FAQ2 Is Open For Comment
| February 6, 2009 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
FAQ1 has been revised in response to comments. The floor is now open on FAQ2
2] No Real Scientists Take Intelligent Design Seriously
Yes, they do. For simple instance, in telecommunications work, we start by distinguishing the intelligent signal from the naturally occurring noise that tends to garble it. Indeed, simply by reading this web page, you implicitly recognize that a sense-making message is far more likely to be the result of deliberate action, not noise. But, strictly speaking, it is physically possible – though vastly improbable — for this page to be the result of noise garbling and mimicking signals. In short, you are using a simple form of The Explanatory Filter used by Design Theorists to discriminate chance from design.
Such theorists are qualified scientists, and they plainly take ID very seriously indeed. So, even though many other scientists may object to their work, science is not settled by majority vote. (That would be the logical fallacy of making an improper appeal to authority.)
For, in the end, scientific ideas must stand or fall based on their own merits.
—–ROb: “When I talked about “providing references that demonstrate them using the EF”, “using the EF” was intended to refer to “them” (the scientists), not the FAQ writers who are identifying these scientists. Sorry for the confusion. In other words, the claim that qualified scientists use the EF can be established by providing references to work in which such scientists actually use the EF.”
Actually, your original comment was perfectly relevant to the answer as given. I apologize for not reading it more carefully and thoughtfully.
If we describe research or science that we believe is ID research and then find several scientists conducting the exact type of research that we designate as ID research does that count as scientists taking ID seriously. Even if they deny they are doing ID research.
For example, Kirk Durston cites a paper by Robert Hazen that is the basis for his work and that he, Durston, might be contributing to the same field. And if Hazen who is one of the premier researchers in abiogenesis does not think he is doing ID research but Kirk is doing almost the same thing and thinks he is then is Hazen not taking ID seriously? Suppose Hazen ends up discovering the final nail in the coffin.
If Hazen designs experiment after experiment that fails to get very far in moving abiogenesis along and then concludes that each failure adds a little bit more to the credibility of the ID proposition that an intelligence is behind the origin of life but still believes in a natural origin, is he taking ID seriously. Suppose another scientist is a committed Christian who also accepts that OOL could have natural origins and there are lots of those, then says that he still thinks it is possible that abiogenesis is possible but it is getting harder and harder to believe it. Is that a person who does not take ID seriously.
What I am getting at is that we do not need the overt backing of ID to make the conclusion that scientists are taking ID seriously. By the constant search for ways that will eliminate ID as an explanation they are tacitly admitting that they are taking ID seriously.
1) Has that position been stated as such by opponents of Intelligent Design or is it commenting on a strawman?
2) If anyone does believe that then the first and most obvious retort is that it is a clear example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
3) That scientists in various fields make the presumption of intelligent design, in the sense of known human agency, is uncontroversial – the example of forensic science is one example is one that is often quoted – but that is not the same as implying those same scientists endorse Intelligent Design as proposed on this site, for example. The danger here is equivocation over the usage of the phrase “intelligent design”‘.
4) This is true, although you could point out that proposed The Explanatory Filter has yet to be fully ‘road-tested’.
5) While it is generally agreed that questions in science are not settled by majority vote, it should be noted that the fallacy is more accurately stated as an appeal to inappropriate authority.
On a question in the field of biology, for example, it is perfectly proper to cite the opinions of professional biologists and argue that they carry greater weight than those of non-biologists, even if they are professional scientists other fields such as quantum mechanics. By the same argument, we would take Barry Arrington’s opinion on a question of law as being more authoritative than that of Joe the Plumber, for example.
Exactly.
I also fail to see the difference between faq1 and faq2. If we can establish that scientists are doing research that we would consider ID research it means they are actually doing ID research even if they do not admit it and they are taking ID seriously. Also if they are actively trying to falsify ID and failing, is that not also ID science and thus they are taking ID seriously? Thus, isn’t faq1 and faq2 really the same thing.
Folks:
Following up.
There is a clear desire for more fleshing out than was presented initially,a nd so the below is suggested for further consideration.
I should note that in Wk Arg 1, the focus was on teh SCIENCE of ID. In Wk Arg 2, the rhetorical fire shifts tot he scientists involved in ID (which is why the rebutting note that the objector — who is communicfat6ing using telecomms equipment and systems founded on info theory principles as well — is also using ID principles is cogent, as it exposes selective hyperskepticism and self referential inconsistency).
Suggested expansions, for comment (some links are of course not in this, given the posting limit):
_______________
2] No Real Scientists Take Intelligent Design Seriously
Yes, they do. For simple instance, as an initial analytical step in information theory and associated telecommunications work, we distinguish the intelligent signal from the naturally occurring noise that tends to garble it. (Otherwise, there would be no reason to have an Information Theory.)
Indeed, simply by reading this web page, you implicitly recognize that a sense-making message is far more likely to be the result of deliberate action, not noise. But, strictly speaking, it is logically and physically possible – though vastly improbable — for this page to be the result of noise garbling and mimicking signals. In short, you are already routinely using a simple, common-sense, intuitive form of The Explanatory Filter and other techniques used by Design Theorists to recognize and distinguish chance from design. (That is, you intuitively accept that function-specifying complex information is much more likely to be the result of intelligent action than of chance + necessity only.)
ID theorists have built on that powerful intuition (which traces back as far as Cicero, ~ 50 BC), in light of the well-established methods and principles of science and related mathematics.
Such theorists are qualified scientists, and they plainly take ID very seriously indeed, as may be seen from this list of peer reviewed and peer-edited papers — i.e., duly published in the relevant professional literatures. So initial ID theorists like Michael Behe, William Dembski, Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley and Roger Olsen have been joined by a wave of other relevant professional level practitioners: e.g. Douglas Axe, Guillermo Gonzalez, Albert Voie, John A. Davison, D.W. Snoke, David Berlinski, Scott Minnich, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, H. Saedler, Granville Sewell, David L Abel, Jack T Trevors, Richard Marks, David KY Chiu and (representing a yet newer generation) Kirk Durston. However, when we reflect on names like Gonzalez, Caroline Crocker and even the sympathetic [as opposed to supportive] journal Editor Richard von Sterrnberg, we also see that ID faces an extraordinary and unprecedented hostility within much of the scientific community; a hostility that is driven in significant part by an attitude that was revealingly stated by Richard Lewontin:
In short, a major reason that a “consensus” of scientists in Biology etc rejects or dismisses or tries to refute or even sometimes resorts to “expelling” ID and its practitioners, is the ongoing ever deepening institutionalization of the philosophy of materialism in recent decades within major science disciplines. But, as was already pointed out, such “a priori” imposition of materialism “does not allow the facts to speak for themselves,” so that “the search for truth is artificially narrowed and constrained,” resulting in massive question-begging.
As a direct result, the frequently encountered dismissal of ID practitioners is not so much driven by a fair assessment of the actual quality of their work in light of the best practice methods and principles of science, but is instead — sadly — a manifestation of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy; too often leading to strawman misrepresentations, ad hominem attacks, name-calling and the abuse of institutional power. So, even though many other scientists may object to their work, science is not settled by majority vote. (That would be the logical fallacy of making an improper appeal to (collective) authority and conventional wisdom. [Plainly, no authority or group of authorities is better than their facts, assumptions and reasoning.] )
For, the history of science makes it abundantly clear that today’s consensus is often tomorrow’s exploded theory. In the end, scientific ideas must stand or fall based on their own merits.
And, that’s all ID asks for.
________________
Now, does that capture the majority of concerns, within the constraint of being relatively concise and focussed on one aspect of a complex whole?
GEM of TKI
PS: I have not incorporated the Dissent from Darwin list as it seems to me that dissent from Darwin is not the same as addressing the focus of ID: the proposition that finite arrangements of matter in our observed cosmos can be reliable signs of intelligence.
jerry (#62):
You make a very important point: scientists who take ID seriously are not only those who try to support it by new research, be it theoretical or empirical, but also those who try to falsify it by new research, indeed accepting at least part of its theoretical premises in the process. Hazen and Szostak are a very good example of that. Szostak, while being with Hazen one of the authors of the paper quoted by Durston on the other thread, is also the author of a very important (although IMO biased) reasearch about the functional space ofn proteins. So, these authors are doing serious ID research, even if with the hope of overturning ID.
Even Matzke or Miller or all those darwinists who have focused on the flagellum as never before seem to take ID very seriously, even if the interest of their extremely biased work is certainly much more questionable.
So, Jerry, you are perfectly right: ID is taken very seriously both from scientists who work for it and from scientists who work against it. Those who go on just stating that it is not science and that it should only be ignored, or at most fought by name calling and explicit persecution, are luckily an outdated bunch.
kairosfocus, I think your answer @65 captures the spirit of the question beautifully and trumps all previous attempts to improve on the answer.
As far as I am concerned nothing more needs to be said on the matter.
—–Seversky:
—–”Has that position been stated as such by opponents of Intelligent Design or is it commenting on a strawman?”
Yes, we are dealing with the objections exactly as they have been posed, which is one of the main challenges in answering them. The questions themselves have not been well thought out, and, in any case, are meant to muddy the debate waters.
KF, that’s a big improvement.
GP @ 67, you make a great point. One of the great ironies is the loud claims ID opponents make with regard to how it’s not science because it can’t be falsified, and the great steps they take to try to falsify it.
I think a lot of the problems come from the stuff that occurs outside science. Frankly, I have a lot more respect for a dissenter who says “what you are doing is interesting but I can’t buy it because of this and this and this” than someone who might agree perfectly with the evidence supporting a particular line of our reasoning but because he rejects our conclusion works behind our backs to keep ID papers from being published and ID proponents from having jobs.
Everyone continues to miss my point in both faq1 and faq2. And I will continue to make it. Everyone focuses on the Dembski side of ID and ignores the Behe side which I think is more powerful. We constantly use the Edge of Evolution argument here to justify ID and yet we ignore it in these two faqs. And I think it is the stronger of the two areas for ID. Though the work of Durston seems intriguing and can be thought of as a bridge between Dembski and Behe.
Dembski’s work has been a millstone for ID not because it is not relevant and not because it is illogical but because it is too general to be proved mathematically. The concept of CSI is an attempt to assess all intelligent activity, not just biology. Because of this grand ambition we have gotten bogged down over just what is CSI and how to conclusively measure it and relate it from one phenomena to another.
When CSI is restricted to biology in the instance of DNA, the very intuitive and obvious subset falls out,FSCI. On the Durston thread he says that DNA, human language and computer software are the only examples known that fall into his functional complexity scenario. Yet with CSI we have to defend Mt. Rushmore, coin flips, bridge hands etc with the same precision. Which is the reason I suggested we abandon CSI in the first FAQ.
We continue to forget Behe though there was a little lip service after I became a nuisance and kept bringing it up.
I have two examples, one short and one long which I will post in another comment. The first is Behe’s own words and we can thank one or our nitwit antagonists, Jason Rosenhouse, for it.
Rosenhouse watched an interview on CSPAN of Behe shortly after his book was published in 2007. Behe was asked what type of research could be done to further his ideas in the Edge of Evolution. Behe said the type of work Lenski was doing with bacteria at Michigan State was appropriate research. Rosenhouse called Behe an idiot as these morons tend to do without even attempting to understand what Behe was getting at. But it was Rosenhouse who was making the moronic comments. He did not understand the implications of Behe’s comment.
Behe is saying that any researcher who is examining the reproductive events of an organism and cataloging them is doing ID research. Even Lenski who is an ID antagonist and would be offended to know that he is doing ID research. But Lenski is also cataloging the edge of evolution. So too is any other researcher that is cataloging the edge of evolution.
So in FAQ1 I would add Lenski as one who is doing ID research. And all like him. And obviously one who is taking his research seriously. And use Durston’s ideas that the functional proteins are so far apart and so rare in protein sequence space to justify both Behe’s work and Dembski’s but only the latter when it is restricted to biology and DNA.
This continues my theme that investigating edge of evolution ideas is ID research.
Suppose:
Make believe I am a scientist. Call me Professor Per. I secretly support ID. I do work mapping the genomes of bovid mammals because many of these animals are domesticated and I get support for this from the government. I find a lot of similarities between them and with the aid of a lot of colleagues who do not know my ID leanings, determine that nearly all members of the group could have descended from a population of bovids that existed 10-15 million years ago. In other words there is fairly conclusive proof that this family has descended from a population with a gene pool much larger than any of the genera gene pools through micro evolution processes. And in this time period of 10-15 million years they did not develop any new functional systems or any proteins that could not be reasonably be due to small changes to a proceeding protein that was in the original population. In other words all 130+ species developed by simple Darwinian processes that could be replicated much quicker artificially if the scientists had access to the original gene pool and with an occasional mutation or two.
In other words while the work supported basic Darwinian processes, it also supported Behe’s edge of evolution concept. And while my colleagues are celebrating our achievement as scientific proof of the power of natural selection, I know that this achievement has basically undermined the power of naturalistic evolution as expressed in the latest synthesis. It is another nail in the coffin of naturalistic evolution because in all these opportunities no novel complex capabilities arose. Oh there were some interesting morphological changes but no new systems. The environment, separation of sub populations, genetic processes and natural selection just narrowed the original gene pool and produced a bunch of new species.
So did I do ID science? Yes, Did I contribute to the ID agenda? Yes, Did I use CSI anywhere? Maybe, I found the lack of new FCSI in all these reproductive opportunities but I do not express it that way. Our team list all the changes and they are many that took place but none exceed that boundary that Behe hypothesized several years earlier. I know a modern Michael Behe will pounce on the data and come to the right conclusions. But my career is now in high gear and I am off to supervise a similar but much larger project on aves, a class and with much higher number of species. And I expect to find the same thing even if it takes 20 years. I am a hero to the evolutionary biology crowd but smile inwardly as they are really celebrating their down fall. I love many of these people who are very decent but have often wondered why there is so much hostility to something that to me seems so obvious.
Not one person in the science community would say I wasn’t doing science. And yet we should all agree that I was doing ID science too. My point of view just leads me to occasionally conclude different things. After all I believe Darwinian processes do work to a limited degree. The reality is that if they ever suspected my motives or leanings I would have been fired or ostracized or not given the opportunities. The point I am making here is that even if the person I am describing did not believe in ID or had any leanings that way and did not have to suppress their inner leanings because they didn’t have any, they were doing ID research.
But what if they find not only the gradual appearance of complex novel capabilities and the likely cause is some natural process but that there were several instances and that these examples are compelling. Well that is the risk or the opportunity that is taken and how the argument will be evaluated 30-50 years from now. Will Behe’s Edge of Evolution be supported or undermined?
So there is no question that ID is scientific in at least this area and the difference between this and other science is small and is really only in the conclusions that one makes based on the data. And who knows if ID leanings may have led this person as a scientist to pursue different areas that an a non ID scientist would have never thought of.
—-Jerry: “Everyone continues to miss my point in both faq1 and faq2.” point.
This was the same point I made at #10.
—-Jerry: “So in FAQ1 I would add Lenski as one who is doing ID research.”
FAQ1, it seems to me, is about definitions more than people; FAQ1 is, or should have been, more about people that definitions.
If, as you suggest, we pose a safer question by discounting CSI and saying, for example, that “no real scientist believes in Irreducible Complexity,” we can, to be sure, more easily refute the point. At that point, however, we are writing our own questions as if a Darwinist had done it, an activity that seversky thought we were engaging in anyway. We weren’t.
StephenB,
I am saying that faq1 and faq2 are the same. We just need to broaden our horizons and they will collapse inward to make one faq.
I continually chide people here who say there is no ID research by saying that anyone mapping a genome is doing ID research and they quietly go away. But not one person on this site, anti ID has disputed the claim or pro ID has defended the claim except me.
So it is obvious that the claim is not taken seriously. Otherwise it would have been a no brainer to include it in faq1 and faq2 and it was not and only appears because I bring it up. And there is no movement to include it.
I believe we are sitting on great answer for both faq1 and faq2 and yet it is continually ignored. Thus, I claim that those who support ID here really don’t understand the implications of the edge of evolution and what supports it and where it can go. Behe obviously understands it by his comment about Lenski. DaveScot is the only other person here who has taken up this idea in some of his comments.
I think Dembski’s approach will gradually fade away and the field will concentrate on Durston’s area on one end and Behe’s approach on the other end and eventually squeeze out everything in between. In the mean time we spend our efforts here trying to defend the more generalized approach of intelligence which is well and good but because it is still very nebulous when it gets operationalized and thus, ID gets caught up in its knickers trying to defend it.
Hi, KF. You asked, “Now, does that capture the majority of concerns, within the constraint of being relatively concise and focussed on one aspect of a complex whole?”
I probably won’t endear myself to my comrades here by saying this…but, well, no.
Instead of making a slam dunk, the answer dribbles all around the court. Yes, it eventually makes the basket, but by then the viewer has long since surfed to another channel. And in this game, the basket counts only if the viewer sees it being made.
Your reader does not bring an interest in telecommunications work to the question. Expecting him to bear with you as you move into that area, in the hope that you will eventually get around to answering his question, will not work. You will lose the audience you are targeting.
There are lots of excellent construction materials in the answer you have given, KF, but the structure needs to be torn down and rebuilt. I suppose it is unrealistic of me to expect the original builder to be able to do that.
I also think that the answer would benefit from Upright BiPed’s insightful ideas about how seriously nearly every scientist takes ID:
(And this gives me a chance to apologize for getting your handle wrong, UB!)
Finally, into that framework you could also incorporate Jerry’s and StephenB’s ideas about biologists advancing ID whether they realize it or not.
I know that assembling a FAQ by committee will probably end up disappointing everyone, including me. But not to worry! I can handle it!
Jerry:
Do you accept that Information theory is Science?
Do you accept that it is the intersection of Info Th and molecular bio that is much of how ID speaks into biology?
Do you accept that those who use PCs and recognise posts as messages are thereby inferring that lucky noise did not mimic signals — though it is strictly logically and physically possible?
Do you accept that to so act is to imply acceptance of a simple, intuitive version of the explanatory filter?
Do you accept the implications of the above?
Especially, in light of:
Why/why not?
GEM of TKI
—–”Lutepisc: Wow. What Upright Bipod said @54!
—–”How much do we hafta pay him to write the FAQ?”
The back-handed insult is not necessary. This is going to be a long grind and you will find that many of the points that our critics want us to include are made elsewhere. We are just getting started.
—-Lutepisc: “I also think that the answer would benefit from Upright BiPed’s insightful ideas about how seriously nearly every scientist takes ID:”
I, too, like his point, and it has been duly noted. Still, each question deals with a theme, and the theme for FAQ2 is that ID does not have enough going for it to capture the imagination of anything other than a psuedo scientist. The main thrust of the question is about ID’s alleged insufficiency, not its potential threat to Darwinists. If we do both themes, we will not do justice to the main them. Check out Kairosfocus revision at 65.
“The back-handed insult is not necessary.”
Excuse me?? What back-handed insult, please?
StephenB
You, KF and GP have done superb work.
It’s a lot easier to be the customer than the cook
Jerry:
I have always said that anybody doing serious biological research is doing ID research, because good data belong to all. But there is a difference between doing generic research which can always clarify important points for origin science, and doing specific research which is targeted to specific ID assumptions, like the functional space of proteins and so on. That is ID research in a more restricted sense, either it is done to support ID or to falsify it. That is, IMO, the kind of research, and of researchers, which should be mentioned in FAQ2. And I think we have made the relevant names here.
And, as you can see. all of us are focusing on FSCI here, so don’t be worried for Mount Rushmore and similar.
Finally, nobody is denying the importance of Behe’s work. If you read the whole FAQ, you will see that long answers are dedicated to him, like the absolute defense of his arguments about the flagellum and the plsmodium falciparum. Behe’s work is absolutely essential for ID, but I deny with all my strength that it is in any way antagonistic to Dembski’s concepts. The two things are absolutely complementary.
trib:
thank you. You are a great help here!
StephenB, reviewing this and reflecting on it, perhaps you meant that I was insulting to KF. That hadn’t been on my mind when I made the comment, but I do see the possibility, and apologize to you, KF.
I appreciate the time and expertise the authors are putting into the FAQs!
Lutepisc: @83 Thanks! I appreciate your input as well. Your comments were indispensable, and have provided us with a new and better direction. Keep it up.
Lutepisc: @83. Also, it appears that I read something into your comments that wasn’t there. Sorry about that.
I have only one comment for the FAQ so far: it does not acknowledge the contribution that DaveScot and myself made toward it. This FAQ originally started as a series of one-liners that Dave wrote for a page he called Put a Sock In It. His focus in writing it was very narrow since it was targeted at trolls.
Over the years I expanded it greatly to include arguments that kept popping up again every couple weeks, since I was getting tired of rehashing the same subject matter with new visitors. So I’m glad to see my efforts are not wasted. And I like many of the changes and additions that have been made…and the fact that the current editors are much more qualified to write such a FAQ than I am, so I don’t have to worry about embarrassing UD with a silly mistake or misconception made by myself.
Also, the negative aspect to this history to the FAQ is that it does not read like a standard FAQ per se since it was intended more as a “FRA” (Frequently Refuted Arguments). So if you do not like the way many of the questions (or assertions) read then blame me. Or blame the Darwinist that I copied from or paraphrased. Whatever works. I don’t mind being a target for your irritation.
On a side note, I was planning on writing a page called “The UD Standing Challenge” which summarized the major points related to the flagellum debate that ended with the simple challenge “name the indirect pathway and its functional intermediates”. Or maybe this should be called the “Most-Ignored Challenge”…
Now the FAQ does go over the flagellum from an IC perspective but does not explain the informational challenge.
As for the “Behe vs Dembski” discussion I recently said my piece on that here:
As noted my copy of the book is in storage somewhere, so my statement related to 30 proteins and IC might not be correct since I cannot remember exactly why Dembski calculated based upon 30. Whatever. The rest of my points remain. Speaking of which, the FAQ should probably summarize how Dembski did his calculations for the flagellum since it’s apparently become recently trendy on UD to claim that no one has attempted to do such calculations for a biological object.
I also think that there should be a list of links leading to UD debates that get into detail on specific topics. There’s a ton of great comments buried in UD’s archives that should be highlighted.
Patrick, several events caught us off guard. First, we (at least I) did not know that you and Dave wrote the previous document. Perhaps we should have, but we didn’t. Also, we did not know about the circumstances or the timing that would determine when the report would be released. In any case, we could have accomplished very little without standing on the shoulders of the previous authors.
In keeping with that point, we felt that we should pay tribute to our forbears, which is why you find the following statement at the end: “We jointly express appreciation to the developers of an earlier form of this page on responding to weak anti-ID arguments.”
Now that we have more information, we can improve on that. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, because we have been thinking about the point, but we just didn’t know how to approach it. My understanding was that this was an update, and I gather that many things have happened since the first report came out. That is why we tried to keep most of the same questions and attempt to answer them based on recent developments.
For my part, I hope that you and Dave will help us shape it just as others are trying to do. Both of you know things that few other people know and you have been around here a lot longer than I have. Again, I don’t decide these things, but I would like to include your contribution and anything Dave Scot deems as relevant with due attribution.
kairosfocus,
I will try to answer some of your questions. But I don’t think they are very relevant to the point.
“Do you accept that Information theory is Science?”
I am sure it is but I know little if anything about it and I have not seen anyone provide an easily to understand description of it and how it applies to ID. I am interested in the evolution debate and not the general ID debate so if it applies there I will have little interest in pursuing it.
“Do you accept that it is the intersection of Info Th and molecular bio that is much of how ID speaks into biology?”
I have no idea what you mean but doubt that it is what you claim. DNA in parts specifies RNA and protein molecules. That is all I know and haven’t got a clue how that relates to information theory. Nor have I seen anyone who makes a clear case for it. Don’t ask me to read anything you have written because I find your style sometimes too rambling. You are a good thinker but a lot of it gets wasted because of your style of prose.
“Do you accept that those who use PCs and recognise posts as messages are thereby inferring that lucky noise did not mimic signals — though it is strictly logically and physically possible?”
I haven’t a clue what you are talking about. If you want to say that people understand each other’s language, then I understand that and if you want to make an analogy to DNA, then so be it. I have made that claim about 500 times here and several in the last few days and also on this thread. So what is your point?
“Do you accept that to so act is to imply acceptance of a simple, intuitive version of the explanatory filter?”
No one said the EF was not useful in some cases. And I probably accept the process in general. But I have said no one and I mean no one has explained just what CSI is so that it can be conveniently used in the filter or any place else. And I pointed out in the past when we were on one of the endless discussions of just what CSI was that bfast was the one to point out that specified means when one set of data specifies something else that has function. When he said that and I never saw anyone before him say it, the issue became clear. And that was over two years ago and was the first time that anyone I saw make that connection. Since that time especially in the last year it has become more common to limit any discussion of CSI to FSCI.
“Do you accept the implications of the above”
It sounds like I am being indoctrinated into some society and asked to make a pledge of allegiance. So I will answer that as long we use the term CSI here we are inviting problems. That is why I said get rid or CSI.
Now Behe’s work is different from CSI no matter how one spins it. I didn’t say he objects to it. He does not use the concept in his work and does not need to. I believe it would only confuse people if he did.
And last but not least, Behe’s work has been much more valuable to ID. Durston’s work seems to be up there too but it depends primarily upon ideas such that the proteins are very, very isolated in protein space and thus explains why Behe’s edge of evolution is so insightful. I do not know for sure if that is Durston’s work. Durston’s other conclusion is closer to Dembski’s work in that the construction of these long proteins are beyond the resources of the universe. But it is the rareness of the proteins that to me is key but wiser heads may think otherwise.
So Durston is contributing in two areas and each is very important and is new. I hope it all stands up because it could be devastating to the anti ID folks. Our weapons are expanding while the Darwinists are getting thiner.
Thanks you for all of the comments, many of which have been excellent indeed. Comment on FAQ2 is now closed.