show, such research is being done, both by IDists (proportionally to their scare resources) and by darwinists or quasi-darwinists. The point is, it is not so important who is doing it, specific research about the points where ID and darwinian evolution are mutually exclusive are being done. Think of all the research trying to quantify the functional space of proteins. That is a very crucial point where the predictions of darwinian evolution (a very big, connected functional space) and of ID (a much smaller, island-like functional space) really differ. 2) "And I kind of doubt that they would be convinced that allowing others to do research, and then simply interpretting that research in the light of ID is good enough." For me, it's very good. After all, those "others" own all the resources, so, it's pretty right that they do the work for which they are paid. 3) "One would think that in those areas where the two are mutually exclusive there would be some predictions made by ID that would be in opposition to what is predicted by evolution. Research into exactly those differences would go a long way in bolstering ID, as well as silencing critics who claim that no such research is being done." There are a lot of areas where the two ae mutually exclusive. Indeed, the two are mutually exclusive almost in everything, at least as far as the causal history is concerned. And as I have sad, specific reserach is being done. The exploration of protein functionla space is just one example. The research about non coding DNA is another important example. And all research about biological complexit is of tha kind: any increase (and there has been a constant increse for a very long time) of the known complexity in biological beings is a heavy blow for darwinian theory, and a strong support for ID. 4) "Please note that the logical argument that I make isn’t intended to demonstrate that ID is false." Maybe there is a misubderstanding here. I am not so much interested in ID falsifiability. As I have said, I am not asrict Popperian, and moreover I have many times stated that ID is very easily empirically falsifiable: it would be enough to have a credible non design theory for the origin of biological information, and any design theory would immediately become unnecessary! What I am interested in, is the empirical credibility of the two opposing theories. My point is that any time we acquire more knowledge about the crucial issues, evidence is added in favor of one of them and against the other. Let's take Lenski's experiment, for instance. There is no doubt that it was conceived as a support and verification of the darwinian theory. Now, let's avoid for the moment to discuss the details of it. The point is that, as it was conceived to do that, its successes, even if partial, are in favor of darwinian theory, while its failures, even if partial, speak in favor of ID. That's the point. We need not speak of final falsification of ID or darwinian evolution. We need evidence to compare the two, and see what is the best explanation. That's what empirical science does every day. All those discourses about falsification and arguments from ignorance are only congounding philosophy. The truth is that we have two mutually exclusive theories about the origin of biological information, and that we need as much data as possible to be able to compare them. And they will be compared, believe me, ever more, and ever better. And there will be an end to all this. Just wait. 5) "Now, allow me to state that this type of argument can potentially be convincing in cases where the search space has been nearly exhausted without finding what you are seeking. Your claim seems to be that this is the case with ID." No, my claim is that this is the case with darwinian evolution. It's darwinian evolution which needs empirical support, and can't find it. IOW, ID is saying: biological information looks designed, has all the properties of designed things, and no theory exists which can explain that. So, the best explanation is that it is designed, unless and until somoene can show credibly how it originated. A designer can certainly be responsible for biological information, even if the problem remains of who the designer is and of how the information was implemented, and of what is the meaning of that infomation, and so on. All those problem can be scientifically approached, once one accepts a design scenario as the best explanation. On the contary, darwinists say: no, ID is wrong, because we have a credible theory of how that information originated. So, the point is very simple: either they have it, or they don't have it. We do think they don't have it. That's not an argument form ignorance, it's simply an argument from a scientific debunking of a false scientific theory. Is debunking something false a form of "ignorance"? 6) "The problem here is that the search space for ID claims is extremely large compared to what is available to us for direct testing. We have been doing such experiments for decades at most." You forget that the purpos of those experiment was not to support ID claims, but to support darwinian claims. If the experiments had been successful as they hoped, we would have been overwhelmed by arrogant expressions of triumph. But that's not the cse. So, again, a failure of an attemp to verify darwinian evolution is a success for ID. It's very simple. And Behe has given much more convincing arguments about the failur of darwinian evolution in TEOE. 7) "You need not falsify evolution at all, especially since so many people claim that evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive except in certain specific areas. Simply providing support, and hopefully someday overwhelming support for ID theory would suffice. Negative predictions cannot do this for reasons that I’ve demonstrated many times." First of all, it is not true that "evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive except in certain specific areas". They are mutually exclusive in all causal areas. They are mutually exclusive in the most important things, indeed in most things. And you make the usual logical error: it's darwinian evolution which needs support, because it is a theory based on nothing. To say: "darwinian evolution has not bee able to explain anything, and is based on false reasoning" is not a negative prediction: it is a very simple positive statement. And yes, simply providing support, and hopefully someday overwhelming support for darwinian evolution would suffice to solve that problem. I am waiting. 8) "For instance, it took 3 billion years for multi-cellular life to appear, and the population size (i.e. the sample size) was in the trillions of trillions. Your claim is that, since we haven’t seen something similar in 150 years with the number of bacteria that can fit within the lab experiment petri dishes at our disposal, the search has nonetheless been exhaustive enough to be convincing." No, my claim, like Behe's, is that since we haven’t seen something signifcant in 150 years, neither in the labs nor in nature, in bacteria or plasmodia, we have no reason to think that much biger results could be obtained in mammals or other slowly replicating beings in a much lower number of replications. And I am not aware of any reason why the mutation rate should be higher in mammals: mos mutations are thought to accur as errors at the replication, so the number of replications is the most important factor. And that depends on the time of replication and on the number of replicating genomes on our planet. Try to factor both things for bacteria and mammals (especially the second one) and you will see...gpuccio_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Any beneficial mutation is likely to be lost as quickly as it is gained...
This should read "Any mutation...". Of course, even stated as a beneficial mutation, it is true. The exception being the mutation whose benefit is so overwhelming that it becomes deleterious for an individual organism not to have it.KRiS_Censored_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

kairos
Instead a single cell organism is directly modified according to almost every non neutral modification in its genoma.
It is precisely this individual instability that leads to such stability at the population level. Any beneficial mutation is likely to be lost as quickly as it is gained so that the population as a whole remains very stable over succeeding generations. Higher order animals such as humans on the other hand are much more likely to retain such changes whenever they are not deleterious, increasing the likelihood that they will propagate down through the generations into the population as a whole.
this is only a clear indicator that different single cell organisms do stay in “evolution islands” that are very distant one to each other.
Isn't that just another way of saying that they are resistant to the types of changes which would allow them to "hop" to another evolution island? Basically you just restated my claim in different words and then said that it therefore supports ID. I can only assume that there is some underlying assumption or information which I am missing that makes this somehow different. Please elaborate so that I might better understand.KRiS_Censored_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

It looks more and more like Darwinists are appealing to the unknown-natural-force of the gap to explain their position.tribune7_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

This FAQ #3 is all fine and dandy BUTTTT- The focus should NOT be on "ID research"- not yet anyway. IMHO the focus should be on allowing scientists to conduct their research and then be allowed to reach a design inference if that is what the data points to.Joseph_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

KF Gonzalez coined the term "Galactic Habitable Zone". That's disgraceful for Wikipedia to have an article on it and not even mention Gonzalez. If you go to the first wiki reference (on arvix where the full text including citations are accessable without subscription): The Galactic Habitable Zone and the Age Distribution of Complex Life in the Milky Way you'll find reference 4 at the first mention of the term "Galactic Habitable Zone": 4. G. Gonzalez, D. Brownlee, P. Ward, Icarus. 152, 185-200 (2001). giving credit to Gonzalez for the term.DaveScot_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

DS: The Wiki article on GHZ's -- as of a few days back when I last saw it -- manages not to mention Gonzalez, though it names other people and critics. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

BarryA: The links for
Judge Jones of Dover and those who follow him are simply wrong: despite opposition and harassment, there is a significant and growing body of ID-supportive research and peer-reviewed scientific publications. (For instance, the Discovery Institute maintains a list of such research-based publications here. [In an earlier form, this list was actually submitted to Judge Jones, but he unfortunately ignored the brute facts it documents when he wrote his ruling based on misleading and inaccurate submissions by the NCSE and ACLU.])
as presented above are unfortunately missing . . .they are at the WAC presentation (but the in-page link has gone awry). This one is a simple matter of brute fact -- fact that it is hard to escape the conclusion is being outright lied about. (Sorry to have to use such strong language, but when the facts are as easily accessible as they are, and someone brazenly and insistently denies them, taking advantage of those who trust him/her to be telling the truth, what other word is applicable?) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

#27 "There is an assumption here which at a superficial level seems to make sense. However under closer scrutiny it doesn’t really hold up well." Are you sure? Let'se see. "The assumption is that the rate of mutation in bacteria is equivalent to the mutation rate in humans so that a given number of generations of bacteria is just a likely to “evolve” as the same number of generations of humans." Perhaps you forgot that what does matter here is the rate of mutation and how this number can yield visible modification in the organism. In this sense you should agree that a big multicell organism is less influenced by cell mutation since only very specific mutations do produce a real evolution. Instead a single cell organism is directly modified according to almost every non neutral modification in its genoma. "The fact that bacteria is so stable after several billion years, versus just 6 million years for humans itself is a good indicator that bacteria is much more resistant to the type of changes being sought." Absolutely not; this is only a clear indicator that different single cell organisms do stay in "evolution islands" that are very distant one to each other. This is a point in favour of ID.kairos_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply